User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 12:55:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Papers Please!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 12:56:57 PM EDT
[#2]
They have been all over the place in No. VA. lately. They have then in a couple places around here almost every weekend. I don't drink so its not a problem for me, nor have I run into any, but a good question nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:05:22 PM EDT
[#3]
They are asking the question for no other reason than to get you to talk, they can then evaluate your speech and they can smell whether you have been drinking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:10:08 PM EDT
[#4]
I think if you fail the "Attitude Test" Mr. Law will get you out of the car while he and his colleagues search it for the next two hours looking for something to keep you in lock-up for the night.
ARH |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:13:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Kneel before your masters.
Bow & scrape, say "yes Sire", and offer your first born. Offer a night with your wife. If you don't, you might get an M4 fired into your face - - ask that poor kid in Maryland that the FBI shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:14:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Hielo just reminded me of a conversation I had with my Brother-in-law's dad who is a retired cop and reserve officer. He said they want to get you to talk and perform motor skills at the same time. People who have been drinking will often stop motor skills to think, as well as check their breast pocket for their wallet when almost no one keeps their wallet there. Drunk people also often reach for money when they get out their wallet instead of going straight for their license. They don't really care what you say as long as you are performing more than one skill at a time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:15:21 PM EDT
[#7]
I don't know how old you are but trust me when I say that if you are under 25, God forbid wearing a baseball hat, out driving past 9:00 PM and end up at a "Sobriety check point" you WILL be asked to step out of the car and submit to a variety of field sobriety tests. During this 15 minutes you will be asked over, and over, and over how much you've had to drink. When you say less than 3, you will be told you're lying. How's that for community-police relations?!?! [;D]
If for any reason anybody ever wants to learn what it feels like to be treated like a criminal without actually breaking any laws, just look for your nearest local “DWI sobriety checkpoint” and drive through it. It gives you the feeling of being a criminal without actually being one. Consider it a criminal simulation exercise! (sarcasm intended) Thank you M.A.D.D. for you efforts on behalf of us lowly Americans. I’m sorry that you’ve lost loved ones to DWI-related accidents, but your support of Nazi-like policies shows how little Constitutional freedoms mean to you. You suck. You fully rank up there with your gun-grabbing pals. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to realize the slippery slope you're happily pushing us down. You suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 1:54:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: They have been all over the place in No. VA. lately. They have then in a couple places around here almost every weekend. I don't drink so its not a problem for me, nor have I run into any, but a good question nonetheless. Thats cause you are driving around at 3-4am in the morning. [:P] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 3:26:51 PM EDT
[#9]
We publish and broadcast the location of the checkpoint for days ahead of time. Then the checkpoint is set up with obvious alternate routes around it if you choose not to drive through it.
After all that, anyone that still [b]chooses[/b] to drive through that one section of roadway, at that point in time, is either drunk or really stupid. We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 3:29:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: I say that if you are under 25, God forbid wearing a baseball hat, ....your a Fred Durst wannabe wigger? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 3:44:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Huh? [>:/]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 3:47:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Sniperm88, you are correct. The tests are called divided attention tasks. And you are right on as far as what the Officer is looking for. Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind. An Officer can ask you anything. But you don't have to answer. If you are the passenger, stay quiet! If the Officer asks to search your vehicle he is asking for CONSENT. NO means NO!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 3:56:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. Hiccup, Voluntary ossificer? hiccup, no thanks then. hiccup. See ya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 4:30:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: We publish and broadcast the location of the checkpoint for days ahead of time. Then the checkpoint is set up with obvious alternate routes around it if you choose not to drive through it. After all that, anyone that still [b]chooses[/b] to drive through that one section of roadway, at that point in time, is either drunk or really stupid. In Maryland, they'll say they plan on having check points out, but they keep the locations a secret. Also, if they see you choose any alternate route, including a u-turn, they will persue and question you. There's usually a car there ready to give chase at all times. We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. There isn't anything voluntary about Maryland's check points. I go through them all the time (never a problem for me) since I sometimes work at night. Several times, they have just waived me through since I am in a marked company truck and they recognize me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 5:16:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Huh? [>:/] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 5:48:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Thats cause you are driving around at 3-4am in the morning. [:P] Yeah, any you are about to wake up! Fortunately when I am out at that time I only have about a mile to drive home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 6:04:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: I say that if you are under 25, God forbid wearing a baseball hat, ....your a Fred Durst wannabe wigger? And you wonder why we call cops PIGS. Fuck The Police.... And I dont even like Limp Bizkit[heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 6:56:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Thanks for the replys guys.
