If you had continued to read you would have seen the LOGIC that backs this statement up and might see that it is not "soccer mom" reasoning.



If you can point out the safety practices observed by those of impared judgement, on a regular basis, operating a motor vehicle, I will rethink my position on this issue. The MOJORITY of gun owners do observe SEVERAL practices to ensure the safety of those around them.

FYI--The term "assault weapon" is one coined by those who do not understand that they are in fact just firearms. Just like those bolt action "sniper rifles".

More assumptions.  You assume that someone driving after drinking doesn't observe any practises to ensure their safety and those around them, but you assume gun owners always do?  Is it your claim they are suicidal and intentionally harm others?  In nearly 60 years of driving I have not once seen a driver that I knew was drunk cause a problem.  I have seen plenty of teenage drivers driving too fast, women putting on makeup, people talking on a car phones, people driving when sleepy (unfortunately, I include myself in that category), people driving unsafe cars, etc. cause problems.  Instead of fixing the real problem, dangerous drivers, an easy target, that only represents a very small fraction, has been chosen.  Instead of finding a legal way of enforcing the law, the police are conducting illegal random searches.  I've been arrested twice at two of them and ended-up face down on hot pavement at another.  The first two were for suspicion of DUI and the last was for having a firearm in my console.  I'm tired of getting caught in the crossfire from one group of people that are irrationaly mad at what bad thing another group of drivers might do in the future.  Since when do arrest people for something they might do in the future?  It seems to be an accepted common practise now.z

[b]zoom[/b], forgive my slowness in following your posts, but are you in favor of repealing laws against driving while intoxicated?

CavVet: 1
The_Macallan: 0




Personal attack, Lame.

Name these safe practices observed by drunk drivers please. I too know plenty of people who have gotten home safely driving themselves while drunk, but I also know a few who have not been so fortunate. I know of one in particular who while she got home safely, did manage to kill a pedestrian (and very close friend of mine). Just drifted a little bit to the right, felt a bump, realized she was on the shoulder, drifted back into the lane, and went home. I went to the hosptial, and later served as a pall bearer at the funeral of a 16 (by one week) year old girl. She wasn't speeding, didn't run a light, just drifted a little. I am sure if you asked her she would tell you she was trying to be safe though.

I said the MAJORITY of gun owners. Not all. There are exceptions to every rule, but some rules have more exceptions that others. I do not support the random check points used currently, and do not believe that they are legal. As I said in my first post, They are stopping you for being on the road, with no probable cause of suspicion, and then looking for a charge to hang on you. The Idea proposed by The_Macallan, involves stopping individuals leaving establishments that serve alcoholic beverages, and establishing their sobriety. There is I think a valid reason to believe that these persons might very well be intoxicated, adn as suchpose a threat to others on the road by driving in this condition. If they are in fact intoxicated, they are punished, if they are not, they go home.  

Equally personal attack, equally lame. (I know this is too)

So where do you stand on this issue, or were you just chiming in to attack another person?

Pay attention [b]markl32[/b]! You're a disgrace to scorekeepers everywhere.

CavVet's first post says all that needs saying.
These unconstitutional stops violate the fourth amendment to the Constitution period, whether they are published ahead of time or not and someone prominent nationally like the President should speak out against them because most of the courts won't.

The courts have, unfortunately, limited most fourth amendment protections to persons in their own home and given police too many powers with regards to people in their automobiles and in other public places.  I say these constitutional protections apply elsewhere also.  Don't tell me I lose my freedoms just because I walk out the door and decide to take a drive down roads I helped pay for.

No one wants drunks or people under the influence of drugs driving, but this is the [i]wrong[/i] way to address this issue.  Driver's licenses are "people registration" and "revenue enhancers" or "user fees" just like license plates and vehicle stickers, nothing more.  They can be circumvented, as evidenced by the number of unlicensed drivers still on the road after revocation.

