Posted on 09/18/2007 9:39:52 AM PDT by Philistone
I am suggesting that the officers drive in traffic, and not simply park and watch. Parking and watching would be even less effective than the checkpoints.
I understood what you were saying. I’m not going to nit pick you on this.
“Being licensed to drive (and having your vehicle registered to operate) on the public roads is a different matter, though it pains me greatly to say it.”
Thank you for saying that in better format than I had.
Liberal rulings over the last century have much to do with what goes on these days...eminent domain be !&!&!&
‘I am suggesting that the officers drive in traffic, and not simply park and watch. Parking and watching would be even less effective than the checkpoints.’
Thats what they did for decades, and the number of dead and injured continued to rise. It simply isn’t effective, the historical record proves it conclusively.
As for me, give me liberty. Why else would the rest of it matter?
Be real. I'm in my mid-sixties, I've seen death from almost every cause you can name and consoled loved ones in their time of trouble. That has never lead me to believe that laws should be passed in the heat of the moment, nor lead me to believe that if we just violate the Constitution "a little" we'll have a better society.
I too, prefer the animating contest of freedom.
Do you have stats? Neither do I. Come to think of it, I doubt they kept stats on such things.
Common sense was often applied in the old days. If it was obvious you were being reckless, you might indeed be caught by The Law. I don’t know that “speed limits” existed, although maybe they did in certain towns/cities and certain subsections. Otherwise, “reckless endangerment” is a more general rule than “violating speed” or other specific rules.
You’re right cars and horses are sort of different - but overall, they’re probably the same end result. Handling a 2000-lb animal who has a mind of his OWN (never mind several of them together) is just about as dangerous as an inanimate object going 65 mph.
At least you can turn off the car; you’d have to literally cut loose a horse. The horse might do what he damn well wants, especially if scared, with you dragged along behind him. And that might include stupid things like running into a ravine, just like the mindless car, or in front of an “iron horse”.
In fact, this was a major selling point of early “horseless carriages” - they wouldn’t just “run off”. Yup, safety in driving was part of the attraction.
That’s an absurd conclusion, either of my intentions, or of what would happen if everyone wasn’t molested.
As someone else pointed out, do like most police have to do - observe strange behavior and check it out. Better yet, people these days can call in suspicious cars (including me - although none of which I’d suspect were “drunk” - just a$$holes) which police can go to check out.
That’s it. And that’s all it should be.
The latest information I have become aware of is that drunk driving deaths are going up again. And this is despite all the Government actions. I think the checkpoints are on balance ineffective and should be abandoned.
To those of us affected by this nonsense, it means a great deal.
Be real.
I’m as ‘real’ as it gets in a internet forum.
“...that doesn’t give you the right to come here illegally and burden our schools and emergency rooms with your presence.”
FYI, illegals are not registered for public school. They have to have immunization records, which require doctor’s statements and birth certificates. This is why their wetback mothers hasten to arrive here before they domino.
‘You’re right cars and horses are sort of different - but overall, they’re probably the same end result. Handling a 2000-lb animal who has a mind of his OWN (never mind several of them together) is just about as dangerous as an inanimate object going 65 mph.’
We have four dead teenagers here in my location, and it wasn’t due to horses. It was due to a kid driving drunk. Sorry, no chance you’ll convince me there is a valid comparision.
Reminds me of the joke about Amish drive by shootings....(chuckle)
‘Clop clop, BANG!, Clop clop BANG!’
LOL!
Yes we have. And as people have pointed out, see Amend 9 and 10.
Frankly, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that either owning a car or driving it in public isn’t a right.
But the 4th Amend is what is the main issue here.
And saying that a bunch of liberal robes “say” it’s “constitutional” doesn’t make it so. They’re wrong. Random is very wrong - and I would say it’s obvious that making everyone do it is also wrong. Neither implies “probable cause”.
BTW, what about all the idiots and !$#!$@# on the road, who never drink? Shall we check for them, too? How so? Believe it or not, not all accidents are caused or even involve drunks. There are plenty of just plain idiotic jerks who are causing accidents.
If you’re going to try to eliminate 1 part that’s killing, why not other parts of the driving population who are killing?
That’s another point I meant to bring out. Most of the deaths in traffic are NOT caused by drunk drivers!
‘That’s it. And that’s all it should be.’
The number of dead and injured per year says other methods are required, especially given the total population keeps increasing. The more people, the more drunk drivers, in short.
I understand the theory being expoused by you and other posters on this topic. the problem is I’ve seen the end results of doing ‘nothing’ more than what you detail.
That it didn’t work previously went unremarked upon for decades since Mr Ford made financially viable automobiles for the masses. Finally, in the 1980’s, it was brought to the forefront, courtesy of MAD and other like minded groups.
I suppose in the end, I don’t see the Constitution as a ‘suicide pact’, to be strictly adhered to no matter what the specific situation is. Others do. They’d rather die or bury their kid and say ‘Hey, I support the Constitution, in spite of the dead kid, or child!’
I’m not one of those types....and its funny, you never hear a peep out of em graveside in my experience.
You hear the exact opposite.
Oh, of course, today’s things are “more this, that, and the other” than the old days. Everything was safer in the old days.
You probably think only “speed” has anything to do with danger, as the gubmint has tried to convince us (outside drinking, of course).
Nonsense.
Horses are erratic, and at good canter they go 25 mph, even with carriages trailing behind. They also weigh as much as a light car, so if they fall on you - forget it. Never mind trampling, and carriage-trampling, and carriages falling apart, etc. And of course running into treed areas and losing your head, etc.
Oh, never mind the reason speed limits were universally implemented in the ‘70s was not to “save lives”, but to save gas.
‘Frankly, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that either owning a car or driving it in public isn’t a right.’
Its my understanding our rights are clearly spelled out, in quite a bit of detail come to think of it.
Driving isn’t one of them.
Good j0rb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.