If you want new restrictions on DUI levels, you need the cooperation of alcoholics.

[Electric Monk]

Wait, no you don't. You pass the law lowering the allowable level to .04 or whatever, and then enforce it. Alcoholics either comply or are penalized accordingly.



(re: this bs)

[The Straight Story]

1. Since congress is made up of a bunch of them, probably true (nt)

[Electric Monk]

4. If you keep electing a bunch of drunks over and over, you're doing something wrong as a democracy.nt

[Wait Wut]

2. Psst.

I agree with you, but not everyone with a .04 is an alcoholic. Not everyone that gets a DUI is an alcoholic, either.

Other than that, you're spot on. We don't ask thieves if the alarms are too loud.

[johnp3907]

3. Good one!

Gotta steal it.

[hack89]

5. You do need the cooperation of the responsible drinkers though

just like you need the help of responsible gun owners. Or is every gun owner the moral equivalent of a drunk driver?

[Electric Monk]

8. What you need is the cooperation of drivers. nt

[hack89]

11. And drivers will not cooperate if you make dui enforcement so onerous

such that they think it unfair and capricious. There would be tremendous political blow back to stop the passage of such laws. Now you can make the political calculation that you can safely ignore them, but if you get it wrong then you will pay a price.

Sound familiar?

[freshwest]

24. Sorry, but sober drivers won't have a problem. Those who aren't or plan for not being sober,

get a ride or assign a designated driver, or stay put. I've done this so I don't see why anyone else believe their luxury to drive or be regulated with guns is more important than public safety. You cannot give back a life with apologies, excuses or rationalizations made after doing the deed. The task is to prevent criminal acts.

[hack89]

33. But since we cannot know in advance who those sober drivers are

we have to treat all drivers as potential drunk drivers. Correct?

It is possible, in the name of stopping drunk drivers, to propose laws so strict that even sober drivers will say no. Restricting access to alcohol, high taxes to deter alcohol consumption, limiting the amount of alcohol you can consume at any given time, alcohol sensors on all cars.. All of these will prevent criminal acts. The public will never allow them to be put in to effect.

[morningfog]

35. Don't you ever tire of doing the NRA's work?

[hack89]

36. Deflating stupid analogies is the NRA's work? Ok.

I hold positions on gun control that the NRA opposes. I support universal background check's, limits on magazine sizes plus all of the president's EOs.

I understand many here are upset about what happened yesterday. Pissing on potential allies is not going to make things better.

[morningfog]

37. "Potential" ally. Riiiiight.

[hack89]

39. Continue to fight your culture war if you wish

scoring cheap points on the internet is a poor substitute for actually passing laws but the choice is yours.

[morningfog]

43. Thank you. Until we get the obstructionists shut down, I will ridicule unapologetically.

[hack89]

45. I have no problem with that.

this place would be boring if we all agreed. That is the beauty of a big tent.

[freshwest]

41. We already have laws that pull people over on suspected high alcohol nights, like New Year's Eve.

The only ones who have anything to fear are the ones who are breaking the law. And those who proven to be repeat drunk drivers have alcohol sensors installed before their vehicle will start.

I'm not afraid of being pulled over in those events, since I don't hold the irresponsible view that it's my god-given right to drink and drive. None of the gun restrictions argued in the Senate were so draconian as you are trying to paint drunk driving laws, which are not.

They're not a hindrance, except to a person who maintains their right to commit crimes as they please. The NRA even fought restricting sex offenders and those with domestic assault convictions being denied the right to legally own a weapon.

And there is no other purpose for guns but to shoot someone, butmany socially beneficial aspects to driving a vehicle. The analogy fails, and it always will fail. You are falling into the crowd of 'I demand my gun freedom, just because' crowd. It's bad company to keep.

[hack89]

44. I have owned guns for 30 years - I have never killed a living thing with them

neither have my wife and kids - are our guns defective?

99.99% of legal gun owners will never shot someone - that is excellent company to keep. You want to lump all gun owners in with violent criminals. Sorry - we refuse to go into that particular box.

[freshwest]

48. I didn't make that analogy, you protest too much in both cases. Adieu.

[hack89]

49. "there is no other purpose for guns but to shoot someone" nt

[freshwest]

50. I guess you're saying they sing to you, cook, clean, plow a field? This is beyond absurd.

Don't bother replying, for goodness sakes.

[hack89]

51. Competive target shooting.

99.99% of gun owners will never shoot some one. Do the math. Then stop smearing us all as callus potential murders.

I will reply to your posts. You can always ignore me.

[Electric Monk]

55. Want more of a challenge for competitive target shooting? Try archery. That takes real skill to do.

[hack89]

59. Once I master my present sport then I might give it a try.

at the moment I see no reason to change.

btw - 10 rounds rapid fire at 300 yards is a hell of a challenge. Shooting at 600 yards over iron sights is not easy either.

