General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you want new restrictions on DUI levels, you need the cooperation of alcoholics.
Wait, no you don't. You pass the law lowering the allowable level to .04 or whatever, and then enforce it. Alcoholics either comply or are penalized accordingly.
(re: this bs)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I agree with you, but not everyone with a .04 is an alcoholic. Not everyone that gets a DUI is an alcoholic, either.
Other than that, you're spot on. We don't ask thieves if the alarms are too loud.
johnp3907
(3,732 posts)Gotta steal it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just like you need the help of responsible gun owners. Or is every gun owner the moral equivalent of a drunk driver?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)such that they think it unfair and capricious. There would be tremendous political blow back to stop the passage of such laws. Now you can make the political calculation that you can safely ignore them, but if you get it wrong then you will pay a price.
Sound familiar?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)get a ride or assign a designated driver, or stay put. I've done this so I don't see why anyone else believe their luxury to drive or be regulated with guns is more important than public safety. You cannot give back a life with apologies, excuses or rationalizations made after doing the deed. The task is to prevent criminal acts.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we have to treat all drivers as potential drunk drivers. Correct?
It is possible, in the name of stopping drunk drivers, to propose laws so strict that even sober drivers will say no. Restricting access to alcohol, high taxes to deter alcohol consumption, limiting the amount of alcohol you can consume at any given time, alcohol sensors on all cars.. All of these will prevent criminal acts. The public will never allow them to be put in to effect.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I hold positions on gun control that the NRA opposes. I support universal background check's, limits on magazine sizes plus all of the president's EOs.
I understand many here are upset about what happened yesterday. Pissing on potential allies is not going to make things better.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)scoring cheap points on the internet is a poor substitute for actually passing laws but the choice is yours.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)this place would be boring if we all agreed. That is the beauty of a big tent.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The only ones who have anything to fear are the ones who are breaking the law. And those who proven to be repeat drunk drivers have alcohol sensors installed before their vehicle will start.
I'm not afraid of being pulled over in those events, since I don't hold the irresponsible view that it's my god-given right to drink and drive. None of the gun restrictions argued in the Senate were so draconian as you are trying to paint drunk driving laws, which are not.
They're not a hindrance, except to a person who maintains their right to commit crimes as they please. The NRA even fought restricting sex offenders and those with domestic assault convictions being denied the right to legally own a weapon.
And there is no other purpose for guns but to shoot someone, butmany socially beneficial aspects to driving a vehicle. The analogy fails, and it always will fail. You are falling into the crowd of 'I demand my gun freedom, just because' crowd. It's bad company to keep.
hack89
(39,171 posts)neither have my wife and kids - are our guns defective?
99.99% of legal gun owners will never shot someone - that is excellent company to keep. You want to lump all gun owners in with violent criminals. Sorry - we refuse to go into that particular box.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Don't bother replying, for goodness sakes.
hack89
(39,171 posts)99.99% of gun owners will never shoot some one. Do the math. Then stop smearing us all as callus potential murders.
I will reply to your posts. You can always ignore me.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)at the moment I see no reason to change.
btw - 10 rounds rapid fire at 300 yards is a hell of a challenge. Shooting at 600 yards over iron sights is not easy either.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)cars are not equipped with a breathalyzer so that you must blow before starting the car?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I don't have a problem with licensing, and harsh sentencing if you commit a crime and are a gun owner.
You have very harsh sentencing when caught intoxicated and operating a vehicle - and the reason is because it can kill or maim people.
Feel free to deem my home, my person and my attitude as one that is a "gun-free zone", LOL. Hot lead isn't solely in the hands of criminals, those that pander for the NRA or self-described "patriots".
hack89
(39,171 posts)but society decides where that line is drawn. Gun owners have a say in the matter. If you think you can draw that line to your liking then more power to you. So far that doesn't appear to be the case.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Much worse if they promote guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if you decide you can safely ignore them then don't come whining when it blows up in your face.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)what is plan B?
That is where the country is right now - what is plan B? Obviously the President misjudged the power of the NRA. What do you recommend he do now?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)
lethal weapons in a back alleys, and more murderers will get guns - the price we pay to keep those steeped in guns happy and viscerally satisfied.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Way to send that shit-tier analogy down in flames...
Squished a shakey copy cat OP.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)the better off you will be.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)that alter judgement.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)you just might be an addict.
In both cases.
You can never have enough of something that you don't really need.
KT2000
(20,587 posts)Good response to the ridiculous post from yesterday!
Paladin
(28,272 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)comparing all gun owners to alcoholics is patently absurd.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)My knee jerk response is to regulate, like most Democrats in the face of dangerous things. Like defective products, WMD, pollution and corruption. The 'common sense' solutions of the Shrub did not work in any of those, just let the demons run amuck. I'm agin' that.
Robb
(39,665 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Who you have to worry about winning is drunks, we are in far greater numbers and don't attend meetings so are much harder to organize and what not.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)If you use it you owe me a dollar.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)a fucking idiot
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Enough said.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I understand that 100% safe behavior is unlikely to be achieved
and 100% compliance with restrictions is unlikely to be achieved.
And I understand that restrictions created by elected government become basic parameters used in education, management, and policing of safe behavior.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)It is sober people who change the DUI laws and it is some people who are adverse to guns who wish to take away our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Designated driver programs have significant buy in. And they work. Bars have also been a huge part of DUIB reduction.