You're the one who drew a parallel between helmet laws and anti-drunk driving laws that doesn't exist.

Yes I could. Is that what you want me to do?


There has to be a better way.


PhilFree:arrow:

DC in 5..4..3..2..1..


But besides that..

Police is a different issue. They are there to protect our constitutional rights to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, by others who would assume power over us and take those rights away from us. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Lets not be rediculous.

Dude loves his booze.

How about something less obscure. I'm interested to know if you think a significant enough contingent of people would need to drive while intoxicated to save lives that it would come close to offsetting the lives saved by the approach he suggests.


For the record I'm not in favor of the OP's proposal, but not because I think it would endanger lives.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Ignition interlock systems are pretty tamper proof nowadays.

http://www.drivinglaws.org/legal-adv...ck-device-work

Many require positive driver identification. That would result in fewer stolen vehicles as well....

Obviously I was exaggerating, but my point was we have government agencies taking away our rights everyday. Some of it is acceptable, some not. Saying you can't legislate safety, though, makes no sense to me.

I'm with you on the legislating morality thing. (And NOW we can go to DC)

I would kill someone. I just got remote starter for the winter

That's not the parallel I drew. I noted a similar discussion took place about those laws. I didn't equate them.

Yes really.

Are machine guns, RPG's, mines, mortars and grenades legally available to felons? Been to the streets of Detroit lately?

The bad guys find a way. There would be a black market business in breath equipment for drunks in the billions. Wake up!!!!!

When are people going to finally understand that any Federal mandate or regulation will almost always backfire?

And why are people lately so free to abandon their assumption of innocence, a constitutional right, to the government, for a little false security?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU ARE BEING CO-OPTED BY THE NANNY STATE!!!!!


edit: our whole way of life is based on self government, self responsibility, and self reliance. That IS our Constitution. Stop trying to make us something we never were or wanted to be.

Then I'm confused about what part of his post you took issue with. He seemed to be pointing out the two weren't equal because one puts others at risk as opposed to just yourself. If you agree why does he have to be kidding you? Because what he said is too obvious?

No, his argument was lousy on several levels. Only one of those was the attempt to distance the particular laws from one another when I'd made no attempt at an equation.

Gun control is a worthless analogy. Do you really think most people would premeditate their drunk driving to a point that they would go to the same lengths it takes to obtain an illegal firearm? Drunk driving is typically a crime of negligence and poor judgement, not malice.

Ok. So you took time to mock an argument that you agreed with in principle, but felt was poorly made. That's kinda weird.

Ask anyone who goes out on a Friday night. Give them a breath device to pass the test, and they will buy it, go out, party and not care.

Again you are all missing the point. You are driving home from work, do you want to be violated like that because someone on a Friday night found a way to beat it? AND!!! They will find a way to beat it.

Think about Franklins statement.

Why are you all so eagar to let the government in like that?

PLEASE!!

Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the federalist papers. Understand what principals our country was founded under. Then thoughts like this would be as foreign to you as they are to me. Its not what this country is founded under.