User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 1:56:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: I usually try not to talk to [:K]Libertarians[:K]but I'll make an exception for you. Sadly it is you who does not get it. It's not unamerican for our elected officials to pass laws and statutes even ones that institute DUI traffic checkpoints and laws against pitbulls,that is what they are there for. Now it's not really unamerica to,as you are cry "no no you doing it all wrong" if there is something you don't like,it's just pathetic. I'm not telling you to just live with laws you don't approve off but there is a way to go about it,in fact the very founders you think we all should listen to gave us a way to address this type of issue. Bear in mind if the law does not change thats not unamerican it's just that most people think your wrong. Majority rule,thats the way it is here in America and I would not have it any other way. It's the majority that govern not the founding documents they are the guide lines but everything eles is up to us. The idea that somebody can discard the law because they don't like it is nuts,thats no better than Al Gore trying to change the laws to suit me in 2000,IT DON'T WORK LIKE THAT! Where are the checkpoints for drinking and typing? I'm quite sure that there's a point in here somewhere, and if anyone can decipher the encrypted English used in this post, please let me know what that point is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 2:21:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Mac I understand it....but the fist to end of the nose is a low consequence example, oversimplified for the sake of making an argument "easy". Now complicate it with a 3000lb car going 50mph....your right to drive it while intoxicated ends at the bumper of my car or the edge of my clothes.....right? Or do we accept that drunk driving is an enforceable, "good", law under the "ideal pursuit theory"? But the solution to drunk drivers is NOT to treat EVERYONE as potential drunk drivers! I've stated my "If I Were King" solution to drunk driving in other threads so I won't go into it again. Quoted: Does the roadblock for the sole purpose of rooting out DWI drivers, then somehow also become acceptable as [red]this is the only way[/red] to "Protect and Serve", WRONG! Okay I guess I'm gonna have to tell you how to reduce drunk driving WITHOUT inconviencing anyone else: 1) 1st lifetime offense: * A week in jail, * HEAVY fine (garnish wages if necessary), * HEAVY community service, * 6months suspended drivers license, * 1yr ban on drinking or purchasing alcohol (difficult to enforce yes, but MAJOR jail time if caught violating) * Mandatory AA program + 1yr monitoring. 2) 2nd lifetime offense: * 6months jail, * Permanent lifetime 10% garnish on all wages. * HEAVY community service, * 3years suspended drivers license, permanent ban on drinking or purchasing alcohol. * Mandatory AA program + 3yr monitoring. 3) 3rd lifetime offense: * 10yrs jail. Afterwards... * permanent revoked drivers license. * permanent ban on drinking or purchasing alcohol. 4) 4th lifetime offense: * Life sentence, no possiblity of parole. * buh-bye! 5) Plant a dozen or so "DUI Checkpoints" at the driveways of randomly chosen bars and clubs. THERE'S your "just cause" to suspect the driver might be intoxicated. Quoted: or should I be able to shoot the drunk driver on sight? Or run him off the road? Or should we leave it until the unsuspecting person runs in to them, or he in to them? Quoted: A broken nose can be mended with time, a loss of a family member takes a bit more from you. Look, I think drunk drives should be squashed hard. Period. But there are a LOT more and better ways to fight drunk driving than treating EVERYONE as if they might be a drunk driver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 2:22:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Shivan;
First of all let me commend you, as of right this minute 616 people have read this thread, and ony 49 have replied. The fact that you are the virtual lone voice on your side says to me that you at least have the testicular fortitude to stand up for something you believe in. THAT is the first sign to me of an American. All those punks that disagreed with my post, but passed over responding are a much bigger problem with our society. Now, on to the debate. I am sorry to see that this discussion has degenerated into the DUI checkpoint issue all over again, but I am going to continue it to some degree since I just can't let this be. I have posed a couple of questions to you in the course of this thread, and you haven't really responded, so I thought I'd be clear and number them (1) Got it? (2) Where do the checkpoints end? Are you in favor of insurance checkpoint, immigrant checkpoints, etc? (3) How do we determine what merits a checkpoint? Is it up to you, or me, or the chief of police, or some $5/hr beaurocrat? (4) Who ensures that checkpoints for DUI are the last infringement on our freedoms? Do you not see that a generation that grows up thinking this is acceptable will be willing to sacrifice even more freedoms in the name of "safety"? (5) Why do you assume that just because I don't like checkpoints I must be a drunk? I'm also for the legalization of many drugs, but I don't even so much as smoke a cigarette, let alone a joint. (6) Do you honestly believe that any of these people are "off the road"? Sure, maybe for tonight, but as soon as they get released they are going to drive again. Ask any cop how many DUI's are repeat offendors. (7) If you are innoncent the "sacrifice" you made was 10 minutes of your time and having to roll down your window and answer one or two questions. The reason everyone keeps saying that you don't get it is that you don't. The issue here is bigger than RKBA, its bigger than DUI checkpoints, its bigger than all of us and this silly little board/discussion. The issue here is personal freedom, or at the very least an idealistic quest to attain it. I know it won't ever happen, but I refuse to give it up. DUI checkpoints, like most laws that are passed today to limit freedoms, attempt to restrict actions/ownership with the idea that it will somehow curtail a horrible action. Stopping people to check if they are drunk most certainly assumes that they are. At the next one I drive through, I'm not going to say one word to the officer that stops me. (8) Will you cover my medical bills after he cracks my skull? The key here is that if you remove the neccessity for personal responsibility among the people, then you remove the ability to develop it. People start to assume that anything that isn't illegal must not be wrong. Which is why everything under the sun is now legislated somehow. (Well, that and the fact that you are always a criminal. In some way shape or form, you break the law every day. In this way we are all criminals, and are more prone to keep our mouths shut.) People are no longer able to remember what it means to be free to make up their own minds and suffer the consequences of whatever actions they take. If we continue to move forward with restrictions on freedoms, and removing personal responsibility, we are going to wind up in a very scary place. I don't have the right to drive drunk, but you don't have the right to assume that I am. (9) Was a family member of yours kille by a drunk driver? Both of my grandfathers were killed by tobacco, and they both started smoking before anyone knew the real affects of smoking. But I don't think that smoking should be illegal (restricting freedom), and I also don't want to sue the tobocco companies, or the gov't that got them hooked on free smokes to start with (personal responsibility) Everyone keeps drawing these parallels for you because we hope you WILL get it. You are so close it seems, but for whatever reason you're hooked on this one issue. Problem is, everyone has their "one issue", and none of them are the same. Sarah Brady almost lost her husband, so her "one issue" is denying you of your freedom to own a gun. Somebody lost their grandfather to tobacco, so their "one issue" is outlawing cigarrettes. If you go on like this then everything you currently DO believe is a freedome worth protecting will be gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 2:25:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Sorry to interrupt the flow of the three or four of you vehemently hashing this out but here's my .02 worth. Before I get started, for those that don't already know, I'm a LE Officer.
