We need an armed guard on every firetruck

[Kidlicious]

[MrFun]

You do not have the mental capacity to participate in this discussion.

I was applying your logic, "But criminals won't obey laws" to a different example.

[DaShi]

You do not have the mental capacity to participate in this discussion.

Sorry, reg. So far your arguments in this thread have been the most naive. Felch has made some actually interesting points, even if I don't entirely agree with his stance. Even DD has made good points, and you know how I feel about him. However, you have been struggling to prop up strawman after strawman that I can't tell if it's just poor education or you're just not that bright.

[DaShi]

I'm against drunk driving laws. If you can stay in your lane, follow the rules of the road, and make it home safe, then there's no reason to punish you. If not, you should be sanctioned for your specific violation, not for being tipsy.

Some are far too strict, but the laws are necessary.

[DaShi]

The tougher the laws get the more criminals there will be.

But the fewer major criminals there will be. More strict gun laws will keep more guns out of people's hands and can offer a greater chance to identify and prevent incidents such as Newton and worse. I agree that a complete ban on all firearms in America is nearly impossible and will likely do more harm than good. However, too loose laws create frightening scenarios as well. Sadly, it is far too easy for an individual or group to acquire and stockpile numerous assault weapons with ill-intent unnoticed by federal authorities.

[Felch]

Some are far too strict, but the laws are necessary.

If the law were actually related to how drunk you are, it wouldn't bother me. I've been to traffic court more than a few times, and while I've never had a DUI, I saw a lot of their trials. Some people are pulled over for driving 90, and swerving from lane to lane. But many more are just driving home from the bar with a busted tail light, or they stopped just past the line at a stop sign. And they wind up getting pretty much the same penalty. You're right, my problem with DUIs is a matter of strictness.

[Berzerker]

You certainly do if you're one of the *******s petitioning against drunk driving laws because it infringes on your freedoms.

But if I support legal booze, I dont have blood on my hands? If I'm to blame for legal guns, then why the double standard? What if I want to ban booze and the resulting black market drives up homicide rates and other people ban guns as a result? Would the blood of two domestic wars be on my hands? For the record, I oppose DUI laws and support drunk driving laws (the latter satisfies my notion of probable cause) - and neither are about "freedom", the use of other people's property (and that includes public roads) requires permission - freedom is when you dont need permission.

Um, no, that analogy doesn't work. Murder is already illegal. So was the gun used against the firetruck. Multiple times over. That's like saying I have blood on my hands for opposing prohibition.

or supporting Prohibition But this guy murdered his grandmother and was let out...I suppose he argued it was a mercy killing (with a hammer), but does that mean the people who let him out have blood on their hands? That would include people who believe in parole for murderers, and thats a bunch of people (including me in some cases). Three innocent people are dead because this ahole wasn't executed or jailed for life. And while I may not have supported letting him out, I would undoubtedly make mistakes in other cases - keeping non-threats in jail and letting ****ers like this out.

Personally, I'd like to combine it with Japanese style regulations where gun owners must renew their gun license every year (I'd push the license fee as high as possible; $1000 per gun sounds right), require a 100 question test on gun laws (which must be flawlessly passed or you fail), and a yearly mental comprehensive mental health examine before you can legally own or keep a gun. Fail any of those and you can't keep your gun without it becoming an unlicensed gun. Possessing an unlicensed gun should be a felony where you spend not less than 10 years in prison, lose any and all rights to EVER own a gun again since you've proven you can't be trusted to obey the law, and a fine so massive most people would lose their home.

Why should the mentally ill be denied gun rights? Shooting guns is fun, I dont want to deny the mentally ill "their life" because someone else likes to murder people. And this dude already murdered someone and was let out. I dont mind restrictions like mags and auto but people should be allowed to defend themselves and a gun gives them a better chance against an attacker. Would the blood of murder victims be on our hands if we denied them the gun they needed to stay alive?

a lot of people, such as myself...... do not oppose people owning guns.

do you have blood on your hands?

What about laws against drinking and driving? Obviously a significant number of people across the country continue to violate this law. Should we just not have laws against drinking and driving?

I'm against drunk driving laws. If you can stay in your lane, follow the rules of the road, and make it home safe, then there's no reason to punish you. If not, you should be sanctioned for your specific violation, not for being tipsy.

Drunk driving used to mean a cop arrested you with probable cause, enough visual evidence of impairment. People with plenty of experience driving under the influence (of anything) without priors aint much of a problem and dont deserve the extraordinary hassle of a DUI conviction without it.

[Dinner]

Because criminals are definitely going to be interested in taking your test and registering their guns.

Fewer guns = fewer guns for criminals to get a hold of. It has worked in every country where it has been seriously enforced. Check out Australia, numb nuts.

[Dinner]

I'm against drunk driving laws. If you can stay in your lane, follow the rules of the road, and make it home safe, then there's no reason to punish you. If not, you should be sanctioned for your specific violation, not for being tipsy.

The problem is most drunks think they're safe when they're really not.

[Dinner]

Why should the mentally ill be denied gun rights?

Yes... Let's give mentally unstable people guns. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

[Berzerker]

why dont they get equal protection and rights?

[giblets]

why dont they get equal protection and rights?

Because we don't want to get shot by someone who is mentally ill and could have impaired judgment. .

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm against drunk driving laws. If you can stay in your lane, follow the rules of the road, and make it home safe, then there's no reason to punish you. If not, you should be sanctioned for your specific violation, not for being tipsy.

Congratulations, that's about as inane and sophomoric a post as I've seen in OT for years. A true accomplishment by a rare talent.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If the law were actually related to how drunk you are, it wouldn't bother me. I've been to traffic court more than a few times, and while I've never had a DUI, I saw a lot of their trials. Some people are pulled over for driving 90, and swerving from lane to lane. But many more are just driving home from the bar with a busted tail light, or they stopped just past the line at a stop sign. And they wind up getting pretty much the same penalty. You're right, my problem with DUIs is a matter of strictness.

And the point is they got stopped and were found to be impaired. The strictness is a result of the substantially increased likelihood that they would cause accidents or injury to others if not stopped. I saw a DUI arraignment where the driver was arrested initially for "just idling her car" and being parked incorrectly (crossing a parking lot stripe) Sounds like a BS stop, right? Well, the woman was parked in a middle school parking lot, at 9:30 am, after dropping her kid off at school, then she forgot what she was doing so she just sat there idling. With a blood alcohol level of 0.25. I'd rather people like that be "inconvenienced" with the hassle of a DUI trial (this turned out to also be 3rd offense and probation violation) before they kill someone, rather than after, thank you. You have no "freedom" to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway in any condition where you are an inherent hazard to others.

[Kidlicious]

Why should the mentally ill be denied gun rights? Shooting guns is fun.

You just convinced every reasonable person never to vote libertarian.