Apparently not. A Liberteen pal of yours, AdamSelene235, said,"But as long as loons don't harm anyone or threaten anyone, I think they should be left alone."
Isn't a drunk driver a threat? And isn't the one getting him or seeing him becoming drunk more responsible than the drunk driver?
The problem is that a drunk person is by definition incapable of making appropriate decisions about his behavior.
Perhaps the silliest thing about the whole "drunk driving" idea is the theory that someone will drive somewhere, get blasted and then be clearheaded enought to decide whether he should drive home.
Personally, if I plan to drink, I take a cab to the bar or party. Then I have no choice but to take one home or catch a ride.
How is having a .26 alcohol level NOT a threat? Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue what libertarian thought is about, since there is logic involved.
Well, as you know, we've all taken an oath to agree with each other on every single detail of every conceivable issue.
Frankly, I think this guy should be prosecuted. He knowingly went out of his way to provide a drunk with a car.
These fine shades of grey are why we have a juries.
The original comment was regarding a veterans right to bear arms. I have no reason to believe the veteran in question is dangerous, just very outspoken.
No they are not.
Still I think this guy should be prosecuted for stupidity above and beyond the call of idiocy.
I think its called "reckless endangerment".