There is nothing emotional about my statement. We are given a divers license and when it is given, we are expected to follow the rules that maximize the safety of all drivers. You know, stop at red lights, speed limits, not driving impaired, etc. These rules and others are currently in place. Our Constitution does not afford those that do not like the rules to simply disobey them. Also, it is well documented that alcohol and drugs impair ones ability. "You" getting drunk and being on the road may also infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. Not a tough choice for me and nothing emotional about it. I like my life and I especially like the life of my kids. No one needs to drink and drive. Everyone is free to get $hit-faced anytime they want, just don't drive. This thread isn't about driving while drunk. This article is about infringement of our freedoms with checkpoints, checkpoints that are unconstitutional despite the ruling of the frickin' courts. Being against check points doesn't mean a person is for driving drunk. It means the person is believes in liberty first and foremost.
Oh, and BTW, not only is your other statement emotional this one positively drips with emotion.
Take your argument that the checkpoints are unconstitutional to the Supreme Court. I am sure you will have lots of supports. Checkpoints are a direct result of drunk drivers. By default (think transitive property of equality), we are or should be talking about drunk driving.
The emotion only entered the discussion when those that would scream at the top of their lungs defending their position, resorted to emotion to degrade me and my position.
Feel free to be opposed to checkpoints, and I will continue to oppose drunk drivers and will defend measures to get the drunks off the road. Drunks gone = checkpoints gone. Simple. And should any FR be stupid and selfish enough to drive drunk, may they get their @$$ nailed at the nearest checkpoint.