Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Never? Not even with safety in mind?
How about when a gunman is fleeing a scene and the police set up check points so that he may not escape?
And is it actually 'impede' as much as it is 'inconvenience for a brief moment'?
I'm okay with checkpoints. My best friend died over 20 years ago because some shitfaced drunk mowed him down on his motorbike. Although... as much as the police did their work with checkpoints and the like... this shitbagger drunk never even had a license- he was a repeat offender of the drunk driving laws and had lost it. Undeterred... he killed someone. The courts of my country failed Gerry- not the cops. Our weak ass, pathetic court system driven by bleeding heart softies that feel so poorly for our hell bent criminals killed Gerry.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
In 1998 I saw Pearl Jam in Noblesville, IN. I was pretty drunk....not smart....most likely over the legal limit but I do feel like I was driving pretty well.
I left the music venue (Deer Creek back then, outdoor amphitheater) and got on the interstate but took the wrong exit. Once on the interstate I decided to get off at the next exit to turn back around, etc.
At the top of that exit was a sobriety checkpoint. The police were diverting traffic into a church parking lot to do their "tests."
The officer came up to me (I was driving our minivan with car seats in the back) and said "You can go on through...we're just checking on concert traffic."
Boy did I luck out that I was A. Driving a minivan B. Wearing a golf shirt rather than a Pearl Jam shirt
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
On a public road no less.
If they're coming into your house and inspecting your business without due cause... I get it, but this isn't the case.
By the same logic... if trying to safeguard the roads with periodic road checks for drunkards is a violation of personal rights... isn't safeguarding airports or concerts with screening a violation of personal rights and freedoms as well? These security checkpoints are even more invasive.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Jesus, I honestly cannot believe there are people who object to checkpoints. Some Americans have bizarre notions, your country is just so far removed from mine. In Ireland we complain that there aren't enough checkpoints!
Jesus, I honestly cannot believe there are people who object to checkpoints. Some Americans have bizarre notions, your country is just so far removed from mine. In Ireland we complain that there aren't enough checkpoints!
Jesus. I honestly cannot believe there are people that are OK with government intrusion into the personal lives of law abiding citizens. Some have bizarre notions that the government should have ultimate control of ones actions. I value liberty and freedom. You apparently value safety above all else.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Jesus, I honestly cannot believe there are people who object to checkpoints. Some Americans have bizarre notions, your country is just so far removed from mine. In Ireland we complain that there aren't enough checkpoints!
Jesus. I honestly cannot believe there are people that are OK with government intrusion into the personal lives of law abiding citizens. Some have bizarre notions that the government should have ultimate control of ones actions. I value liberty and freedom. You apparently value safety above all else.
I don't consider them to be impinging on my liberty or freedom in their attempts to apprehend people who are breaking the law and potentially harming others in doing so. Oddly enough I think saving lives is more important than saving time
Jesus, I honestly cannot believe there are people who object to checkpoints. Some Americans have bizarre notions, your country is just so far removed from mine. In Ireland we complain that there aren't enough checkpoints!
Jesus. I honestly cannot believe there are people that are OK with government intrusion into the personal lives of law abiding citizens. Some have bizarre notions that the government should have ultimate control of ones actions. I value liberty and freedom. You apparently value safety above all else.
I don't consider them to be impinging on my liberty or freedom in their attempts to apprehend people who are breaking the law and potentially harming others in doing so. Oddly enough I think saving lives is more important than saving time
I understand that we have vastly different perspectives and priorities, and as long as people have a say in what those are, then to each their own. I don't like the idea of a big net being thrown, and law-abiding citizens being stopped for no cause in the hopes of snaring a bad guy. The application of this type of police approach can certainly lead to further infringements in other areas, and I'm not willing to accept that risk. I am absolutely in favor of prosecuting and punishing drunk drivers to the fullest extent of the law. Just not at the expense of innocent citizens.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
Perhaps you don't understand what detained means. If you pull up, are you free to just continue on, or do they prohibit you from leaving until you've complied with their orders? What happens when you try to leave without their permission?
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
Perhaps you don't understand what detained means. If you pull up, are you free to just continue on, or do they prohibit you from leaving until you've complied with their orders? What happens when you try to leave without their permission?
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
Every checkpoint is posted beforehand. You are certainly free to take another route of you feel your 4th amendment rights are being violated.
Just know that the drunks are probably also taking that route.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
Perhaps you don't understand what detained means. If you pull up, are you free to just continue on, or do they prohibit you from leaving until you've complied with their orders? What happens when you try to leave without their permission?
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
It's not a power trip though. It's a service. Most roadblocks I've gone through have been painless. Actually... make that all roadblocks.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
On a public road no less.
If they're coming into your house and inspecting your business without due cause... I get it, but this isn't the case.