[WinniSkipper]

54. Why do you think that

cars are not equipped with a breathalyzer so that you must blow before starting the car?

[Aerows]

57. You are either responsible for your actions, or you aren't

I don't have a problem with licensing, and harsh sentencing if you commit a crime and are a gun owner.

You have very harsh sentencing when caught intoxicated and operating a vehicle - and the reason is because it can kill or maim people.

Feel free to deem my home, my person and my attitude as one that is a "gun-free zone", LOL. Hot lead isn't solely in the hands of criminals, those that pander for the NRA or self-described "patriots".

[hack89]

58. Of course criminal acts must be harshly punished.

but society decides where that line is drawn. Gun owners have a say in the matter. If you think you can draw that line to your liking then more power to you. So far that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Hoyt]

10. Depends, if they tote in public or covet assault weapons, they might be worse.

Much worse if they promote guns.

[hack89]

12. It is a pure political caluculation - do you need their votes?

if you decide you can safely ignore them then don't come whining when it blows up in your face.

[Hoyt]

16. I doubt I'd pander to those who need a gun to venture out or an assault weapon to fondle.

[hack89]

19. If you can succeed without their support then good. But what if you can't?

what is plan B?

That is where the country is right now - what is plan B? Obviously the President misjudged the power of the NRA. What do you recommend he do now?

[Hoyt]

20. Double down, and continue mocking those who need guns to live.

[hack89]

31. Accept failure, you mean. nt

[Hoyt]

38. Whatever you and your gun "enthusiasts" buddies want to call it.

[hack89]

40. What do you call what happened yesterday? nt

[Hoyt]

42. We'll, since there were 54 votes for background checks, I'd say you guys can continue selling your

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

lethal weapons in a back alleys, and more murderers will get guns - the price we pay to keep those steeped in guns happy and viscerally satisfied.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. Bingo.

Way to send that shit-tier analogy down in flames...

[aikoaiko]

28. Boom.

Squished a shakey copy cat OP.

[Electric Monk]

30. Addict logic. See post #26. nt

[Skip Intro]

46. And that's all I needed from this thread. Great Job! Thanks!

[Squinch]

6. Good point.

[datasuspect]

7. the sooner you realize that everything is a scam

the better off you will be.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Does everyone buying a drink automatically get labeled an alcoholic?

[Bake]

14. No, they're "booze humpers" or "booze nuts"

Bake

[Hoyt]

18. Sad thing is a bunch of gun cultists are on meds or other substances

that alter judgement.

[Electric Monk]

26. If you ever find yourself needing "just a bit more and then I'll be good", rinse and repeat

you just might be an addict.

In both cases.

You can never have enough of something that you don't really need.

[KT2000]

13. LOL!

Good response to the ridiculous post from yesterday!

[Paladin]

15. Bullseye. Nicely put. (nt)

[pinboy3niner]

17. I *hic* object!

[cali]

21. yikes. that is so ridiculous.

comparing all gun owners to alcoholics is patently absurd.

[Electric Monk]

22. Where did I do that? I compared gun owners to drivers. nt

[cali]

27. uh,

If you want new restrictions on DUI levels, you need the cooperation of alcoholics.

[Electric Monk]

29. In other words, you didn't read past the headline? Thanks for admitting it. nt

[freshwest]

25. I do see a certain kind of reasoning the post referred to, though.

My knee jerk response is to regulate, like most Democrats in the face of dangerous things. Like defective products, WMD, pollution and corruption. The 'common sense' solutions of the Shrub did not work in any of those, just let the demons run amuck. I'm agin' that.

[Robb]

32. Well done.

[TheKentuckian]

34. The alcoholics are easy and they are a must have for moralizing and zeal

Who you have to worry about winning is drunks, we are in far greater numbers and don't attend meetings so are much harder to organize and what not.

[Skip Intro]

47. I hereby coin the phrase, "booze nuts."

If you use it you owe me a dollar.

[Skittles]

52. that was a live one

a fucking idiot

[Flying Squirrel]

53. Please shoot responsibly. n/t

[Aerows]

56. Exactly

Enough said.

[HereSince1628]

60. I preferentially want safe behaviors more than I want new restrictions...

I understand that 100% safe behavior is unlikely to be achieved

and 100% compliance with restrictions is unlikely to be achieved.

And I understand that restrictions created by elected government become basic parameters used in education, management, and policing of safe behavior.

[1-Old-Man]

61. I hope your realize you got that backwards. To change DUI laws you need the support of non-drunks

It is sober people who change the DUI laws and it is some people who are adverse to guns who wish to take away our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

[Recursion]

62. You need the coooeration of drivers and vendors, which we got

Designated driver programs have significant buy in. And they work. Bars have also been a huge part of DUIB reduction.