No, I way past the baggy pants, backwards hat shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 7:05:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Nothing wrong with baggy pants, who knows what wonders they may conceal. And I am talking about my weapon, not my gun!
As for sobriety checkpoints, I have just one comment: SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 7:15:07 PM EDT
[#20]
My brother and I were coming home from bars in the local Huntington bars and I was absolutely plastered, but my little bro was fine. We hit a sob check and the cop asked us to step out, then they started harrassing him for 10 minutes about being an underage drunk driver (no drinks for him AT ALL). So when he opens up and says, "Arrest me or back the fuck off" I thought we were going to enjoy a nice cell for the night. He blew a 0.0 and they told him they'd see him again, he of course responded with, "as my brother prosecutes you for harrassment." Sometimes cops don't give a shit, they're out to bust balls and sometimes little brothers just don't know when to shut the fuck up! Its all about the quota, never forget it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 7:31:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. That's what it really boils down to. A great deal of the stuff that police do has nothing at all to do with the "safety" of the citizens, but with generating Revenue for the City/County/State. As if we don't pay enough already........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 7:35:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Is it just me or does this constitute an illegal search in some way?
Seems like they are stopping you for no reason, and then looking for a charge to hang on you. If you had the right lawyer, could you beat the rap inspite of being drunk on this premise? Hell, we might as well leave our doors unlocked and open so they don't have to kick them in when they come on a neighborhood drug sweep, or illegal weapons check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 8:35:34 PM EDT
[#23]
When asked where I was going one night, my dumb ass said "Mr Lincold said weez free"....Flew like a brick....
Im sorry, These checks 'seem' to be against the fourth ammendment to me. I am NOT secure in my person nor my effects when these gestapo like tactics are used to detain, interrogate and harrass me at random. If they think I have been drinking, get a warrant, with probable cause, and serve it, if not back the piss up..... Seatbelts, same thing. "pursuit of happiness"...Maybe I'm happier without a seatbelt, maybe I dont feel seatbelts are warranted.... Sorry, no sheeple here.... [red]"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/red] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 9:21:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: When asked where I was going one night, my dumb ass said "Mr Lincold said weez free"....Flew like a brick.... Im sorry, These checks 'seem' to be against the fourth ammendment to me. I am NOT secure in my person nor my effects when these gestapo like tactics are used to detain, interrogate and harrass me at random. If they think I have been drinking, get a warrant, with probable cause, and serve it, if not back the piss up..... Seatbelts, same thing. "pursuit of happiness"...Maybe I'm happier without a seatbelt, maybe I dont feel seatbelts are warranted.... Sorry, no sheeple here.... [red]"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/red] I like your style... [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 9:56:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Police: Where have you been?
Me: I just left your wife. Police: Where are you going? Me: Going to see your mother/sister. That usually puts an end to the questions. Of course I never do this if I've even had one drink!!! >gg< |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 10:06:45 PM EDT
[#26]
They used to have the roadblock checks here in Oregon but we voted them out (or lawyered them out - not really sure).