It's like in PE class when one smart ass kicks in a locker or damages something and the teacher lines everyone up and asks who did it.  If no one steps forward, everyone runs the laps.  I say BS!  I ain't runnin' laps for  anybody if I'm innocent.

Automobiles have become a [i]neccessity[/i] for most people in today's world.  For some they are the difference between traveling a great distance to earn an excellent living or walking to the local McD and earning minimum wage.

I'm more in favor of repealing them than I am in favor of the existing laws.  When you have to hook a sober man up to a machine to tell if he is breaking the law, then the law goes too far.  I can't speak without slurring.  The officers always ask questions like where am I going, where am I coming from, what I do for a living, etc.  I dread those.  I can't keep my hands from shaking more than a few seconds unless I'm actively doing something like typing or driving.  That looks bad when handing your license, registration, and insurance card to an officer.  Like most older people, I can't keep my eyes from twitching when looking to the extreme left or right.  I lost some of my hearing and had three bad ear infections when I was in Korea.  I blame that on why I fail miserably at leaning my head back and trying to lift one foot.  I've never even tasted alcohol, but when it comes to the way these laws are enforced, I'm a criminal until I prove my innocence.  It might just be because I'm old, but the idea of depending on a machine and operator isn't very comforting.  If someone is too drunk to operate a vehicle safely, then obviously, I think that's a crime.  I think the officer, the defendant, and any witnesses should describe the situation to the judge (or jury), and the judge (or jury) make the decision.  That's the same thing we do for other crimes.  Why is this crime treated so differently from other crimes?

Like I said before, I have never seen someone that I knew was drunk cause a problem while driving.  I drive or walk home from work late at night (leaving in about 15 minutes to head home) and pass by several bars on the way home.  Not once have I seen someone driving more poorly, than you usually see, from one of those places.  I've seen quite a few people pulled over by officers, but I haven't seen a problem.  I see problems with guns every day.  I've been on the wrong end more times than I want to remember, I've lost several good friends and a close relative to guns, and every single day I hear about local gun-related deaths in the news.  Those were some of the same reasons I waited until I was 72 before buying my first gun.  Logically speaking, if I was going to be against something because it was potentially dangerous, it would be guns.  Instead, I feel the opposite way.z

I agree that driving has become a necessity in the world as we know it, and have not said otherwise. No one here with exception to one smart alek remark has inferred that this convenience should be taken away from anyone who has not proven themselves unable to handle the responsiblity that goies hand in hand with it.

It has been agreed that the check points as they currently exist are unconstitutional, as they are conducted on  no basis other than your route of travel and the time of day/night at which you do so.

There has been a suggestion made that places the check points in a location where there is probable cause to suspect that the vehicles stopped would be operated by intoxicated persons. DUI/DWI, however it is worded should be the only charges allowed to be taken from these check points with exception to any infraction immediately visible to the officers. No turn signal/brake light check and the like. The purpose is solely to determine if an individual leaving a bar is intoxicated, and therefore committing an offence by operating a motor vehicle.

I again say that if INDIVIDUALS would make responsible decisions, then there would be no need for these types of laws, but they don't.

I am still waiting for the safety measures observed by drunk drivers, any takers?

[url]http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/2.pdf[/url]

Let me know what this says to you.

The practice of sobriety checkpoints is just WRONG. The MAJORITY of drivers do so legally. I know someone will point out that these checkpoints operate after hours when there is a better chance of drunk drivers being out there. What are the odds? 90% of the people out driving after 12AM are drunk? Saying that it's ok to do this checkpoint garbage is like saying it would be ok for ATF to do searches of the houses of EVERYONE who has purchased "assault weapon" parts online. There IS a chance that they may also have illegal weapons. Criminals need parts too.
    I think if an officer notices me crossing the center line or something, then by all means pull me over (happens too much while driving my wide ass dually on narrow roads ;) ). I don't think groups of motorists should have to go through these checkpoints because they MAY be drinking.
    I'm not saying drinking and driving should be ignored. I believe officers are trained to look for clues that a driver is drunk while driving. If they can't see those signs while a car is going down the road, should they really be out there policing anyway? Look for the signs. Don't just set up road blocks and hope to "luck out" and find drunk drivers.
   This of course is just my opinion [:)]

