I'm sorry, but...

09/18/2007 | Philistone

[Philistone]

I'm sorry that your child was killed by a drunk driver, but that doesn't give you the right to pull my car over at random and search me or it.

I'm sorry that your father died of lung cancer at the age of 60, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't smoke in my own house or car.

I'm sorry that your best friend died of a heart-attack after eating nothing but Big Macs all his life, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't eat fats if I want to.

I'm sorry that you were raised to be squeamish at the sight of blood, but that does not give you the right to force me to eat only vegetables or wear only plant fibers.

I'm sorry that you can't afford health insurance, but that does not give you the right to force me to provide it for you.

I'm sorry that over 150 years ago people with the same color skin as me enslaved people with the same color skin as you, but that doesn't give you the right take the hard-earned efforts of my labor for yourself.

I'm sorry that your homeland is corrupt and your culture has no work ethic, but that doesn't give you the right to come here illegally and burden our schools and emergency rooms with your presence.

I'm sorry that your parents chose to come here illegally, but that doesn't give you the right to force me to fund your college education.

I'm sorry that you find it fashionable to ride your bike to work, but that doesn't give you the right to take away my car.

I'm sorry that your lack of intelligence and attention through high school and college left you fit only for a job as a public school teacher, but that doesn't give you the right to inflict your anger and ideology on my child.

I'm sorry that you are mentally and physically unfit to serve in our nation's Armed Forces, but that does not give you the right to disparage those who are fit and do serve.

I'm sorry that your parents and teachers continually told you that you are unique and special, but you are not.

I'm sorry that the jocks stuffed you in your locker in high school, but that doesn't give you the right to equate my President with Hitler.

I'm sorry that you failed Trigonometry, but that doesn't give you the right to equate Sociology with Engineering

I'm sorry that you are not as attractive as other women, but that does not give you the right to impose your feminist idiocracy on me, my company or my family.

I'm sorry that your nervous system is so exquisitely sensitive that you can be hurt by minute variations in air pressure caused by sound waves, but that doesn't give you the right to determine what I can and can not say.

I'm sorry that your enormous ego coupled with a complete lack of self-esteem, lack of any sense of self-worth and ignorance about how the real world works has led you to becoming a Liberal, but... Well, no buts. I'm not really sorry.

Remember: Anyone who tells you "it's for the children" believes that YOU are a child.

[bfree]

I really don’t care about the feelings of a super sensitive nanny stater. I’ll freely use the term gestapo to describe anything I wish. But of course, you seem to be against freedoms that don’t suit you. Too bad. Keep posting though. It is always nice to see what a nanny stater thinks and wishes to impose on the millions of freedom loving Americans.
You are the type no one has a use for.

[Badeye]

‘You have a right to travel.’

Yep, but not to drive.

[Badeye]

Yes, I know its Draconian. Then again, I held my friends six month old daughter while we buried him...

Emotionalism is a poor basis for public policy.

It’s also the basis for the nanny state.

Lack of emotion is far more frightening that ‘emotionalism’. Primarily because its the hallmark of sociopaths.

Ironic, the use of ‘nanny’ in this context....a nanny is a poor replacement for a dead father, wouldn’t you agree?

And he’s dead because somebody got drunk, and drove - into his living room.

Damn right its ‘emotional’.

[Smokin' Joe]

Sorry about your friend.

However, if I called for restrictions and searches on everything to which I had lost a friend or relative, the list would include:

Automobiles Driven by stupid, inattentive, distracted, and drunk people.

Cold weather (two froze to death).

Water.

motorcycles

fatty foods/salt/anything which clogs arteries

Any carcinogen

Gravity

Rocks

Snowboards

Bicycles

Horses

food

prescription drugs/doctors

bees

fire

a wide variety of germs

knives and other sharp objects

firearms

oil rigs

electricity

and a host of other things.

As you get older, and the friends' daughters you hold at funerals are mature women crying on your shoulder, you will note that life is indeed as fragile and precious as it is dangerous.

However sacrificing the living of life to protect existance is a pyrrhic victory at best.

I guess the difference is that we all used to accept the risks, and take it upon ourselves to mitigate them the best we could, rather than expect to be 'protected' from them.

