10th DWI=Life

[pcosmar]

Point out in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.

Were there drivers licenses and tags for horses and carriages?

That would be no.. The freedom to travel was established long before licensing scams began.

 

[sam1952]

all this talk kinda reminds me that you can get a DUI for riding a bike, horse, lawn mower, I guess anything... But you can"t get a DUI for walking drunk...... just arrested for that.

 

[Dr.3D]

So there is a right to be offended after all.

 

[euphemia]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

 

[phill4paul]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

This guy didn't kill anyone so your appeal to emotion is a fail.

 

[Theocrat]

You Should Know Better, My Brother

Point out in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.

Were there drivers licenses and tags for horses and carriages?

That would be no.. The freedom to travel was established long before licensing scams began.

Dr.3D, you of all people should know that we don't get our rights from "The Bill of Rights." "The Bill of Rights" exist to keep the federal government from encroaching upon our rights, which come from our Creator. Even The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Emphasis mine]

Your question about where the right to drive an automobile is found in "The Bill of Rights" sounds an awful like liberals who ask us to cite where in the Second Amendment can it be found the right to own an automatic weapon. Such anachronisms not only show the ignorance about the original intent of our documents, but it also exposes a serious deficit in one's political philosophy of liberty.

The right to travel (and the means to do it) is a God-given right. It does not belong to any civil government institution because such institutions do not own human bodies, nor have they created the natural world upon which humans can move and have their being. If anything, the civil authorities have the duty to protect our God-given right to travel by punishing those who use the means of travel to destroy life and/or damage property. But those civil authorities have no right to license traveling (by whatever means one chooses to do so) as a privilege because it is not theirs to bestow upon people.

 

[pcosmar]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

It happens. And it happens often for many reasons.
Alcohol statistically is a rare cause..less than 10% of fatalities. (closer to 5%)

Yes,,alcohol can make people stupid.

But stupid people are legal to drive everywhere.

 

[nobody's_hero]

NO,, That is a straw man argument repeatedly brought up in every DUI thread.

That straw horse needs no more beating.

Could you elaborate on how you see it as a 'strawman' argument? You might feel it is a dead horse but to others, it is a good point. Making a threatening gesture with a lethal weapon against innocents could easily apply to guns as well as 2,000lb vehicles driving down the entrance ramp in the opposite direction on the highway.

Most of us agree with the 'no harm, no foul' principle but not everyone reaches the same conclusion on what constitutes harm here. It sounds like technically, 'harassment' isn't a crime in libertarian utopia, and if so, what rational person would want to live there?

 

[tod evans]

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex?

Nope, the kid. Just like the drunk.

 

[euphemia]

It happens. And it happens often for many reasons.
Alcohol statistically is a rare cause..less than 10% of fatalities. (closer to 5%)

It's not a straw man, either. It was a mom, her teenage son, and her son's girlfriend. It was mom's birthday. Drunk ran a red light and crushed their car. He was too drunk to know he'd caused a wreck and killed three people. He was out in the street trying to figure out why his car stopped. He definitely violated the right to life of three people.

If driving is a right, it is one that carries more responsibility than almost any other right, because it is the one where the lives of others can be at stake if the right is misused. People who are determined to claim a broad spectrum of rights should be the most responsible people on earth. Other people have rights, too. I have the right to drive to work without some crackpot who woke up late, can't get off the phone, and demands I get out of his way. I have the right to go to the store without having to deal with a teenage couple who are a little too friendly while driving. If there is the right to drive, then it's not the right to drive plus something else. It's the right to drive. Drive the car. Be sober, and leave other people alone.

Maybe we could go down this path a bit. If someone takes away the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, maybe they should be brought up on federal civil rights charges.

 

[Theocrat]

"Eye For An Eye" Approach to Drunk-Driving Murders

Clearly some of you have never had friends or relatives injured or killed by a drunk driver with mulitple offenses. I hope you never have that experience. It's not fun when the perp is out in a couple of years and right back to his old tricks. Dude was under age, for starters, and so drunk he didn't know why his car stopped. He just killed three people and couldn't figure out he'd had a wreck.

Though I have never had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, I have immense sympathy for those who have suffered loss by such murders. The problem I saw immediately in your case above is that justice was not served by the court; the punishment did not fit the crime. The guy who killed those 3 innocent people should have received the death penalty for murder, not time in prison at the taxpayers' expense. He took lives irresponsibly, so therefore, his life should have been taken as restitution to the lives of his victims. If that had happened, then he would not have returned to his old, irresponsible habits, and also, it would (or could) serve as a deterrent to other would-be drunk drivers to be responsible with their behavior on the roads.