I don't understand what you're asking for.  Maybe, the converse would be a better question.  What safety measures that sober drivers take that drunk drivers do not take? Drunk drivers probably don't talk on a car phone while driving, eat breakfast while driving, read the morning paper while driving, drive in rush hour traffic, yell at kids in the back seat, drive fast to get to work on time, drive through school zones when there are kids present, etc..  Instead, they typically drive slower and drive at times when there is much less traffic and no children outside.  I agree with the point that driving after drinking is an unnecessary risk, but let's put it in perspective to the other things that we accept as normal hazards of driving.z

The_Macallan
Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution.

What the hell is Amendment 18 all about?

A radio host on WLW back east used to say something to the effect of: Protected people fall into a sense of complacincy. On some Grand Canyon roads you see no guardrail, but also no skid marks, as they KNOW its a long way down. People who have had a few drinks KNOW they wil be in BIG trouble, so they tend to drive a litttle slower, and be a LOT more careful. I tend to agree with him.

Furthermore, I feel that its the courts (that wont find these checks illegal) that have created this dilemna. By refusing to insure people who are found guilty of drunk driving DONT DRIVE. The liberals are also partly to blame, because we KNOW its not Johnnys fault.

Drunk drivers kill people, guns kill people, knives kill people. EVERYONE dies. I,You, He, She, It, We You, They...We ALL die..And IF its your day to die, you are a dead man walking, you just havent laid down yet. To make this a capital crime is pointless. Well I suppose it supports MADD who support Sarah Brady.


The_Macallan, I agree personal attacks are lame. I plead not guilty and no contest to your charges. The 3 muskateers; There were 3 of ya, I just added an adjective..Journalism was not my major....Komrade? No contest. It wasnt meant as a personal attack. I call ANYONE I feel is in favor of big govt/govt protecting us komrade. In a days time, I probably label 100 people as such. I should have caught that.

Your fire dept call I disagree with. I feel govt is for infrastructre needs. Highways, schools fire services are some functions I am ok with. EXPANDED police activities are NOT. Refuse can be handled by private companies, fire services cannot.

Someone asked earlier about criminals and guns. We have covered that. And I agree with the camp that says fine. Once you are released, you served your time. If not, you should be in prison. Middle ground? Free but not free? Kommie pinko BS! Do we take 1st ammendment protection from released  convicts? .....

None come to mind?

I have known people to call friends and talk on their cell phones the whole way home, drunk. Probably not reading the paper, you are right. Plenty of them drive through Whataburger/Taco Bell on the way to the house, but they wouldn't eat that on the way now would they? You are correct that the MAJORITY of them do not drive in rush hour, bars close at 2:00am, or 4:00am, that puts a LOT of them on the road at the same time, impared judgement and all. I hope that their children are not with them. Most of us do not go to work at 2:00am, so they are probably not going to work. Speeding because they don't realize they are (judgement is impared remember)? You are again correct that school is not in session between 2:00am and say 5:30am, so school zones at these times are irrelevant.

We are not going to end drunk driving without ending alcohol, that is the fact. However sobriety check points used in an intelligent manner, rather than randomly, will undoubtedly make a diference.

Edited to add: I was wrong about there being only one end to drunk driving, but to expect everybody to behave responsibly might just be too much for the "It wasn't my fault, my mommy was mean to me." society we have de-evolved into.

Guns do not kill people, people do. Knives do not kill, people do. Cars do not kill people, people do. Drunk drivers are people, who whadda ya know, kill people by choice. Not on purpose in the sense of "Hey, I think I'm gonna go get drunk and plow into somebody with my car.", but who choose to operate a motor vehicle while severely impared from doing so safely, and telling themselves, "That won't happen to me, I drive good drunk."