Even though I have not and would never drive intoxicated, I considered it an infringement on my right to privacy. That is the reason I'm glad they're gone. On the other hand the State Police used to catch a lot of drunk/wasted drivers as well as wanted felons. I suppose the only problem with keeping all of your rights... is that the bad guys get to keep theirs as well. I can live with that. (edited to change a "have" to a "have not" [:D]) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2002 10:24:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Want to cut down on drunk driving? Stop drunks BEFORE they even get onto the roads. The only sobriety checkpoints I think should be used are ones posted on the exit driveways of nightclubs. Otherwise there's no reasonable cause to pull me over, visually search my vehicle and question me - even at "random". More ways to stop drunk driving: Treat Alcohol consumption like a privilege (like hunting), not a right. - State-issued "Alcohol License" needed to purchase and consume alcohol. Separate from Drivers License. - 1st DUI/DWI... No jail. Instead impose 1mo DL suspension, 2year Alcohol License suspension. Garnish 2% wages for 2 years. - 2nd DUI/DWI... 6mo jail. 5year suspension of Alcohol License AND Driver's License. Garnish 5% wages for 5 years. - 3rd DUI/DWI... 1year jail. Permanent loss of Alcohol and Driver's licenses. Garnish 5% wages permanently. Drinking alcohol on suspended/revoked Alcohol License - more jail and fines. (and public flogging) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 1:10:03 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Want to cut down on drunk driving? Stop drunks BEFORE they even get onto the roads. The only sobriety checkpoints I think should be used are ones posted on the exit driveways of nightclubs. Otherwise there's no reasonable cause to pull me over, visually search my vehicle and question me - even at "random". More ways to stop drunk driving: Treat Alcohol consumption like a privilege (like hunting), not a right. - State-issued "Alcohol License" needed to purchase and consume alcohol. Separate from Drivers License. - 1st DUI/DWI... No jail. Instead impose 1mo DL suspension, 2year Alcohol License suspension. Garnish 2% wages for 2 years. - 2nd DUI/DWI... 6mo jail. 5year suspension of Alcohol License AND Driver's License. Garnish 5% wages for 5 years. - 3rd DUI/DWI... 1year jail. Permanent loss of Alcohol and Driver's licenses. Garnish 5% wages permanently. Drinking alcohol on suspended/revoked Alcohol License - more jail and fines. (and public flogging) Now that is a plan I could deal with. I like the way you are thinking here a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 1:46:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: More ways to stop drunk driving: Treat Alcohol consumption like a privilege (like hunting), not a right. I see that you have been brain washed. You have the right to hunt (food gathering), just like you have the right to breathe. But we as a nation have given the right up. If you qualify the right to hunt as a privilage, then why not make registration of guns legal on a state level? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 1:56:32 AM EDT
[#30]
I don't think the hunting issue was his point. However in our society, like it or not hunting is a priveledge. You must either obtain a hunting liscense or forfit any game you are caught with, pay the relevant fines and or serve the determined jail time. Drinking and driving being far more dangerous than hunting on average, (drinking and hunting ain't too bright either), should be treated as a priveledge. He simply pointed out an idea on regulating that priveledge.
Edited to add that the driving drunk should not be a privledge, but the drinking should, no driving. I say this knowing that it would hurt my wallet cause I work in a bar on the weekend. I would definitely lose money on this deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 3:01:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: On the other hand the State Police used to catch a lot of drunk/wasted drivers as well as wanted felons. I suppose the only problem with keeping all of your rights... is that the bad guys get to keep theirs as well. I can live with that. Was it Jefferson that said, "I would rather ten guilty men go free than see one innocent man in jail"? Or something like that? Anyway, I agree. Rights first. I'm sure there are other methods for catching those drunks/felons. -Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 3:33:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Man, we haven't done a sobiety checkpoint in awhile...Thanks for reminding me!
Actually, in my experience, most checkpoints are done in areas with lots of bars/clubs and there has been a pattern of DWI-related accidents or "incidents". If you're innocent, it's a pain in the ass because you're caught up in some minor traffic and of course, you'll feel the police are Jack Booted Stormtroopers, but you'd be surprised how many people in NYC are stupid enough to drive when they're drunk, drive without a license, drive with a warrant out for your arrest, or even drive a stolen vehicle(Yes, it has happened!)! I personally love to park right in front of the local bars right around closing time(4AM), I have no problem telling someone heading for their car that is obviously drunk that I will flag down a cab for them and that they can get their car in the morning. It's a lot better than arresting them(unless you really wanted to) for DWI and there is no paperwork involved. Of course, it would be unrealistic for ALL cops to do this. It's just something I do + drunk chicks dig cops! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 3:51:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Waverunner....that is good....kind of like it used to be......some guys would wait until the car starts moving and BAM.....you know it..so do I....people are going to drink and people are going to drive...if thier a danger..we don`t want that of course...but to be a big Pr....isn`t right either.....unless they ask for it.......of course we can always TAKE AWAY ALL CARS..................[:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 4:32:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Never Admit to SHIT!!
