Posted on 07/05/2013 3:32:51 PM PDT by DariusBane
Yep. It's one of the main reasons I dumped Laura Ingraham, and reject out of hand Mike Huckabee: both are in favor of laws to outlaw smoking pretty much anywhere in public because, gosh darn it, they just hate it so much!
Yet, both of them will complain when the tools used to ban smoking on privately owned propwerty are used to force their churches to marry homosexuals. They will both be incapable of connecting the dots, as will many a FReeper...
Maybe.
Better than being offended by facts.
No. Everyone is not a potential threat — unless they are the hoodlums displaced by Katrina. Cops need to use their brains and eyes instead of their jackboots.
I understand what you’re saying but they’re dealing with animals. Everyone has to be treated as a potential threat.
You are defending a person’s right to drive drunk? I am a Libertarian but even I find that ridiculous.
Define “drunk”, please.
Sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle still smoking with dead children laying in the street. If you were ever an EMT you would know it if you saw it. It is seared into your brain forever.
Yup. That would be "reckless driving" on somebody's part, more than likely.
We don't need this whole subset of DWI laws.
You asked me to define “drunk” and I did. You did not like my definition so you again changed the subject. Do you now want me to define “reckless driving”?
I don’t see where you ever defined “drunk”.
Drunk is as drunk does.
So, you are just an outright prohibitionist. You don't care to define what "drunk" is.
That's fine. We're done.
Bye
It then went to .12%, .10%, then .08% and is now headed for .05%.
At some point, blood alcohol content came to be interpolated from breath alcohol content, which unfortunately uses the same partition rate for every human as a faulty premise.
At some point "driving while intoxicated" became "driving while impaired", resulting in people getting thrown into the DWI grinder and criminal justice system with a 0.00% blood and breath alcohol concentration.
The definition of "impaired" then became something called in most state statutes "impaired to the slightest degree" by the LEO harassing people on the side of the road.
I'm still waiting for the first news story about a driver that is too short or fat or both to work the foot pedals or the steering wheel.
This is all hysteria designed to separate people from their transportation and assets.
How would you define the limit at which a responsible person can drive? That is, considering my rights also to not be killed by them.
The point at which they are reckless, at which time they should be stopped and charged with reckless driving.
So for you, no degree of intoxication is too extreme as long as the driver doesn’t kill anyone? So there can be no preventative measures, only reactive ones?
Yes. In order for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim.
If property or persons are damaged or destroyed or have things of value taken from them, that is a crime.
Everything else is a population control or revenue generation program enforced at gunpoint by government employees and is morally wrong.
So there can be no preventative measures, only reactive ones? Does that philosophy apply to National Security as well? (Not intended to change subject, only to point out the error in your logic).
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.