I an individual has abused his right to possess firearms, violently against another person, that right should be removed from that individual regardless of time served. If you find that unacceptable, then they should be locked up for life, no way out.

This says to me.....

8% of all accidents had alcohol....100% of them had cars....???? What was the MAIN reason for the other 92% of the accidents? Assault Weapons????

Is it just me or do the 45+ and 64+ seem to have little if any change in % of drivers AND lowest number of accidents...???

"1/3 of all pedestrians 16+ killed in traffic accidents were intoxicated"..Shouldnt we have sidewalk checks???


CUMULATIVE lives saved since 1975: 20,000...Saved in 2000: 922  How many zillions spent here and what is the bang for the buck here compared to driver EDUCATION???  



Is it me or does it seem like kommie propaganda? When you REALLY read this crap, it seems much ado about nothing.....IMHO

When you put so many cars so close together, there are going to be accidents, I'll grant you that. I would be willing to bet that the majority of that 92% were the rush hour you spoke of. You remember those times the drunks don't drive in. So in greatly reduced traffic, they still managed to account for 40% of traffic fatalities. That is pretty impressive driving.

Probably many points I want to make, but one I really want to point out here.  Although not articulated in the constitution, we all pay taxes for the roads, thus driving IS A RIGHT, not a privelege granted by our all benevolent state governments.  We're forced to pay for it, you should be forced to have us driving on it. Plain and simple.

Forget the particular issue, look at the bigger picture.  For those of you who don't have a problem with these checkpoints, just wait until the question is, "do you own any firearms" instead of "Have you been drinking"

Constitutinally protected or not, the issue is really the same, being stopped for no reason, while just going about your business and you get imposed upon by law enforcement.

BTW just look at the stats, roadblocks do  NOTHING for preventing drunken driving or accidents.  It's just one more reason for law enforcement to see and know everything they can get away with.  Want to see my papers? check your ass.

That is why we are not advocating the check points as they are now, but moving them to locations that provide a real and valid reason to suspect the individuals stopped are durnk, the parking lots of the bars and nightclubs where the alcohol is consumed. The issue is not with driving, but with driving drunk.

This is not even close to the same thing as the right to keep and bear arms. Driving drunk is not your constitutional right, whereas the RKBA is. Drunk driving offers no possible positives to society, and there is a great deal of risk to other involved, as there is no safe way to do this. Your right to endanger your own life ends when you knowingly and unnecessarily endanger mine. If you want to eat rat poison and hope that the ambulance gets there in time to save you go ahead, slit your wrists, drink yourself into oblivion, whatever floats your boat. But when you choose to knowingly endanger the lives of others by an act that brings with it no positives to the table, you are outside of your rights, and stepping on mine.

In case you didn't read that far, the numbers are down. They continue to go down. Imagine what the largely unsuccessful check points could accomplish if employed intellectually, rather than randomly.

The phone rings you pick it up and the voice on the other end of the phone says "there has been a bad accident and (your wife and child) not someone else's, are in serious condition and you better get down to the hospital fast."

In the next curtain over is the drunk driver that caused the accident, do you care about his rights?

I understand the issues raised here but the drunk drivers rights aren't going to be on your mind if he killed or hurt a family member. How could they be?

I understand both sides of the issue and never feel comfortable with any position I take. In the end I guess responsible drinking is the  answer, but again some people never learn either.

I am finished playing with people who refuse to read statements in their entirety before responding to them, and refuse to see logic when it is plainly in front of them. This is an issue that I will not budge on until a very good agrument is placed in front of me, because the fact is that I believe that I am right on this one. If some one can prove me wrong, I will appologize to you all, and change my position. I see the points you are trying to make, I just can't bring myself to agree at this time. Have a good day and I hope you are never in the position I once was.

[size=3][b]... WRONG ANSWER ![/b][/size=3]

Come on dude, what were you thinking?
Carry this "great" idea over to gun owners too?

... I'll give you a chance to rescind this idea.

Well, regardless of what's been said here so far, as long as people continue to drive drunk we'll be there to clean up the mess.