There are very good reasons to have laws. If laws weren't a good idea and people did not need to be governed, then God would not have put the time and effort into making the ten commandments. However, I do believe that there are too many of them. Too many laws created to do the same thing just to say to constituents "see, I'm working". Trim the fat and get rid of repetitive legislation. Anarchy is just as possible as pure, utopian communism. Not possible, not by a long shot. How many laws are enough? Just enough to cover the problems created by the people in that society. Who decides that? WE DO, at least when we aren't hiding from our responsibility as citizens and leaving it for someone else to do. How can you be so sure that the organizations are really looking out for you? How do you know they information you are getting hasn't been corrupted by their personal ideology? You don't. Unfortunately, most of us are too poorly educated to know how to find it ourselves and verify the sources. How many of you are regular attendees at your library, town/county/city meetings? Do you even know who your representatives are, what their beliefs are? Meeting a politician during an election is like trying to pick up a chick (stud; if you're a chick [rolleyes] ). Who they are inside of that artificial environment is usually nothing close to who they are in reality. You have to get to know them and follow their track record before making any major commitments. For the record. I consider myself a conservative republican but, the "Homeland (In)Security Act" is the worst piece of horseshit legislation ever crafted. It is nothing but an intrusive "spy on us all you want" card for the feds. I don't want any "enhanced" enforcement abilities, I like the restrictions placed on me thank you because it means that they're also placed on those who would come after me. I don't want to be so paranoid about everything wearing a turban that it causes me to forget who I am, where I live and what this country means to me. Some of these people are being targeted simply because of their beliefs. Well, when are they going to get around to seeing my beliefs as being threatening? Let me pack a frickin' weapon (knife, spray, taser, gun, bazooka) and take care of threats myself. I may piss off a few people for this comment but what happened on board the airliners that struck the WTC is a micro-cosm (sp?) of society. Everyone sitting around locked in their own little worlds. A few guys stand up and make some kind of declaration of intent and brandish some shank or box-cutter while some of them march towards the cockpit. No one did shit. One of them picks a passenger or flight attendant at random and slices their throats as an example of their resolve to kill those that attempt to stop them. No one does shit. It wasn't until they found out that none of them were going to live unless they acted that any of them did anything. They didn't act to protect anybody else, they waited until only they were at risk. Was it horribly tragic, hell yes. Did any of them ask for this to happen, hell no. Should they, to the man, have stood up and acted when it first started, YES! Most people wait until somebody else makes a move to do something. We've been so trained to shut-up and wait and see what happens that we fail to act at all. None of them probably ever considered that despite the odds, they would ever be a victim of violence. Why place your trust in the hands of someone who obviously doesn't care if you live or die? Why stand around and wait to see what this crud has planned for you? As soon as a threat is identified, it needs to be dealt with and dealt with quickly. How many passengers on that plane were male and fit enough to do something. Probably as least a fourth if you go by the average traveler. How many of them were mentally prepared for what occurred, none of them. How many of them were mentally prepared enough to deal with an alcoholic with a pocket knife demanding their wallet in the parking lot? Again, probably none of them. As one of you posted, freedom has to be earned and earned every day. It has to be earned and maintained at an individual level. You don't get freedom granted to you, you have to prevent it from being taken away from you. The name calling may now commence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 2:26:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Holy crap, I just realized I've been agreeing with The_Macallan!! How the hell did this happen? What the hell is wrong with me? Am I gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat now too? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGh
All kidding aside, I also agree with your "how to fix dui" post. Proper, swift, strong, and unforgiving punishment for infractions against other people's freedom is the only way to begin to curtail this out of control problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#6]
cmoth, good post, IMHO. I don't feel there should be NO laws, just precious few. As it stands, so much is legislated, so much has a law attached to it, that loss of respect for the law in general is the inevitable result. We really need to reasess ourselves, and decide what really matters. The law is becoming a silly thing, it's tentacles are so long.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 3:01:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Well Norman74...I am your worse nightmare...I don't care what anyone does. All I care is that the people you all keep electing to solve the laws and the laws you all keep allowing screw my ability to live free be taken away.
I want to own any gun I can Single shot or Auto. I want to be able to have a home without my taxes going up each time the Government Screws up or I have to bail out Big Business. I want my rasies to stay in my pocket instead of going to higher Tolls or new ways to take it back. Pit Bulls.Let them run around all over, but if one comes at me or attacks someone I have the right to shoot it. DUI points. I say have them every place. You are drunk Your car goes and your thrown in jail. If it's not the first time your shot. Rob or kill someone if your caught your dead. You think Anarchy won't work that way. True Anarchy. That means no laws no taxes. It's take what you want and survival of the strongest or smartest. This country is Anti-American or Anti-Human. We would rather blow each other up than live together. Am I un American because I don't vote or I am not a Liberal Conservative, Republican or Democrat. You think your way will solve the problems today or tomorrow. America is nothing but a conquer of people. Be it foreign or their own. I once believed in having to put Communism down. I think we were right because the wall came down and one less threat. You want a revolutionary war, well I am with you. Who is going to start an Anarchist rule? Who here is going to be in charge. Are you going to attack my tribe. Is it going to be a Mad Max World? Yes I am your worst nightmare because I don't care what you want Only what I want and how to survive. I could shake your hand or put a bullet in your head in the same breath. So what are you accomplishing towards the goal of free rule. What is free rule? You see every TRIBE has it's own laws be it 2 people or Millions. The bigger tribes survive and eat up the little ones. Lets see you get rid of Taxes DUI check point. Allow animals and people to roam where ever they want. Let us see a free state. Take all your Republicans and Democrats send them to me and allow EDPMEDIC to be the ruler I will give you anything you want. First thing I do is kill people who put Spam and POP-Up's on the net. Has you see I didn't take my Zoloft yet or Prozac. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 4:42:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Does the roadblock for the sole purpose of rooting out DWI drivers, then somehow also become acceptable as [red]this is the only way[/red] to "Protect and Serve", WRONG! Okay I guess I'm gonna have to tell you how to reduce drunk driving WITHOUT inconviencing anyone else: 5) Plant a dozen or so "DUI Checkpoints" at the driveways of randomly chosen bars and clubs. THERE'S your "just cause" to suspect the driver might be intoxicated. Well, here, that is the way they do it, so I guess I assumed that other places in the world would to. My mistake. I guess not everybodies LEOs are smart enough to do it this way. Quoted: A broken nose can be mended with time, a loss of a family member takes a bit more from you. Look, I think drunk drives should be squashed hard. Period. But there are a LOT more and better ways to fight drunk driving than treating EVERYONE as if they might be a drunk driver. Squashed hard....hmmmmm......we agree. I just didn't feel like typing the whole "If I were King deal" Thanks for typing that out, saved me tons of time......[:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 4:48:57 PM EDT
[#9]
edpmedic....