You have been personally touched by your grief, not just for yourself, but for the little girl you held that day.

Good (that you were touched, not that it happened).

You are human.

You feel.

Now think. Come to grips with your grief.

Just as sacrificing the ability to drive legally without a seat belt has not stopped people from dying on the highway, sacrificing the ability to travel without being stopped just because you are driving down the road will not stop the drunks from getting around the roadblocks, taking other roads, and tearing through a residential neighborhood rather than taking the main drag--where they just might run over someone.

The 'cure' will not work. All that is effective is the erosion of rights to be free of unreasonable search and siezure--and if there is no probable cause, there is no reason. The loss of rights is not justified.

[Badeye]

‘Those ‘spot checks’ NEVER get drunk drivers, ‘

Thats a false statement.

[Badeye]

‘I’m through arguing about it with Badeye,’

No real loss realized on my end.

’ because he, like the other anti-drunk driver on FR-that calls himself QUIX-he’s incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion on it, but instead immediately turns to wiseass comments and insults.’

Several dozen posts previous debunk this claim.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if it WAS Quix operating under an alias, their styles are so similar.”

Riiiight, we travel together in black helicopters....(chuckle) Its all a ‘conspiracy’.

” NO ONE here is ‘pro drunk driving’, and that’s an idiotic comment intended to stifle differences of opinion.”

None of these ‘constitutional scholars’ has offered up one serious idea of how to lower the rate of fatalities related to drunk driving. My assertion is based on this...reread the entire thread. All I’m getting is excuses for not attempting to put an end to a practice that kills indiscriminately thousands each year.

Its pretty apparent the posters on this thread citing with fine accuracy various court opinions in opposition to DUI checkpoints are highly intelligent, and well informed.

Why haven’t we seen one of these posters offer up an idea related to stopping drunk drivers?

Thats the motivation behind my noting it appears to be a defense of drunk driving taking place here.

Any one of us could be killed by one of these idiots today driving home from work, or from grocery shopping after work. We all know this, we will all see in our local newscasts at some point this week a drunk in our ‘neighborhood’ killing another American on the roads.

I’d like to see what our ‘Constitutional Scholars’ think should be done, legally, in place of DUI Checkpoints.

Just ending it, without a viable alternative, is insane given the number of dead, injured, and the costs overall that result.

Whats your idea on this?

[Badeye]

‘Come to grips with your grief. ‘

That occured over two decades ago. I’m not ‘grieving’ I’m ‘angry’.

See my previous post. Whats your idea on how to handle this, in lieu of DUI Checkpoints?

[Badeye]

‘I’ll freely use the term gestapo to describe anything I wish.’

Your choice. Anyone that knows what the Gestapo did understands its a juvenile use of the term. No problem, you can own that if you wish.

After all, its a free country, right?

[zeugma]

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.

I'm glad you came right out and said this. It explains much about your attitude. I know others as well who believe if it isn't enumerated in the first eight amendments to the Constitution, it isn't a right. I mention the first eight, rather than the first ten because it is obvious that these don't seem to mean much to you (or many others for  that matter).
 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

[Badeye]

The courts disagree. We’ve spent 24 hours on that.

What would you do in place of the DUI Checkpoints?

[Philistone]

I’d like to see what our ‘Constitutional Scholars’ think should be done, legally, in place of DUI Checkpoints.

You've read this thread thoroughly, so I don't want take to time to enumerate all of the examples by post number, but here is a short synopsis of the effectiveness of DUI Checkpoints: Virginia: 682 stops, 1 DUI arrest Fresno: 500 stops, 1 DUI arrest Nationwide: Total number of fatalities ROSE when DUI Checkpoints were put in place - Slight decrease (though statistically meaningless) of "alcohol related" fatalities. More facts from NHTSA: 76% of fatalities caused by sober drivers 80% of fatalities caused by people who are either sober or who are under the current legal BAC limit of .08% We don't know how many fatalities are caused by drivers who are on drugs because they are lumped into "alcohol related", but good estimates put it at at least 10%. 50% of all "alcohol related" fatalities occur on badly maintained rural roads at night, yet 80% of the population lives and almost 100% of the checkpoints occur in urban areas. You want a solution? Use the solution that my city uses: stick cop cars outside of the worst offending bars, have the cops watch people who stagger out, get in their cars and start driving. Check for weaving and pull them over and arrest them. No one is arguing that you have the right to get plastered and then take the wheel, we are arguing that you have the right to have a few drinks after work with your buddies without the fear of getting tossed in the slammer.