 

[euphemia]

Here's the problem with driving being a right. Everyone assumes because they have insurance, they are covered against stupidity. Unless the driver is willing to pay full compensatory damages to the victim of his negligence, then he should not plan to drive. I have yet to meet anyone who is willing to go beyond what their insurance company will pay, and some people actually hit and injure people and then take off. It happened to us. Not only was my car totalled, my daughter and I were both injured. Our insurance company was not all that generous, and the police did not seem to think finding the driver was a priority. We were hurt, but because we did not jump out of the car and read the tiny little number on the drive out dealer tag, they weren't going to help us. So we were the victims of someone else's negligence. We had our liberty curtailed due to the injuries and our property taken. We had to bear the full expense of that ourselves because someone claimed the right to drive.

 

[pcosmar]

Here's the problem with driving being a right. Everyone assumes because they have insurance,

Woah

Stop right there.

Insurance is one of the biggest problems. It allows stupid and poor drivers to be able to afford being stupid and incompetent.

It was not always the case.. My first car had no insurance. I was responsible..and I drove that way.

 

[Snowball]

This is too extreme.
There are many accidents that hurt people and have nothing to do with alcohol
(over 70% of fatal accidents) but the drivers almost never lose their license.
You can be "sober" and kill people but keep your license.
You can be high or otherwise impaired/distracted on many substances including prescription drugs
but nothing will happen if you are pulled over.
Driving after drinking will ruin your life even if you don't commit a traffic violation.
You can be driving perfectly and still pay a huge price.

 

[jonhowe]

WTF?

How is drunk driving any different than any other form of distracted driving?

Following your illogical analogy the new mother driving her sick child to the pediatrician's office should also be guilty of a crime and sentenced to some remedial program..

Try to disregard the publix-skool learnin' and see if maybe you can do better...

Drunkenness is not a distraction, it's intoxication. Not sure where you got this idea in your head that being drunk is a distraction. Drunk drivers are actually some of the most focused; they often drift over the yellow line precisely because they're concentrating so hard on it while driving.

I can walk a straight line when distracted. I can carry on a conversation, chew gum, listen to music, etc, and walk a straight line. Hell, I can even juggle and walk a straight line.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm hammered I can't walk a straight line, and I certainly can't drive with any measure of safety.

A distraction can be ignored, switched off, etc. Intoxication cannot.


Your analogy is flawed.


EDIT: I learned to juggle in public school.

 

[jonhowe]

Remove the word "drunk" from your statement and substitute any other distraction and see if you can justify your position on this matter.......

What if the kid were getting a blowjob and ran over 3 people would you blame oral sex?

Great, so we agree both things should be illegal? Drunk driving and oral sex driving?

 

[pcosmar]

Maybe we could go down this path a bit. If someone takes away the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, maybe they should be brought up on federal civil rights charges.

No need. There is already a crime of Murder.. and that is separated into categories. Intentional (1st degree)l, unintentional (2nd degree) accidental (Manslaughter)

The sadness at a loss is understandable. but the DUI laws make no sense.
would you call for the same draconian laws fi someone had blown a tire and hit the same car?
or the brakes failed on the car that ran the light.. rather than drunk. (Brake failure is more common)

Would you react the same?

 

[phill4paul]

I have the right to drive to work without some crackpot who woke up late, can't get off the phone, and demands I get out of his way.

You don't have that right, because it is not a right.

I have the right to go to the store without having to deal with a teenage couple who are a little too friendly while driving.

You don't have that right, because it is not a right.

If there is the right to drive, then it's not the right to drive plus something else. It's the right to drive. Drive the car. Be sober, and leave other people alone.

Liberals like to place restrictions on how others can exercise their rights.

 

[Ronin Truth]

No need. There is already a crime of Murder.. and that is separated into categories. Intentional (1st degree)l, unintentional (2nd degree) accidental (Manslaughter)

The sadness at a loss is understandable. but the DUI laws make no sense.
would you call for the same draconian laws fi someone had blown a tire and hit the same car?
or the brakes failed on the car that ran the light.. rather than drunk. (Brake failure is more common)

Would you react the same?

I believe it's called reckless endangerment and driving without due regard. (Which it is.)

If you see a three year old carrying a loaded UZI, take it away, as a greater danger, preventative measure.