By the same logic... if trying to safeguard the roads with periodic road checks for drunkards is a violation of personal rights... isn't safeguarding airports or concerts with screening a violation of personal rights and freedoms as well? These security checkpoints are even more invasive.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
On a public road no less.
If they're coming into your house and inspecting your business without due cause... I get it, but this isn't the case.
By the same logic... if trying to safeguard the roads with periodic road checks for drunkards is a violation of personal rights... isn't safeguarding airports or concerts with screening a violation of personal rights and freedoms as well? These security checkpoints are even more invasive.
Yes? No?
A concert is a private event, and a venue can certainly restrict access. Even a concert in a publicly owned building is a private event. So they can do as they like. TSA and border checkpoints are allowed searches without probable cause, so it is just a fact of life. I don't like it, but it is what it is. But just because Homeland Security can do this, doesn't mean I want general law enforcement to have the same abilities for whatever their pet issues are.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
Perhaps you don't understand what detained means. If you pull up, are you free to just continue on, or do they prohibit you from leaving until you've complied with their orders? What happens when you try to leave without their permission?
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
It's not a power trip though. It's a service. Most roadblocks I've gone through have been painless. Actually... make that all roadblocks.
I've been through painless roadblocks/check points as well. I haven't had any bad experience with them. But I am fundamentally against these tactics based on their apparent presumption of guilt, and on their ability to detain without probable cause. These checkpoints may not be invasive at all, but the erosion of privacy and liberty is real, and as we've seen with things like the Patriot Act, when you give the government rights and powers they were expressly not granted, they'll grab them and keep pushing harder for more.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
How does it violate your 4th amendment right by making sure you're not drunk? Are they searching your car? Are they breaking into your car? Most check points simply ask for your license and registration, ask you a couple of questions and that's it. All of which are perfectly legal.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Except it isn't. Prior to the Supremes ruling, Michigan's supreme court ruled in favor of the defendants and believed their rights were violated. The Supremes weren't unanimous either. So there are plenty of constitutional and legal scholars who found these unwarranted stops troublesome. I agree with them. People who think it is OK to stop people without cause are the same people with little regard for liberty who supported the Patriot Act. I understand there are plenty of people around who don't value liberty, and will put that aside in under the guise of "safety". I just don't happen to be one of them.
That's isn't true. I have been against the Patriot act since it's inception. You are on public roads. Having a license is not a right. Being unanimous really doesn't matter. Roe vs wade wasn't unanimous.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
Being stopped without cause it where the violation starts. It is essentially a seizure. You are not free to go until the cop tells you you are. You and your vehicle are being held without probable cause. Lots wrong with this. The majority opinion even acknowledges that, but says the minor inconvenience/intrusion on sober drivers was offset by the needs of the state. Again, if you're fine with the police randomly stopping and detaining people without cause in the name of safety and security, you're in good company. But I am not comfortable with this, and agree with the Michigan courts and the dissenters on the Supreme Court.
I don't know how they are doing it in Michigan, but I've never been detained while at a checkpoint. I'm guessing neither have you. You stop, give the guy your license, answer a couple of questions and you go. It never happens the way you describe it. You're not being detained. Nor are you being searched.
Perhaps you don't understand what detained means. If you pull up, are you free to just continue on, or do they prohibit you from leaving until you've complied with their orders? What happens when you try to leave without their permission?
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
It's not a power trip though. It's a service. Most roadblocks I've gone through have been painless. Actually... make that all roadblocks.
I've been through painless roadblocks/check points as well. I haven't had any bad experience with them. But I am fundamentally against these tactics based on their apparent presumption of guilt, and on their ability to detain without probable cause. These checkpoints may not be invasive at all, but the erosion of privacy and liberty is real, and as we've seen with things like the Patriot Act, when you give the government rights and powers they were expressly not granted, they'll grab them and keep pushing harder for more.
You admit they are not at all invasive yet still think your 4th amendment rightso are being violated because you think you're presumed guilty simply because the road block is there?
That, I guess is the difference in opinion. I don't believe you are being stopped and presumed guilty.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'm being stopped without probable cause. That is enough of a red flag for me to be opposed to that tactic. I know i draw my line in a different place than many of you. I'm sure you have a line as well. We'll likely just have to disagree about where that line should be drawn. I understand why the checkpoints exist and that their intentions are likely good. I detest drunk drivers, and would like them off the road. In my state we don't do the checkpoint thing, but the state patrol does have stepped up DUI patrols, and will pull over people who exhibit behavior consistent with impairment. That is the kind of law enforcement I support 100%.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I do hear what you are saying, but ultimately (in my opinion)... certain levels of trust are afforded in the daily business of life.
Just like we trust the airline pilot to safely fly us to our destination, or our anesthesiologist to properly dose us... it's my opinion we afford the police the latitude to do the jobs we ask them to do.