Sucks huh?

This is just a debate over rights, privacy and privileges.  You deal with the reality of idiots drinking and driving daily.  I'd say you have every right to focus on that which you must deal with.

Do what you feel is right.  I don't trust any group blindly... But I believe you of good character.

That's not always the smartest thing to do.  In most cases by the time they get you to the Intoxillyzer machine they already have enough observation and in most cases video to hang you.  At this point taking the test is your only way to provide evidence that you aren't drunk.  Let me tell you what I mean by that...

Here's an actual incident involving a crooked cop (imagine that) and an honest cop.  These two cops were riding around on a DWI detail together.  The crooked cop was worried only about numbers of so-called drunks brought in.  The honest cop was of course worried only about taking actual drunks off the road.  The crooked cop stops some poor sap and asks about how much he had to drink.  The guy truthfully tells him he drank one beer eight hours ago.  The crooked cop decides to arrest the guy on this alone.  (He'll just make up the rest likely he normally does.)  They get the guy to the machine and he refuses to blow.  He protests his innocence and spouts out about how all his "friends" say don't blow in the machine ever!  At this point the crooked cop really doesn't want him to blow, because if he doesn't he's screwed.  And here's why.  Refusal automatically gets you arrested on DWI.  The guy would be booked in at a local municipal jail, wait 8 hours for the "paddy wagon" to transport him to the parish lock-up which is two hours away.  Then after another two hour booking process he can finally call someone to drive whatever distance over there to post bond.  And here's the kicker!  You "might" get off after you hire a $1000-$5000 lawyer to get you off a charge whose fine is only $400.

The story gets better.  The honest cop explained all of the above to the guy.  The honest cop had to beg and plead to get the guy to blow.  After he finally convinced him to blow in the machine he blew a .000 .  He walked out of there scott free.

Not blowing only gets your license suspended and your lawyer richer.

If you think you're drunk keep your license, blow in the machine and take your medicine.  

The fine + insurance, etc, is always going to be at least 3 times cheaper than the lawyer fee.

Heart rending personal anecdotes involving drunk drivers are a Sarah Brady-esque ploy.  She routinely wheels her husband out on stage as part of her anti-gun campaign.  If you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, that is a very sad thing, but it is no reason whatsoever that I should even be inconvenienced much less have my rights eroded.

Sorry mon, I won't rescind that statement.

There's a [b]BIG[/b] difference between alcohol consumption and gun ownership.

2nd: [i]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."[/i]

This statement does NOT apply to alcohol consumption.

The portion of the Contitution that does pertain to alcohol states that:

21st: [i]Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use
therein of intoxicating liquors, [b]in violation of the laws thereof[/b], is hereby prohibited. [/i]

Section 2 specifically provides for the States to regulate the delivery and use of alcohol through various laws (including drinking age, zoning laws, DWI/DUI, public drunkeness, etc.)


Bottom line: Gun ownership is a right protected by the Constitution (2nd Amendment), alcohol consumption is an activity that the Constitution specifically provides for the States to regulate (21st Amendment).

I'll respond by pointing you all to these 2 articles:
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html]Legalize Drunk Driving[/url]
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stein2.html]The Non-Crime of Drunk Driving[/url]

Driving drunk does not infringe on the rights of others. Hence, the government has no duty to stop you.

[u]18th Amendment[/u]:
[i]Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof
to the States by the Congress. [/i]

This prohibits all alcohol consumption.


------------------------------------------------
[u]21st Amendment[/u]:
[i]Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use
therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by
conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof
to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal[/i]

This repeals the prohibition of alcohol [u]AND[/u] provides for the States the responsibility to regulate alcohol delivery and us through various laws.



Neither one of these amendments establishes "alcohol consumption" to be a right.

Having a bunch of people shooting their guns straight up into the air on a crowded street on New Year's Eve ALSO doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

So blast away?