You never had even ONE drink. NOTHING, SAY NOTHING!! Keep window open just a crack. Never submit to a field sobrity test, NEVER. Even if you are sober. In Illinois, it is not required by law to submit to a field test. Breath yes, but field no way. Where are you comming from? Church, my ladies house, etc. If they want you to take a breath test, and your drunk, do not take it!!! Let the lawyer take care of business in the court. Take your beating, take your night in jail, and learn your lesson. c-rock |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 4:35:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: We publish and broadcast the location of the checkpoint for days ahead of time. Then the checkpoint is set up with obvious alternate routes around it if you choose not to drive through it. After all that, anyone that still [b]chooses[/b] to drive through that one section of roadway, at that point in time, is either drunk or really stupid. We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. give me a break on this one. You never put it in a major newspaper, or even print it up on the local JBT's website!! Its some paper that might have 1000 people that read it, out of a 50000 that live there. c-rock |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 5:24:05 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: When asked where I was going one night, my dumb ass said "Mr Lincold said weez free"....Flew like a brick.... Sorry, no sheeple here.... ROTFLMAOWTNTP!!! that's the funniest fucking thing I've heard all week! [beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 6:07:13 AM EDT
[#37]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the three muskateers....
The_Macallan,USP40C and most of all Waverunner. With a duty to protect and defend the Constitution. The paper that tells us implicitly that our rights are inferred by our Creator. For you to say 'If you're innocent, it's a pain in the ass because you're caught up in some minor traffic and of course, you'll feel the police are Jack Booted Stormtroopers, but you'd be surprised how many people in NYC are stupid enough...' I dont care if they are stupid enough to commit hairy carry...Stupidity is not illegal, I would say stupidity is Constitutionally protected. I'm sorry, but I dont want the government protecting me, MY Creator gave me the ability to do that for myself. And you three remember that when you give these privelidges to our governemnt, and then want to argue gun laws, you are not only appearing to talk out both sides of your neck, but law by law, day by day, YOU create the monster that is swallowing up all similance of civil rights... In closing......"the tranquility of servitude" "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/adam_a29.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 6:38:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: I'm sorry, but I dont want the government protecting me, MY Creator gave me the ability to do that for myself. And you three remember that when you give these privelidges to our governemnt, and then want to argue gun laws, you are not only appearing to talk out both sides of your neck, but law by law, day by day, YOU create the monster that is swallowing up all similance of civil rights... I think you might be misunderstanding me (or something here) [b]CavVet[/b] I don't want the Gov't to protect me from stupid ME, I want it to protect me from stupid DRUNKS. Driving is not a "right". Owning guns is. Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution. Owning guns is. Gov't-imposed regulations, whether they be speed limits, blood-alcohol limits, hunting regulations or alcohol regulations, are NOT created to protect you from YOU. They are to protect OTHER PEOPLE from you. And neither speeding nor DUI nor hunting nor alcohol consumption is a Constitutionally-protected "right". Owning guns is. Do you see the difference I'm trying to illustrate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 6:46:34 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the three muskateers.... The_Macallan,USP40C and most of all Waverunner. With a duty to protect and defend the Constitution. The paper that tells us implicitly that our rights are inferred by our Creator. For you to say 'If you're innocent, it's a pain in the ass because you're caught up in some minor traffic and of course, you'll feel the police are Jack Booted Stormtroopers, but you'd be surprised how many people in NYC are stupid enough...' I dont care if they are stupid enough to commit hairy carry...Stupidity is not illegal, I would say stupidity is Constitutionally protected. I'm sorry, but I dont want the government protecting me, MY Creator gave me the ability to do that for myself. And you three remember that when you give these privelidges to our governemnt, and then want to argue gun laws, you are not only appearing to talk out both sides of your neck, but law by law, day by day, YOU create the monster that is swallowing up all similance of civil rights... In closing......"the tranquility of servitude" "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/adam_a29.htm I quite disagree. The right to drive drunk is not constitutionally protected. It absolutely does pose a menace to society and is a purposeless activity. If the people who choose to go out drinking would be responsible in their decisions, then there would not be a need for legislation against the activity. There is no way to be safe while doing this. There are no safety commandments for drunk driving except not to do it. This is in no way similar to