[qam1]

* I’m sorry as a woman you lack the upper body strength to be an effective firefighter, prision guard, bailiff, police officer, etc. but you have no right to demand they lower the physical requirements so you can make the cut thus putting my and others lives in danger.

[Badeye]

‘I’d like to see what our ‘Constitutional Scholars’ think should be done, legally, in place of DUI Checkpoints.’

I appreciate the data you posted to me.

Now, about the question....whats your solution?

[Philistone]

Sorry, forgot to format. It’s in the last three lines.

[William Terrell]

Well, as I said in my prior post, yes, you have a right to travel in a motor vehicle you drive. It is a right that can be regulated.

The difference is that a privilege granted can be withdrawn with or without cause, whereas a right can only be withdrawn or limited with cause, after due process.

You appear to have swallowed statements by public officials whole. This is not a good practice to follow. According to USSC, under our system of personal liberty, public officials are under no requirement to give you accurate information, where they may not do so my mistake or design.

It is up to you as a sovereign individual to catch them in an inaccuracy like it is your responsibility to keep your elected officials straight.

Perhaps one of the paths on the downhill direction we seem to be heading is tendency of people to just eat up what officials say without checking their references.

I, personally, have caught officials making misstatements a lot of times. They say I must do a thing or not do a thing, or do a thing precisely this way. When I ask to see the statute giving them that authority or requires my performance, I never hear from them again.

It up to you to protect your own ass. Note even the police are required to protect you, another USSC ruling.

Think for yourself. Don't just regurgitate what you have been fed.

[Badeye]

I understand the argument.

What I want to know is how all those raising hell with me on this thread based on constitutional theory would address the problem in lieu of DUI checkpoints.

[Badeye]

‘Think for yourself. Don’t just regurgitate what you have been fed.’

I always do. My observations on this thread are based on my personal experiences.

So, whats your solution for Drunk Driving?

[Philistone]

According to USSC, under our system of personal liberty, public officials are under no requirement to give you accurate information, where they may not do so my mistake or design.

Yup. Just ask the IRS: the fact that an IRS agent told you something was allowable is NOT a defense in court if it turns out to be false.

[Smokin' Joe]

Let me put it this way. First, it is against the law, and there are penalties for those who are caught. Are the penalties stiff enough? Apparently only some are deterred. Others will not be, and they are not going to quit drinking either.

That is reality. Checkpoint or not, they will still do what they do.

As for checkpoints, no. It makes as much sense to go through the whole rigamarole of collecting nail clippers or strip searching some norwegian granny in a wheelchair before she gets on the plane to keep us 'safe' from terrorists. All it is is window dressing so the usual suspects can't whine about being singled out--if they even are.

For that, the rest of us pay in time, aggravation and the gross invasion of our privacy.

If, for whatever convenience, we permit our rights to be taken from us, we all lose. If someone is driving well enough that they are not exhibiting the usual signs of being intoxicated, are they a traffic hazard? are they a problem?

Stopping everyone who is on the road to filter out the person who may be .01 over the already reduced limits but driving reasonably well is just a revenue raising venture, not a safety campaign.

There ar eplenty of drivers out there who can't drive worth squat without a drink, and they'd get through the checkpoint.

So safety, from a traffic enforcement perspective means that you have personnel monitoring and watching for unsafe operators (whatever the reason), not crowded around one spot in the road while the manaics and drunks take a different route. Then people can be pulled over for probable cause, and if reason is noted, subjected to reasonable searches (Reasonable, as in 'reasonable doubt', means there is a reason which can be articulated or explained). Then the un reasonable detention can quit, and chances are, that although the 'revenue enhancement' aspect might not be as good, more police in more places as opposed to concentrated in one or two means a better chance of catching the real problem drivers at large.

[Badeye]

Isn’t that what we tried before DUI Checkpoints?

Pretty sure that was the ‘norm’.