I'm being stopped without probable cause. That is enough of a red flag for me to be opposed to that tactic. I know i draw my line in a different place than many of you. I'm sure you have a line as well. We'll likely just have to disagree about where that line should be drawn. I understand why the checkpoints exist and that their intentions are likely good. I detest drunk drivers, and would like them off the road. In my state we don't do the checkpoint thing, but the state patrol does have stepped up DUI patrols, and will pull over people who exhibit behavior consistent with impairment. That is the kind of law enforcement I support 100%.
These aren't just checkpoints to make sure your paperwork is in order. We're talking about one specific area and that is a DUI checkpoint. Having these are more of a deterrent than a detention protocol. In an area where there often checkpoints it definitely helps in combatting drunk drivers. If you look at it as trying to protect innocent people from being killed by some drunk asshole it changes the perspective a little.
I get where you're coming from and I know people love to throw in the 'where does it stop?' line but I think in this case it is a necessity. Out of all the ridiculous restrictions and laws we deal with I can let this one slide because I think it serves a greater good. I was talking with an Italian guy recently who spent a year living in New Jersey. The biggest thing he couldn't understand was how there could be a law against having a beer at the beach. As he said, 'It's the beach, that's what you do when you go to the beach.' That pisses me off more than a DUI checkpoint.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
Are you serious about living in a place where the police can stop you at anytime and fuck with you??? REALLY? Like in China and North Korea?
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
Are you serious about living in a place where the police can stop you at anytime and fuck with you??? REALLY? Like in China and North Korea?
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
Are you serious about living in a place where the police can stop you at anytime and fuck with you??? REALLY? Like in China and North Korea?
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
I've never said racism doesn't still exist, especially in my,state. I've never been through a checkpoint and been "herded" through a parking lot. Every single time ive been through one, the entire process took no more than 5 minutes. Seems like a small price to pay in an effort to decrease DUIs. But what do I know? I've only been a fireman for 13 years. I guess I haven't seen enough death yet directly caused by impaired driving.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Comments
How about when a gunman is fleeing a scene and the police set up check points so that he may not escape?
And is it actually 'impede' as much as it is 'inconvenience for a brief moment'?
I'm okay with checkpoints. My best friend died over 20 years ago because some shitfaced drunk mowed him down on his motorbike. Although... as much as the police did their work with checkpoints and the like... this shitbagger drunk never even had a license- he was a repeat offender of the drunk driving laws and had lost it. Undeterred... he killed someone. The courts of my country failed Gerry- not the cops. Our weak ass, pathetic court system driven by bleeding heart softies that feel so poorly for our hell bent criminals killed Gerry.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
we will find a way, we will find our place
I left the music venue (Deer Creek back then, outdoor amphitheater) and got on the interstate but took the wrong exit. Once on the interstate I decided to get off at the next exit to turn back around, etc.
At the top of that exit was a sobriety checkpoint. The police were diverting traffic into a church parking lot to do their "tests."
The officer came up to me (I was driving our minivan with car seats in the back) and said "You can go on through...we're just checking on concert traffic."
Boy did I luck out that I was
A. Driving a minivan
B. Wearing a golf shirt rather than a Pearl Jam shirt
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
we will find a way, we will find our place
If they're coming into your house and inspecting your business without due cause... I get it, but this isn't the case.
By the same logic... if trying to safeguard the roads with periodic road checks for drunkards is a violation of personal rights... isn't safeguarding airports or concerts with screening a violation of personal rights and freedoms as well? These security checkpoints are even more invasive.
I haven't heard of a reason why getting asked for your license is a violation of your 4th amendment right.
we will find a way, we will find our place
just ask Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, and MAO MAO
"Can you here me in the back"
we will find a way, we will find our place
You are absolutely being detained until they're satisfied and allow you to leave.
Just know that the drunks are probably also taking that route.
we will find a way, we will find our place
That, I guess is the difference in opinion. I don't believe you are being stopped and presumed guilty.
we will find a way, we will find our place
I do hear what you are saying, but ultimately (in my opinion)... certain levels of trust are afforded in the daily business of life.
Just like we trust the airline pilot to safely fly us to our destination, or our anesthesiologist to properly dose us... it's my opinion we afford the police the latitude to do the jobs we ask them to do.
I get where you're coming from and I know people love to throw in the 'where does it stop?' line but I think in this case it is a necessity. Out of all the ridiculous restrictions and laws we deal with I can let this one slide because I think it serves a greater good. I was talking with an Italian guy recently who spent a year living in New Jersey. The biggest thing he couldn't understand was how there could be a law against having a beer at the beach. As he said, 'It's the beach, that's what you do when you go to the beach.' That pisses me off more than a DUI checkpoint.
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
we will find a way, we will find our place