Dude, I hope you're joking. It sounds like you're writing a really bad Conan novel and want some feedback. You either need to take those meds or get laid or something. If you're joking and wanted to poke a little fun into the rant-stream, good. A little levity is good. If you aren't, well, damn.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 4:50:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Has you see I didn't take my Zoloft yet or Prozac. Please do. We worry about you, Marc! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 5:06:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: (1) Got it? [red] had it from jump street, despite many postings to the contrary[/red] (2) Where do the checkpoints end? Are you in favor of insurance checkpoint, immigrant checkpoints, etc?[red]I have stated specifically I am in favor of checkpoints that are for DUI/DWI specific needs. Assumption was they were run as they are here, very near the actual bars and such, guess not.[/red] (3) How do we determine what merits a checkpoint? Is it up to you, or me, or the chief of police, or some $5/hr beaurocrat?[red]I am only condoning the DUI checkpoints and have basically agreed with the other BS as being far too limiting and approaching thought control etc.....[/red] (4) Who ensures that checkpoints for DUI are the last infringement on our freedoms? Do you not see that a generation that grows up thinking this is acceptable will be willing to sacrifice even more freedoms in the name of "safety"?[red]This is a chicken little/1984 mentality...I don't buy in to the Gestapo view of our government. I do really believe there would be a fairly well organized armed revolt from within the interior of the gov't if we reached Gestapo levels[/red] (5) Why do you assume that just because I don't like checkpoints I must be a drunk? I'm also for the legalization of many drugs, but I don't even so much as smoke a cigarette, let alone a joint.[red]I have seen the positive effects of the checkpoints and have seen at least 5 people that were not only too drunk to drive, but too drunk to walk be caught and go to jail. That was not to mention the countless others in ONE night that were coherent and likely able to drive themselves home, but over the legal limit at the time of .10 BAC. They also went to jail.I can only imagine that somebody so adamantly against the checkpoints must also drink quite heavily and drive -- obviously a poor assumption, but nonetheless you must not have witnessed one from start to finish.[/red] (6) Do you honestly believe that any of these people are "off the road"? Sure, maybe for tonight, but as soon as they get released they are going to drive again. Ask any cop how many DUI's are repeat offendors.[red]I've been to court as a spectator for several things and have seen the way MY county handles the DUI's and I for one believe they are off the road for longer than one night. YMMV however since judges won't be the same everywhere.[/red] (7) If you are innoncent the "sacrifice" you made was 10 minutes of your time and having to roll down your window and answer one or two questions. The reason everyone keeps saying that you don't get it is that you don't[red]No again the difference is that I don't agree and your arguments aren't swaying me, so it appears since I won't be swayed or bend that I don't get it. See my above statement for the threshhold of tolerance that I believe we possess[/red]. The issue here is bigger than RKBA, its bigger than DUI checkpoints, its bigger than all of us and this silly little board/discussion. The issue here is personal freedom, or at the very least an idealistic quest to attain it. I know it won't ever happen, but I refuse to give it up. DUI checkpoints, like most laws that are passed today to limit freedoms, attempt to restrict actions/ownership with the idea that it will somehow curtail a horrible action. Stopping people to check if they are drunk most certainly assumes that they are. At the next one I drive through, I'm not going to say one word to the officer that stops me. (8) Will you cover my medical bills after he cracks my skull?[red]No, you're being stupid.[/red] The key here is that if you remove the neccessity for personal responsibility among the people, then you remove the ability to develop it. People start to assume that anything that isn't illegal must not be wrong. Which is why everything under the sun is now legislated somehow. (Well, that and the fact that you are always a criminal. In some way shape or form, you break the law every day. In this way we are all criminals, and are more prone to keep our mouths shut.) People are no longer able to remember what it means to be free to make up their own minds and suffer the consequences of whatever actions they take. If we continue to move forward with restrictions on freedoms, and removing personal responsibility, we are going to wind up in a very scary place. I don't have the right to drive drunk, but you don't have the right to assume that I am. (9) Was a family member of yours kille by a drunk driver? Both of my grandfathers were killed by tobacco, and they both started smoking before anyone knew the real affects of smoking. But I don't think that smoking should be illegal (restricting freedom), and I also don't want to sue the tobocco companies, or the gov't that got them hooked on free smokes to start with (personal responsibility)[red]No, but people I know have been, not close people just people.....[/red] Everyone keeps drawing these parallels for you because we hope you WILL get it. You are so close it seems, but for whatever reason you're hooked on this one issue. Problem is, everyone has their "one issue", and none of them are the same. Sarah Brady almost lost her husband, so her "one issue" is denying you of your freedom to own a gun. Somebody lost their grandfather to tobacco, so their "one issue" is outlawing cigarrettes. If you go on like this then everything you currently DO believe is a freedome worth protecting will be gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 5:23:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Ya Man and they called me a DUr
ANARCY DIVINE bring back the good ole days where everbody had a gun and things were settled with fists He who f**ks nuns later joins the church |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 5:41:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Wow..I am beside myself reading many of the statements being made...
Which Amendment in the Constitution prohibits DUI checkpoints? And don't say the 21st where prohibition was repealed! lol 4th? Nope...You're not being searched (unless there is probable cause.)When/if he/she asks for papers, then you might have a complaint. 5th? Nope..Unless you open your mouth and wreak of booze which gives the officer probable cause. Someone said they make you guilty until proven innocent...BS! You are on a PUBLIC road paid for by PUBLIC funds regulated by PUBLIC officials voted in by the MAJORITY. You don't want DUI checkpoints, don't drive on public roads! Walk..Take the bus..Ride a bike..Take a taxi...You don't like that? Change the opinion of the majority and change the law. Exercise your 1st Amendment right and petition the government for a redress of grievances. What if you're walking down the street and a cop stops you to ask you if you have seen a car that just robbed the 7-11? Is that an intrusion on your personal freedoms? What about shopping at Wal-Mart? You're searched everytime you leave the store as well as being watched inside the store. You don't like it, don't shop at Wal-Mart! Because you're guilty until you walk out that door and prove yourself innocent when the alarm doesn't go off. Freedom is a personal thing. YOU and ONLY YOU must pursue it! It's not going to be handed to you...You are responsible for your freedom. How much you give away and how much you keep lies with you. Flame away |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 5:42:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: I usually try not to talk to [:K]Libertarians[:K]but I'll make an exception for you. Sadly it is you who does not get it. It's not unamerican for our elected officials to pass laws and statutes even ones that institute DUI traffic checkpoints and laws against pitbulls,that is what they are there for. Now it's not really unamerica to,as you are cry "no no you doing it all wrong" if there is something you don't like,it's just pathetic. I'm not telling you to just live with laws you don't approve off but there is a way to go about it,in fact the very founders you think we all should listen to gave us a way to address this type of issue. Bear in mind if the law does not change thats not unamerican it's just that most people think your wrong. Majority rule,thats the way it is here in America and I would not have it any other way. It's the majority that govern not the founding documents they are the guide lines but everything eles is up to us. The idea that somebody can discard the law because they don't like it is nuts,thats no better than Al Gore trying to change the laws to suit me in 2000,IT DON'T WORK LIKE THAT! Where are the checkpoints for drinking and typing? I'm quite sure that there's a point in here somewhere, and if anyone can decipher the encrypted English used in this post, please let me know what that point is. Lets try something you may be better able to understand. EVERY-THING-IS-FINE YOU-CAN'T-ALWAYS-GET-WHAT-YOU-WANT.....SORRY[:(] Now if this is not too encrypted for you stop and think about [b]majority rule[/b] get people to vote your way but don't try to tell people there is something wrong with them if they don't. That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2002 6:02:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Holy crap, I just realized I've been agreeing with The_Macallan!! How the hell did this happen? What the hell is wrong with me? Am I gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat now too? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGh [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 4:26:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] [b]an[/b] dipshit? I rest my case. Please go here:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158898[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 4:31:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Which Amendment in the Constitution prohibits DUI checkpoints? What makes you think that just because its not in the Constitution its not a right? The Constitution also doesn't say I have the right to have sex (pursuit of happiness maybe? lol), or lots of other things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't rights does it? God I hope not, otherwise we're in bigger trouble than I thought. What about shopping at Wal-Mart? You're searched everytime you leave the store as well as being watched inside the store. You don't like it, don't shop at Wal-Mart! Because you're guilty until you walk out that door and prove yourself innocent when the alarm doesn't go off. Actuall, I don't let them search my bags. I simply walk right past them, and when the alarm doesn't go off they don't do a thing about it. If the cops didn't mind me just driving right through their checkpoint in the same way, I wouldn't have any problem with that either. Freedom is a personal thing. YOU and ONLY YOU must pursue it! It's not going to be handed to you...You are responsible for your freedom. How much you give away and how much you keep lies with you. So what gives you the right to give away mine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 4:37:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Yea I was just being an A-Hole...But I am pissed about the Taxes and what is going on with more taken away including our rights to own guns or have a Santa taken out of the school because it might offend someone. DUI check points is not a cure for all the problems. I do know they help and feel they could be a useful tool.
