Quote:
Originally Posted by shirtsleeve
No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?
sad. really sad.
please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...
|
You are being silly.
"What? Why do I have to blow into this to start the car? You are assuming I am guilty and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"
I can take that phrase and play Mad Libs for comedic affect.
"What? Why do I have to pass a test to get my license? You are assuming I am incapable of driving and have to prove my skill, how dare you!"
"What? Why do I have to show proof of insurance every single time I'm stopped? You are assuming I am guilty of driving uninsured and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"
"What? Why do I have to go through an X-ray to fly? You are assuming I am a terrorist and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"
"What? Why do I have to have a background check to be hired for this government job? You are assuming I lied about not being a felon and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"
"What? Why do I have to show ID when I swipe this card? You are assuming I am a thief and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"
In the real world we have to be screened for all kinds of things. This is *NOT* a search without cause because no one is searching you. We're hypothetically passing a law saying all cars must have these devices. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't drive.
Again, a better argument is cost. This solution is too expensive for too many people to justify whatever lives might hypothetically be saved.