the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. There are safe ways to participate in this activity, and if anything it serves to make the world in which we live a safer place indeed. Not everything which people choose to participate is a right, and any right which is abused to the point of endangering the people around you should be revoked. The safe handling/carrying of firearms is not a clear danger to others. The operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a very real danger those on the road, or walking too close to it. If a person chooses to commit armed robbery using a firearm, do you think that when they get out of prison we should hand them another gun and say please don't do that again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 7:16:41 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: I quite disagree. The right to drive drunk is not constitutionally protected. BINGO! I completely agree USP40C! The Constitution does not protect the right to drive drunk. It DOES protect your right to go about your lawful business without being detained by government agents. That is my issue here. DWI and it's effects are bad, but allowing gestapo "papers please" detentions of otherwise law abiding citizens is worse. Far worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 7:32:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution. What? Where does it say in the Constitution that it isn't? What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is unclear? The_Macallan, your biases are showing.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 8:07:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Man, we haven't done a sobiety checkpoint in awhile...Thanks for reminding me! Actually, in my experience, most checkpoints are done in areas with lots of bars/clubs and there has been a pattern of DWI-related accidents or "incidents". If you're innocent, it's a pain in the ass because you're caught up in some minor traffic and of course, you'll feel the police are Jack Booted Stormtroopers, but you'd be surprised how many people in NYC are stupid enough to drive when they're drunk, drive without a license, drive with a warrant out for your arrest, or even drive a stolen vehicle(Yes, it has happened!)! I personally love to park right in front of the local bars right around closing time(4AM), I have no problem telling someone heading for their car that is obviously drunk that I will flag down a cab for them and that they can get their car in the morning. It's a lot better than arresting them(unless you really wanted to) for DWI and there is no paperwork involved. Of course, it would be unrealistic for ALL cops to do this. It's just something I do + drunk chicks dig cops! Damn Ray, you're a funny bastard! Next time, give me a call when the bars are closing! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 8:09:24 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Police: Where have you been? Me: I just left your wife. Police: Where are you going? Me: Going to see your mother/sister. That usually puts an end to the questions. Of course I never do this if I've even had one drink!!! >gg< Ask my brother to do it, he's crazy enough and has the military ID to get away with it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 8:43:10 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: They are asking the question for no other reason than to get you to talk, they can then evaluate your speech and they can smell whether you have been drinking. They should think about asking a different series of questions. What they ask only infuriates me, and leads to worse shit. If they'd ask "how are you this evening" or "how do you like the car/truck" or something a little less Orwellian..... How about, "have you been drinking" hows that for a shocker.... Just thinking out loud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 9:00:45 AM EDT
[#45]
We have had them here.. if you do whip a U- turn they will chase your ass. I once went with my girlfried and picked up two nice and expensive steak dinners to go from the local steakhouse. Of course beeing under 25 I got pulled over at the check point. They made me do the turn signal and brake lights test.And the barrage of questons.. The whole time my steaks where getting cold.. WTF?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 9:10:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: We publish and broadcast the location of the checkpoint for days ahead of time. Then the checkpoint is set up with obvious alternate routes around it if you choose not to drive through it. After all that, anyone that still [b]chooses[/b] to drive through that one section of roadway, at that point in time, is either drunk or really stupid. We catch alot more unlicensed drivers and drivers driving on suspended license than drunks with the voluntary check points. I think depending upon the state, city or jurisdiction, that is not always the case. I would contend that these "safety checkpoints" are a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. The counter-argument "well if you've got nothing to hide or haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" doesn't hold water. If that's the case, why not allow random inspections/searches of homes? Rights are rarely taken away in one fell swoop. They are eroded away, oftimes over generations. Just take a look at what has been done to the second amendment since 1934. My $.02 worth |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 9:16:24 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution. What? Where