I do know that if there is a total breakdown of the Government, I might not be to far off with the Tribe. I just want to be left alone to live without being taxed out of my own home. I am willing to do my share. There has to be a limit to all this political correctness. What the answer is I cannot figure out. All I know instead of it working for the future and our children, it seems to be getting to the brink of disaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 4:35:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] [b]an[/b] dipshit? I rest my case. Please go here:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158898[/url] Damn! I guess you're unschooled,intellectually dishonest diatribe is correct know that I forgot to delete the N after removing the more explicit word beginning with a vowel[rolleyes] I don't know who good it would make me feel if I had to reach that far to convince other my view is the right one. PS: just so you know I have had political writings published over 20 times,I actually write very well when not using voice dictation software(that does not know which witch is which)from the other side of a room. [b]Now lets see if you can pick out a typo so you don't have to face the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 5:54:26 PM EDT
[#20]
DUI CHECKPOINTS
A chance for the local government to get money for busted headlights, no insurance, no seat belts, confiscate illegally transported firearms, and maybe catch a drunk or two to justify the whole thing. A chance for John Q public to get an adreneline rush from being searched for no reason which breaks up his normally dull life. A chance for the drunk who worships the Budweiser God to find out he really isn't normal and other people can tell. A chance to prove you really can fool the cops that you haven't been drinking. A chance for Radio Shack to sell more scanners. A chance for the cops to get a cold standing out in the rain at night. A chance to give Mrs. John Q public a false since of security. A chance to create a traffic jam when there shoudn't be any. A chance to create an atmosphere where a drunk can intiate a high speed chase. A chance to detain and make everyone who is innocent pay for what a few do. A chance to violate the constitution without paying the piper. After thinking about it, it would be easier to put breath anylizers in every car so that you can't start it if you've been drinking. Then we can have stops to insure the thing hasn't been disconnected. How about an imbeded chip that sends out a signal, he's been drinking. How about a camera in front of every bar, hell why not every house. We could run it through their computers or TVs. Afterall, drunk driving kills and we got to protect those people from themselves too. One thing I know. Drunk drivers go to jail while murderers and rapist walk the streets. Priorities??????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 4:09:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Damn! I guess you're unschooled,intellectually dishonest diatribe is correct know that I forgot to delete the N after removing the more explicit word beginning with a vowel[rolleyes] I don't know who good it would make me feel if I had to reach that far to convince other my view is the right one. Its not reaching, its the fact that none of your posts to date have made any sense. And what exactly makes me unschooled and intellectually dishonest? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive? In order to be intentionally intellectually dishonest I would think one would need at least a bit of schooling. Incidentally, I have a master's degree, I just never mention it around here because most of the people I've met with my level of education couldn't change a tire (or grasp basic English and grammar skills?). PS: just so you know I have had political writings published over 20 times,I actually write very well when not using voice dictation software(that does not know which witch is which)from the other side of a room. And this is relevent how? We've all seen the political ramblings of the nimwits that write for Time and Newsweek. By the way, writing 20 letters to the editor of the Podunk-Press doesn't count as being published 20 times. [b]Now lets see if you can pick out a typo so you don't have to face the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about[/b] Its not about picking out typos, its about the fact that I can't understand any of the "points" you've made so far. I understand that you disagree with me, but that's where it ends. I can't debate the issue with you because I can't get through all the bad grammar and "typos" to figure out what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 6:36:53 AM EDT
[#22]
Which is why the master's degree was obviously of no help.[rolleyes]
It's called [b]interpretation[/b]. Similar to what the UN has hundreds, if not thousands of, running around all day making sure people understand each other. Are you now claiming the inability to converse with a particular group of people because they can't, don't, won't or just don't give a shit to try to make sure grammar, spelling and punctuation is correct? Is your "book knowledge" so great that you've lost the ability to converse on the level of the people you engage in conversation -- or debate? Or do you think you are just "too good" to "stoop" to that level? [rolleyes] Judging by your, "How to debate" thread, my guess would be the latter. I'd suggest getting off your high horse, paying attention, and quit the general criticism of people you know nothing about. The more you "talk", the less you can listen. I've seen plenty of people who knew more, and forgot more, than you'll ever know. Here's a hint: They couldn't spell "grammar", but they could sign the $1M dollar checks all day long. Also, you will find a lot of HIGHLY educated people on this site, some of whom have a couple master's degrees and don't ever spell check....why you might ask? They don't care! FWIW, [b]my[/b] interpretation of C_Brooks' thread is that he thinks you are a douchebag. I also infer that he could give a shit about debating with you. Which is what you obviously want to do with him, and everyone else. So his disinterest has your panties in a wad. Get over it. [;D] Maybe I'm wrong.... [rolleyes]. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 7:53:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Let me recommend something for those interested in this debate, Professor Eugene Volokh's [url=www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm]The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope[/url]
Warning, it's quite long, and a bit dry, and it requires you to [i]think[/i]. It's also a work in progress, and the formatting is irritating. The opening citation of the paper: “In other countries (than the American colonies), the people . . . judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.” — Edmund Burke, [i]On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies[/i], Speech to Parliament, Mar. 22, 1775. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 7:59:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Ah.....the slippery slope......