Neither one of these amendments establishes "*******" to be a right.---breathing,playing soccer,attending football games,riding a bike,
playing poker.
The documents(Con,BOR) stated are limitations on the government....not on the people.

As long as they are using blanks.

I would argue that that is a different situation. Bullets can come down and hurt you. Driving Drunk CAN contribute to an accident, but the ACT of driving drunk can't cause harm. The act of firing up into the air and bullets coming down is harmful.

The_Macallan: I concede to your point. Alcohol consumption can be regulated. I am embarrassed for my own ignorance. I think I will drink it out of my memory.

The thing I haven't seen anyone mention as a suggestion for improving the DUI problem is better or more variety of public transportation.

I live in LA, and getting home from Sunset Blvd on a Sat is impossible without using a car. A cab takes hours to show up if you can get one. The amount of drunk drivers out on the roads here between 2-3am is unreal. Of course you are usually in a traffic jam anyway, so fender benders are the norm.


I grew up in Holland and what I liked about going out there is the clean public transportation as a way home.

Quite possibly alcohol is a much bigger social problem than any other drug. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if you legalized pot and outlawed alcohol. This will never happen and won't be economically feasible. However every negative incident I have seen, whether it be DUI, fights, etc. happened in cojunction with booze and never with people under the influence of marijuana.

Alcohol is probably one of the more destructive substances; the dangers of which are further amplified by it's social acceptance.

Now don't take me for some liberal European pro-drug monkey, I don't enjoy pot, however I do enjoy a good cocktail.

Under the forth admend,I feel it is wrong to stop a vehicle with out probable cause regardless of time of day or night.    

Driving a vehicle is a priviledge and not a right,and If you read the drvers test you took at one point in your life it so stated such.

Owning a firearm is a priviledge also,as some of these rights have dissclamers attached.  Just fill out the yellow slip with all yes's when you try to purchase that next gun and see if you don't get some more rights stripped away.

We used to have vehicle inspection stickers here and that gave the police in just a glance(probable cause).   Now I don't drink when driving so I feel I can drive anytime anywhere, unless expired tag,broken tailight,burnt out bulb.ect.    I really don't want to be pulled over.

  The question you should be asking this law man is why did you pull me over,and do you have probable cause to warrant this violation of the fourth admendment.

  Bob

[beer] [^]

It never ceases to both amaze and disgust me to see how many folks who allegedly believe in freedom and the Constitution really don't.

Driving is NOT a privilege--it falls under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So riddle me this--If driving is a privilege, and the state revokes yours, can you in turn revoke the "privilege" of said state from taking your taxes to pay for the roads you now have lost the "privilege" of driving on?

Some of you quite frankly make me sick. The rights enumerated/protected in/by the Constitution and BOR are ABSOLUTE. These righteous documents were written in a language even trained chimpanzees can understand, yet intelligent, alleged freedom lovers on this very site as well as elsewere find ways to contort and pervert the words and their meanings in these sacred documents.

CavVet's Sam Adams quote is appropriate here--either understand the Constitution and BOR, and protect them with your very lives, or wear your fucking chains lightly and shut the fuck up.

Are we talking the constitution here or the gettysberg address.  As life(means you have the right not to be killed) liberty(non enslavement) pursuit of happiness(who knows how broad that can be).    You can't kick everybody in the teeth to obtain your specific kind of happiness.


As for the bill of rights, pretty much self-expl.        If you lose your prviledge to drive,then your taxes will be spent on schools,police,firedept,parks,hospitals.    
    I'm part of a well regulated milita,trainned by the best.  Some would argue that some kind of trainning should be had for you to use this 2nd ammendment right .

    Just to live in this great land is a priviledge.        bob

Of course.......you want to co-operate completely if you know for sure that you will pass......not the point.....and anyway...the advice comes straight from a full time cop........anyone here have a commercial drivers license?.........you can`t even blow a .04.....all your guns are in the hands of the "honest" officers........been there.....(a friend)........yes....the bus chasers charge big fees..............[sex]

                                            YUP...........and yeah.....it does.....[grenade]