does it say in the Constitution that it isn't? It doesn't. The US Constitution is SILENT regarding alcohol consumption, buying cigarettes, getting tattoos, getting married, gambling, driving cars, hunting, etc. That's why these are NOT Constitutionally-protected activities and, therefore, they ARE delegated to the States power to regulate. Quoted: What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is unclear? The_Macallan, your biases are showing.z I do understand the 10th Amendment. "The powers [u]not[/u] delegated to the United States by the Constitution, [i]{that includes regulating alcohol consumption}[/i] nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively [i]{that includes regulating alcohol consumption}[/i], or to the people." What part do you not understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 7:00:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: I don't want the Gov't to protect me from stupid ME, I want it to protect me from stupid DRUNKS. As much as I hate to say this, [b][red]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/red][/b]" My main man big daddy Ben Franklin. If you want to surrender your rights, there are places without rights, where the govt will protect you... Driving is not a "right". While debateable, I wil pass here.... Owning guns is. Temporary issue, the feinswine crew is coming to make you safer from "stupid gun owners" SOON... Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution. Not true, try the 18th & 21st ammendment to the Constitution.. Gov't-imposed regulations, whether they be speed limits, blood-alcohol limits, hunting regulations or alcohol regulations, are NOT created to protect you from YOU. They are to protect OTHER PEOPLE from you. I propose legislation to shrink bubble wrap everyone for their personal safety from ME...That is the SAME exact argument the antis use, and it doesnt sound any more convioncing coming from you komrade... And neither speeding nor DUI nor hunting nor alcohol consumption is a Constitutionally-protected "right". In the legislated world you prefer, where our safety is insured by the govt, neither is life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness protected. Do you see the difference I'm trying to illustrate? I also think you need to revisit the 10th ammendment. I am sorry, but there are FEW powers I delegate to the government. At all times I assume I am a freeman, and until I am forced, at gunpoint, to be otherwise, I shall continue to carry myself as a freeman. I dont rely on my government to make me secure inmy safety. period... Again.... "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. [url]http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/adam_a29.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 7:47:02 PM EDT
[#49]
It absolutely does pose a menace to society and is a purposeless activity. Sounds like soccer-mom reasoning. "I don't understand why someone would want to own one of those icky assault weapons. They absolutely pose a menace to society and are a purposeless activity." Look, I don't drink and never have, but the above is the most ridiculous argument I think I've heard for arresting and punishing people that might at some time in the future commit a crime. Saying someone might be more a little more likely to cause harm to someone else because they meet some arbitrary guideline is ridiculous. Using that argument, so does owning a gun. I'm much more likely to hurt someone, because I'm damn sure going to use it to defend myself and others. Using your logic, I should be put in prison simply because I'm more likely to harm someone else.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2002 7:47:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: As much as I hate to say this, [b][red]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/red][/b]" My main man big daddy Ben Franklin. If you want to surrender your rights, there are places without rights, where the govt will protect you... I am sorry, but there are FEW powers I delegate to the government. At all times I assume I am a freeman, and until I am forced, at gunpoint, to be otherwise, I shall continue to carry myself as a freeman. [red]I dont rely on my government to make me secure in my safety. period...[/red] You don't want the Gov't to protect you? Okay. Don't ever call the police if you've been in a car accident. They aren't your mommy. File your own "police report" with your insurance company. Don't ever call the police if you wake up and find your car was stolen. They aren't your daddy. Find it yourself. Don't ever call the fire department when your house is on in fire. They aren't your nanny. Put it out yourself. Drive whatever speed you want, in any lane you want, wherever you want and don't stop for traffic cops. They're the just out to steal your "liberty" anyway. Don't ever carry a driver's license. That's just more slavery-documentation. Don't pay any taxes you think are unfair. You're a big boy. You can go it alone. ...or go ahead and do those things and say hi to that hypocrite in the mirror tomorrow morning while your sipping your hot cup of shut-the-f@ck-up. Buying/consuming alcohol is not protected by the Constitution. Not true, try the 18th & 21st ammendment to the Constitution.. Again, the 21st did not guarantee you a "right" to drink. It just removed the Constitutional prohibition. States can still regulate alcohol as they see fit (drinking age, zoning laws, blood-alcohol limits, etc) - - - continued - - - |
|
|
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.