Reminds me of the worst three weeks of my high school years. My 11th grade US Gov't teacher was determined to expand on slippery slope politics and took three weeks to do so.....UGH!!! Then followed by a two week dissertation on benign neglect. Oh the absolute joy...... Thanks KBaker.....now I have three books to finish and this WIP to peruse. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 8:14:15 AM EDT
[#25]
SHIVAN is right norman,but I'll try to help you out anyway. Being unschooled and intellectually dishonest do not have to be mutually exclusive if one lies to them self about something they know nothing about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 8:15:21 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Which is why the master's degree was obviously of no help.[rolleyes] It's called [b]interpretation[/b]. Similar to what the UN has hundreds, if not thousands of, running around all day making sure people understand each other. Are you now claiming the inability to converse with a particular group of people because they can't, don't, won't or just don't give a shit to try to make sure grammar, spelling and punctuation is correct? Is your "book knowledge" so great that you've lost the ability to converse on the level of the people you engage in conversation -- or debate? Or do you think you are just "too good" to "stoop" to that level? [rolleyes] Judging by your, "How to debate" thread, my guess would be the latter. I'd suggest getting off your high horse, paying attention, and quit the general criticism of people you know nothing about. The more you "talk", the less you can listen. I've seen plenty of people who knew more, and forgot more, than you'll ever know. Here's a hint: They couldn't spell "grammar", but they could sign the $1M dollar checks all day long. Also, you will find a lot of HIGHLY educated people on this site, some of whom have a couple master's degrees and don't ever spell check....why you might ask? They don't care! FWIW, [b]my[/b] interpretation of C_Brooks' thread is that he thinks you are a douchebag. I also infer that he could give a shit about debating with you. Which is what you obviously want to do with him, and everyone else. So his disinterest has your panties in a wad. Get over it. [;D] Maybe I'm wrong.... [rolleyes]. Ed Wow! I posted on the other thread before I got over here, so forgive me if I try not to repeat myself. The only thing I will say, and perhaps more bluntly this time, is that you have certainly gotten your panties in a wad over things that were written on the internet, and have really let this degenerate into a debate over whose cock is bigger. I tried to take the protocol debate to another thread, and you just won't let it go. Can we at least agree to attack each other over there, and keep this thread on topic? I am just as guilty as you (perhaps more so)of letting it wander, and I appologize for that. I'm actually going to address all of your personal attacks in an IM, since I don't really think anyone else here cares to watch us beat the crap out of each other. I must admit though that I thin that's really the only thing keeping you going here. On Topic: Lets reduce this to a very simple idea. I'm going to take it one step at a time because I don't want us to get sidetracked again. You believe that it is ok to give up a few minutes of time (freedom) of otherwise law abiding people(which is a fallacy anyway, but I digress) in order to catch a few drunk drivers. Agreed? As a point of reference, at least one study found that in Salina Kansas in 1992 they caught 1.6 impaired drivers at checkpoints, and in 1993 they caught 2.4. [url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safedige/Spring96/Police/Kansas.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 8:23:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Most checkpoints just want you to roll your window down and talk to the cop so he/she can take a whiff and see if you're coherent.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That still interferes with MY right to travel unhindered ... Just asking. Where do you get the right to travel unhindered? Last time I checked, roadways were administered by the gubmint and they are therefore, regulated. You can walk just about anywhere you want. Driving is a different story. Sorry, lost the thread. Govt., only has the right to regulate travel if it pertains to commerce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 8:54:43 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I may piss off a few people for this comment but what happened on board the airliners that struck the WTC is a micro-cosm (sp?) of society. Everyone sitting around locked in their own little worlds. A few guys stand up and make some kind of declaration of intent and brandish some shank or box-cutter while some of them march towards the cockpit. No one did shit. One of them picks a passenger or flight attendant at random and slices their throats as an example of their resolve to kill those that attempt to stop them. No one does shit. It wasn't until they found out that none of them were going to live unless they acted that any of them did anything. They didn't act to protect anybody else, they waited until only they were at risk. Was it horribly tragic, hell yes. Did any of them ask for this to happen, hell no. Should they, to the man, have stood up and acted when it first started, YES! Most people wait until somebody else makes a move to do something. We've been so trained to shut-up and wait and see what happens that we fail to act at all. None of them probably ever considered that despite the odds, they would ever be a victim of violence. Why place your trust in the hands of someone who obviously doesn't care if you live or die? Why stand around and wait to see what this crud has planned for you? As soon as a threat is identified, it needs to be dealt with and dealt with quickly. How many passengers on that plane were male and fit enough to do something. Probably as least a fourth if you go by the average traveler. How many of them were mentally prepared for what occurred, none of them. How many of them were mentally prepared enough to deal with an alcoholic with a pocket knife demanding their wallet in the parking lot? Again, probably none of them. As one of you posted, freedom has to be earned and earned every day. It has to be earned and maintained at an individual level. You don't get freedom granted to you, you have to prevent it from being taken away from you. The name calling may now commence. Fuckin eh! cmoth right on the money |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 8:57:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Govt., only has the right to regulate travel if it pertains to commerce. So speed limits, lane markers, traffic lights and stop signs are unconstitutional? The "right to travel" is a weaker argument than the right to be secure from unreasonable (i.e. without just cause) search and seizures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 9:52:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Wow! I posted on the other thread before I got over here, so forgive me if I try not to repeat myself. The only thing I will say, and perhaps more bluntly this time, is that you have certainly gotten your panties in a wad over things that were written on the internet, and have really let this degenerate into a debate over whose cock is bigger[red]Wasn't really worried about it, but for the record mine is[/red]. I tried to take the protocol debate to another thread, and you just won't let it go. Can we at least agree to attack each other over there, and keep this thread on topic? I am just as guilty as you (perhaps more so)of letting it wander, and I appologize[red]"apologize" is the correct spelling[/red] for that. I'm actually going to address all of your personal attacks in an IM, since I don't really think anyone else here cares to watch us beat the crap out of each other.[red]actually I bet some find it amusing, me included[/red] I must admit though that I thin [red]did you mean to type "think"[/red] that's really the only thing keeping you going here. On Topic: Lets reduce this to a very simple idea.[red]Please do not condscend, or patronize me. I have demonstrated I am more than educated enough to handle the type of arguments/facts/statements you may have to present[/red] I'm going to take it one step at a time because I don't want us to get sidetracked again.[red]Is this how you speak to your significant other? It may be, but again, you can keep your patronizing comments for them, as I don't need to be coddled.[/red] You believe that it is ok to give up a few minutes of time (freedom) of otherwise law abiding people(which is a fallacy anyway, but I digress) in order to catch a few drunk drivers. Agreed? [red]Sure do. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I am simply stating that unless you have "worked"/watched a well planned, unannounced DUI checkpoint you have no idea how effective they are at what they were designed to accomplish. I have, I know. Maybe the national averages and statistics bear out something else entirely (or can be manipulated to tell another story), but here in Northern Virginia they apparently get the job done, as designed.[/red] As a point of reference, at least one study found that in Salina Kansas in 1992 they caught 1.6 impaired drivers at checkpoints, and in 1993 they caught 2.4. [red] Use a metropolitian survey or statistical analysis where there are potentially more than 5 people running through the checkpoint per hour. Honestly won't even waste time looking at the link. Should I waste your and my time finding some statistics that back up my side? There are always two sides to a statistical analysis.[/red] [url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safedige/Spring96/Police/Kansas.html[/url] Shall we continue to disagree openly or would you like to let it lie as far as my input is concerned? I think we are at an impass. Thanks, Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 10:42:44 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: No, I get it dumbdumb.....I just don't necessarily agree with "it"....I only chose to address one aspect of your tirade. There IS a difference in disagreement and ignorance. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do about "annoying" DUI checkpoints. I don't like them much when I might happen on one, but I also am not out at 2am much, fucking around, and 99% chance I won't have had any alcohol. Hell, most of the time they move faster than rush hour around here anyway. No bother to me.......and certainly not an attack on my freedom. Sorry we can't all agree with what you think is "right", or what YOU think is unamerican. Anybody who may post a dissenting remark is therefore "unamerican", or "sucks", or doesn't "get it". Ahhh, so "reasonable restrictions" on guns is ok?? After all, it's "certainly not an attack on my freedom."........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 10:51:53 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: No, I get it dumbdumb.....I just don't necessarily agree with "it"....I only chose to address one aspect of your tirade. There IS a difference in disagreement and ignorance. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do about "annoying" DUI checkpoints. I don't like them much when I might happen on one, but I also am not out at 2am much, fucking around, and 99% chance I won't have had any alcohol. Hell, most of the time they move faster than rush hour around here anyway. No bother to me.......and certainly not an attack on my freedom. Sorry we can't all agree with what you think is "right", or what YOU think is unamerican. Anybody who may post a dissenting remark is therefore "unamerican", or "sucks", or doesn't "get it". Ahhh, so "reasonable restrictions" on guns is ok?? After all, it's "certainly not an attack on my freedom."........ Sure, but the problem is you had [b]unreasonable[/b] people making the "reasonable" restrictions. What further exacerbates the issue is that the people who [b]are[/b] reasonable get beat down trying to save their political future and cow over to a compromise. I guess you feel it is within your rights to own a 155mm howitzer if you like? Or maybe if you have enough cash you should be able to put a downpayment on an M1A2 tank? The AW ban is pure bunk, what exactly does a bayonet lug have to do with whether or not I can mow down a whole school full of kids? However, in my book, a DUI checkpoint and an AWB are apples and oranges. No analogy yet has swayed me. Sorry to disagree with you liberty, but it's just not compelling me to jump on the A-Train down the slope with you guys and the 1984/Chicken Little analogies. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 10:57:57 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: From Tombstone: "Nobody is saying you can't own guns. Nobody is saying you can't carry guns. We're saying you can't carry guns in town!" Nobody is saying you can't drink. Nobody is saying you can't drive. Just saying you can't drink and drive. The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this. Then I could also see why I wouldn't need to waste my time talking to you reasonably. Useing your logic, unless you are an armed robber, you should have no problem with gun control.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:05:44 AM EDT
[#34]
Some people confuse the:
"An Armed militia, being neccesary for the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". With: The privelege of law abiding citizen's, who have taken a test and passed it, to be able to drive a car. There is no right to drive a car but you have the privelege if you do not get it revoked![:O] Some of the "Free Thinker's" believe it is ok to drink all I want and go jump in my 4000 lb. battering ram and do what ever they want![Pissed] Don't infringe on my "right" to drive drunk! A good friend and I where at this restaurant bar one time watching a football game and this A$$wipe comes in and has a seat beside him. He proceeds to break out a cigarette and starts blowing his smoke towards us. My buddy proceeds to tell him not to do it and he respond's with "I have the right to do it if I want to"![pissed] My buddy then grabs him by the throat and tells him "Then I got the right to spit my chewing tobacco spit in your face"![:O] Needless to say he figured out real quick that he did not have the right to "do whatever he wanted to do"! It has been many years since I have even seen a DUI checkpoint, but then again I don't stay out until all hours of the night anymore! BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:06:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: From Tombstone: "Nobody is saying you can't own guns. Nobody is saying you can't carry guns. We're saying you can't carry guns in town!" Nobody is saying you can't drink. Nobody is saying you can't drive. Just saying you can't drink and drive. The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this. Then I could also see why I wouldn't need to waste my time talking to you reasonably. Useing your logic, unless you are an armed robber, you should have no problem with gun control.... My biggest issue with it is that it just doesn't make sense. I have to wait three days to buy a little ole 1911 in .45acp. But I can walk out of the store with a 9 round pump shotgun. It just doesn't make sense for the control of violence and all the other crap they try to shove down your throat. FWIW, again your extrapolation of my feelings for DUI protocol, is left wanting when trying to transpose it over to guns. They are mutually exclusive. I can have one set of feelings for one thing and one set of feelings for another. I like blondes, light brunettes and redheads. I hate raven haired beauties. If you take just my statement about hating raven haired women, then you may jump to say I hate women, but if you look at the entire context you see that I like 3 out of the 4 catergories I listed. It does not have to be an ALL OR NOTHING proposition. So please stop trying to make it one. So what is the next quote I need to explain? Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:15:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy! I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, [red]where is the "American" way?[/red] It's history... Literally, gone. Bunch of old guys talked about it way back when. It's called INDIVIDUAL freedom, not collectivism, or "group rights".... Shivan, you are saying that the collective "right" to be safe, (non existent by the way), trumps my individual right to move about unhindered. Your thinking demonstrates the re-sounding success of our govt. controlled school system, which you are obviously a victim of.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:17:11 AM EDT
[#37]
The issue here is much larger than the DUI checkpoint issue that we've gotten so bogged down in. And while one aspect IS the so called "chicken little/1984" mindset, there is more to it than that.
The question is, why do we sacrifice the freedom that you want to for a little piece of mind, and not someone else's? You want DUI checkpoints, I want smoke free restaurants, Sarah Brady wants handguns banned, the minorities want free jobs, my former secretary wants helmet laws...who makes the determination? Who decides what is reasonable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:25:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy! I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, [red]where is the "American" way?[/red] It's history... Literally, gone. Bunch of old guys talked about it way back when. It's called INDIVIDUAL freedom, not collectivism, or "group rights".... Shivan, you are saying that the collective "right" to be safe, (non existent by the way), trumps my individual right to move about unhindered. Your thinking demonstrates the re-sounding success of our govt. controlled school system, which you are obviously a victim of.... I said all that? Really? Where are MY words specifically saying I expect some kind group clusterfuck to provide my security or my well being? Again there is that transposition of [b]my[/b] thoughts on somebody else's letterhead..... I am saying "you" do not have a right to endanger me, my family or my friends with "your" irresponsible behavior. I have done my part to call in actual drunk drivers I witness -- but you know what I would like to do? Would you really like to know? I'd like to end the suspense right there, I'd like to pull along side and do a textbook doubletap in the assclown's medula. Saves him from himself, not to mention the rest of the people he may harm. Honestly, I equate drunk driving to playing russian roulette. You may get lucky the first 5 chambers, but #6 is going to ruin your day. Now maybe some drunks get lucky and never land the spin on chamber #6, but I for one think it is wrong that he gets to play russian roulette with MY life, with my personal freedom. If you can't grasp that, then we too are at an impass...... Next? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:27:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: No, I get it dumbdumb.....I just don't necessarily agree with "it"....I only chose to address one aspect of your tirade. There IS a difference in disagreement and ignorance. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do about "annoying" DUI checkpoints. I don't like them much when I might happen on one, but I also am not out at 2am much, fucking around, and 99% chance I won't have had any alcohol. Hell, most of the time they move faster than rush hour around here anyway. No bother to me.......and certainly not an attack on my freedom. Sorry we can't all agree with what you think is "right", or what YOU think is unamerican. Anybody who may post a dissenting remark is therefore "unamerican", or "sucks", or doesn't "get it". Ahhh, so "reasonable restrictions" on guns is ok?? After all, it's "certainly not an attack on my freedom."........ Good God man,are you for real? The people(we the people)in a given state can pass any law(s) they want to. They can pass laws that regulate travel,arms,pants or what ever eles they want. Now it's another story with the Feds but not the states. Due to this fact most of the national gun laws are unconstitutional but the fact the you all but can't buy a handgun in NY sucks but is still constitutionaly right. This idea that we are "sheeple" shows how in the dark you people are,just about every state in the nation does these things you guys are up in arms about but they are NOT unconstitutional or unamerican thats is they way the founders set things up. You state or city can pass or not pass any law it wants to or so the constitution says. The real attack on freedom is the way the Feds want to take over the duties of the state and tell states what to do and how to do it. PS:Ok you guys have a name for us "sheeple" so it's only right we come up with one for you.....CRY BABIES. Cry babies are people who think every law they don't like is an attack on thier freedom,they are a lot like the folks that said bar codes would be the end of the world and Ronaid Reagan would start WW3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:27:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Sorry to interrupt the flow of the three or four of you vehemently hashing this out but here's my .02 worth. Before I get started, for those that don't already know, I'm a LE Officer. There are very good reasons to have laws. If laws weren't a good idea and people did not need to be governed, then God would not have put the time and effort into making the ten commandments. However, I do believe that there are too many of them. Too many laws created to do the same thing just to say to constituents "see, I'm working". Trim the fat and get rid of repetitive legislation. Anarchy is just as possible as pure, utopian communism. Not possible, not by a long shot. How many laws are enough? Just enough to cover the problems created by the people in that society. Who decides that? WE DO, at least when we aren't hiding from our responsibility as citizens and leaving it for someone else to do. How can you be so sure that the organizations are really looking out for you? How do you know they information you are getting hasn't been corrupted by their personal ideology? You don't. Unfortunately, most of us are too poorly educated to know how to find it ourselves and verify the sources. How many of you are regular attendees at your library, town/county/city meetings? Do you even know who your representatives are, what their beliefs are? Meeting a politician during an election is like trying to pick up a chick (stud; if you're a chick [rolleyes] ). Who they are inside of that artificial environment is usually nothing close to who they are in reality. You have to get to know them and follow their track record before making any major commitments. For the record. I consider myself a conservative republican but, the "Homeland (In)Security Act" is the worst piece of horseshit legislation ever crafted. It is nothing but an intrusive "spy on us all you want" card for the feds. I don't want any "enhanced" enforcement abilities, I like the restrictions placed on me thank you because it means that they're also placed on those who would come after me. I don't want to be so paranoid about everything wearing a turban that it causes me to forget who I am, where I live and what this country means to me. Some of these people are being targeted simply because of their beliefs. Well, when are they going to get around to seeing my beliefs as being threatening? Let me pack a frickin' weapon (knife, spray, taser, gun, bazooka) and take care of threats myself. I may piss off a few people for this comment but what happened on board the airliners that struck the WTC is a micro-cosm (sp?) of society. Everyone sitting around locked in their own little worlds. A few guys stand up and make some kind of declaration of intent and brandish some shank or box-cutter while some of them march towards the cockpit. No one did shit. One of them picks a passenger or flight attendant at random and slices their throats as an example of their resolve to kill those that attempt to stop them. No one does shit. It wasn't until they found out that none of them were going to live unless they acted that any of them did anything. They didn't act to protect anybody else, they waited until only they were at risk. Was it horribly tragic, hell yes. Did any of them ask for this to happen, hell no. Should they, to the man, have stood up and acted when it first started, YES! Most people wait until somebody else makes a move to do something. We've been so trained to shut-up and wait and see what happens that we fail to act at all. None of them probably ever considered that despite the odds, they would ever be a victim of violence. Why place your trust in the hands of someone who obviously doesn't care if you live or die? Why stand around and wait to see what this crud has planned for you? As soon as a threat is identified, it needs to be dealt with and dealt with quickly. How many passengers on that plane were male and fit enough to do something. Probably as least a fourth if you go by the average traveler. How many of them were mentally prepared for what occurred, none of them. How many of them were mentally prepared enough to deal with an alcoholic with a pocket knife demanding their wallet in the parking lot? Again, probably none of them. As one of you posted, freedom has to be earned and earned every day. It has to be earned and maintained at an individual level. You don't get freedom granted to you, you have to prevent it from being taken away from you. The name calling may now commence. Jesus....That's a beautiful post. I hope you don't waste your whole life in the LE bureaucracy, but if you do, I hope you rule it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:32:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: ...who makes the determination? Who decides what is reasonable? If there were accountablity among our legislators, and truth in their advertsing then when we elected these dipshits, my assumption would be that my delegates to the Constituational process of the United States would make the determination. I for one believe we need tweaking of the current infrastructure not an overhaul/overthrow. We need people who will stand up and know that their term may be their last, but hopefully that person will be replaced by another of similar mindset that will stand up for what they believe, not what they believe will get them elected next cycle. Yeah, utopia, right? As far fetched as the "do what you want government" being touted as the next best thing to silicone boobs. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:35:07 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: ...who makes the determination? Who decides what is reasonable? In all to many case it is the masses of people who want everything to be their way! The one's who are scared into believing something will help with no idea of the consequences! The Sheeple! An unarmed peasant is a subject! An armed peasant is a citizen! BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:36:34 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: what happened on board the airliners that struck the WTC is a micro-cosm (sp?) of society. Everyone sitting around locked in their own little worlds. A few guys stand up and make some kind of declaration of intent and brandish some shank or box-cutter while some of them march towards the cockpit. No one did shit. One of them picks a passenger or flight attendant at random and slices their throats as an example of their resolve to kill those that attempt to stop them. No one does shit. [b]"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women"[/b] Ronald Reagan-1981 By what you and he both said we are now totaly unarmed......good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 11:45:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] [b]an[/b] dipshit? I rest my case. Please go here:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158898[/url] Damn! I guess you're unschooled,intellectually dishonest diatribe is correct know that I forgot to delete the N after removing the more explicit word beginning with a vowel[rolleyes] I don't know who good it would make me feel if I had to reach that far to convince other my view is the right one. PS: [red]just so you know I have had political writings published over 20 times,[/red]I actually write very well when not using voice dictation software(that does not know which witch is which)from the other side of a room. [b]Now lets see if you can pick out a typo so you don't have to face the fact that [blue]you don't know what the hell you are talking about[/blue][/b] Where were you published? The Communist Manifesto? Childrens schoolbooks? At least twice before this post, you have ranted about the founding fathers, and "majority" rule. FYI, this nation is a Constitutional Republic, (or representative republic), not a democracy,(which the founders rejected). [blue]Perhaps you should take your own advice.[/blue] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:02:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: FYI, this nation is a Constitutional Republic, (or representative republic), not a democracy,(which the founders rejected). [blue]Perhaps you should take your own advice.[/blue] BZZZT! You are wrong, civilian. Not once did our President refer to this country as a "republic", but a "GREAT DEMOCRACY". The sooner you dump those 200 year old outdated ideas made up by a group of terrorists, the sooner you can become a true patriot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:05:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: I have noticed that a very scary number of members on this board don't seem to get it. For alot of them, the only issue they're concerned with is what affects them and offends their sensibilities, not what is right, and quite frankly what is the American Way. My advice to you is to sit back, shut up, and get a little more experience here before you choose to paint with such a broad brush. Neither you nor I have been here long enough, based on you registration date and number of posts, to draw that dramatic conclusion. I'd also recommend you balance your criticism with your observations of the positives, because last I checked, Christ wasn't the only mmeber, and we all have our human failings. If you are not able to make positive observations, perhaps you should keep your critcisms to yourself. Outlawing pittbulls, DUI traffic checkpoints, censoring books (including the Koran) movies and art that "offends" you; these things are unamerican. I don't give a shit if the book or artwork is Anti-American, the right to print or paint it is really the most fundamental ideal that makes America what it should be. In your opinion. I will listen to it, respect it, but not necessarily agree with it. THAT is the American way, at least in [i]my[/i] opinon. It seems that many of the people on this board want to protect themselves, or even worse have the gov't protect them, from being offended. I really expected better from gun owners, but I really shouldn't be surprised. We are really just a cross-section of the rest of society, and some of the members only believe in freedoms for themselves or that affect them directly. I don't think you've been looking at the same forum I've been looking at; most of the posters I see here want their own personal responsibility and freedom and [i]don't[/i] want protection from a "benevolent government"; hence, I reject this premise as fabricated and specious, not to mention contradictory in within the relevant topics of this discussion. I think the whole "you sound like a liberal" insult that gets thrown around here is pretty pathetic, but since some of you appear to put so much stock in it, I'll relate this: I heard one time that the difference between an liberal and a conservative is that a liberal believes that they, personally, should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, while a conservative believes in a higher moral basis for their actions. The best reason that I can think of that this dualistic argument bothers me is that you identify with a "liberal" philosophy. Let me throw another definition at you: A conservative is someone who busies his or herself with their personal responsibilities; a liberal is someone who is to busy attending to other people's business to mind their own. You see, the dualistic arguments never end, yet neither do they lead anywhere. This does not mean that because you think something is offensive that you try to outlaw it. This means that you govern your OWN actions by a moral standard, and hope to change the actions of others by leading by example. True to a point, I grant you. We could all learn this lesson. BUT: everyone has a point they will not cross; thus, "offensive" points will prompt those offended to try to change it. Therein lies the challenge daily; to maintain your own morals/beliefs, to guard your sticking point from those who threaten it. Yin/Yan, Fire/Water, Heaven/Earth, the circle never ends. Live it, but don't fight it. Shooter |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:21:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] [b]an[/b] dipshit? I rest my case. Please go here:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158898[/url] Damn! I guess you're unschooled,intellectually dishonest diatribe is correct know that I forgot to delete the N after removing the more explicit word beginning with a vowel[rolleyes] I don't know who good it would make me feel if I had to reach that far to convince other my view is the right one. PS: [red]just so you know I have had political writings published over 20 times,[/red]I actually write very well when not using voice dictation software(that does not know which witch is which)from the other side of a room. [b]Now lets see if you can pick out a typo so you don't have to face the fact that [blue]you don't know what the hell you are talking about[/blue][/b] Where were you published? The Communist Manifesto? Childrens schoolbooks? At least twice before this post, you have ranted about the founding fathers, and "majority" rule. FYI, this nation is a Constitutional Republic, (or representative republic), not a democracy,(which the founders rejected). [blue]Perhaps you should take your own advice.[/blue] Just who did they tell you im public school the representative republic was representative of? We the people,the majority of the people send people in to governmnet who are representative of the ideas we hold. I only used the words "majority rule" to help somebody understand that even if he could not always have his way that did not mean America was f*cked up or whatevery. I "ranted" about state's rights,thats what we are really talking about here. Some of you seem to think that any law that you don't like is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:34:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy! I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, [red]where is the "American" way?[/red] It's history... Literally, gone. Bunch of old guys talked about it way back when. It's called INDIVIDUAL freedom, not collectivism, or "group rights".... Shivan, you are saying that the collective "right" to be safe, (non existent by the way), trumps my individual right to move about unhindered. Your thinking demonstrates the re-sounding success of our govt. controlled school system, which you are obviously a victim of.... I said all that? Really? Where are MY words specifically saying I expect some kind group clusterfuck to provide my security or my well being? Again there is that transposition of [b]my[/b] thoughts on somebody else's letterhead..... Right here, your quote from page 2 [blue]"If you are innoncent the "sacrifice" you made was 10 minutes of your time and having to roll down your window and answer one or two questions. If it was your wife or family member later stuck to the grill of a '79 Eldorado you might think differently."[/blue] You are saying here, that the collective right to be safe from drunk drivers trumps my right to go about my business. That I must "sacrifice" 10 minutes for the common good. I am saying "you" do not have a right to endanger me, my family or my friends with "your" irresponsible behavior. You are absolutly correct there, but I'm not "endangering" the collective when I'm driving down the street obeying all laws. You don't seem to understand, that you have NO right to stop me without probable cause. What I "might" be doing is NOT cause to delay me for a "papers please" check. Do your cops ask for ID when at a checkpoint? Do they flash a light inside the car to have a "free" look around? To get to the legal end here, in my state, DUI checkpoints are illegal. We in Oregon, (most of us), take our liberty seriously. I wonder if your state has checkpoints on interstate highways? Or only state and county roads? Your atitude is typical of the liberal ideals of "sacrifice for the greater good". I have done my part to call in actual drunk drivers I witness -- but you know what I would like to do? Would you really like to know? I'd like to end the suspense right there, I'd like to pull along side and do a textbook doubletap in the assclown's medula. Saves him from himself, not to mention the rest of the people he may harm. Honestly, I equate drunk driving to playing russian roulette. You may get lucky the first 5 chambers, but #6 is going to ruin your day. Now maybe some drunks get lucky and never land the spin on chamber #6, but I for one think it is wrong that he gets to play russian roulette with MY life, with my personal freedom. How nice, and just how are you going to know if the person is intoxicated?? Ge, I forgot, this is all about you, and your collectivist "feelings", not respect for the individual. If you can't grasp that, then we too are at an impass...... I grasp what you are saying all too well. Do me a favor...... Stay in Virginia. Next? Yes..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:38:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: FYI, this nation is a Constitutional Republic, (or representative republic), not a democracy,(which the founders rejected). [blue]Perhaps you should take your own advice.[/blue] BZZZT! You are wrong, civilian. Not once did our President refer to this country as a "republic", but a "GREAT DEMOCRACY". The sooner you dump those 200 year old outdated ideas made up by a group of terrorists, the sooner you can become a true patriot. Hi Imbro......[:D] Wanna give me a hand here??? I'm up to my eyeballs in communists.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 12:45:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That makes you an[encrypted english off] DIPSHIT[/encrypted english on] [b]an[/b] dipshit? I rest my case. Please go here:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158898[/url] Damn! I guess you're unschooled,intellectually dishonest diatribe is correct know that I forgot to delete the N after removing the more explicit word beginning with a vowel[rolleyes] I don't know who good it would make me feel if I had to reach that far to convince other my view is the right one. PS: [red]just so you know I have had political writings published over 20 times,[/red]I actually write very well when not using voice dictation software(that does not know which witch is which)from the other side of a room. [b]Now lets see if you can pick out a typo so you don't have to face the fact that [blue]you don't know what the hell you are talking about[/blue][/b] Where were you published? The Communist Manifesto? Childrens schoolbooks? At least twice before this post, you have ranted about the founding fathers, and "majority" rule. FYI, this nation is a Constitutional Republic, (or representative republic), not a democracy,(which the founders rejected). [blue]Perhaps you should take your own advice.[/blue] Just who did they tell you im public school the representative republic was representative of? We the people,the majority of the people send people in to governmnet who are representative of the ideas we hold. I only used the words "majority rule" to help somebody understand that even if he could not always have his way that did not mean America was f*cked up or whatevery. I "ranted" about state's rights,thats what we are really talking about here. Some of you seem to think that any law that you don't like is unconstitutional. Checkpoints ARE unconstitutional in my state[:D] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
