Philosophy Now Forum

.







.......................................................................................




...well, they have to make a cut-off at some point.

I imagine, if we were police officers and we scraped a few bodies off the pavement because of alcohol, we might wish to further restrict the carnage.



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:...well, they have to make a cut-off at some point.

Yeah, like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

bobevenson wrote: To base driving fitness on a blood alcohol level is preposterous beyond belief, and anybody who supports this kind of law has absolutely no respect for liberty or human rights.

You are under the assumption, bobevenson, that every driver in America will be randomly pulled over and given a breathalyzer test on the spot... any level detected and off you go to jail. That is what is preposterous, amigo... your fantasy of a government that will not leave you alone.

I'll go ahead an have my couple or few of beers whenever I so desire, get into my car and go home. Am I over the limit according to the law? I have no idea and I don't particularly care. Those ideas are for the paranoid.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: To base driving fitness on a blood alcohol level is preposterous beyond belief, and anybody who supports this kind of law has absolutely no respect for liberty or human rights.

I'll go ahead an have my couple or few of beers whenever I so desire, get into my car and go home. Am I over the limit according to the law? I have no idea and I don't particularly care. Those ideas are for the paranoid.

Well, my friend, after you've had those few beers, and through no fault of your own run over a child who darts out into the street, you might not think my idea is so paranoid when the authorities lock your ass up for an extended period of time and ruin your life.

bobevenson wrote: It's the same with guns. You give the government any concession at all, and it will never be enough, so you might as well draw a line in the sand from the very beginning.

The vast majority of countries ban guns to varying degrees which makes life safer for that majority. America's insistence on arming ourselves to the hilt under the premise that we are saving our families and neighbors from crime is ludicrous as the stats will show. Arming ourselves with the "latest and greatest firearm on the market" only fattens the pocketbook of the gunmakers. This does nothing to promote further safety against crime.

But the U.S. Government has an obligation to uphold the 2nd amendment until such time the majority vote it down... any amendment is in the hands of the people as to whether it is necessary or not. Being a conditioned nation regarding firearms, anyone alive today will never see the second amendment taken off the books. So bobevenson, rest easy and stop the nonsensical fear mongering that is so prevalent today regarding gun ownership. President Obama does not want to take away your right to own guns, period.

The Government is not an autonomous group of masked individuals nobody knows plotting against the country and the desires of people. That is not the way of our government nor the way of most people's governments that are on this site.

If you want to be fearful of something, don't pick your government but perhaps the officials that you have vote for that are unstable. Rather direct your fear against the exploding power of the Corporocracy that has a tight grip on those same public officials. How much do any of us know about those corporations that literally control the earth and it's shrinking resources? What names can you spit out behind those anonymous entities that have been given the right to vote in America? Can you vote them out of the positions of authority..? Think about it.

bobevenson wrote:

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: To base driving fitness on a blood alcohol level is preposterous beyond belief, and anybody who supports this kind of law has absolutely no respect for liberty or human rights.

I'll go ahead an have my couple or few of beers whenever I so desire, get into my car and go home. Am I over the limit according to the law? I have no idea and I don't particularly care. Those ideas are for the paranoid.

Well, my friend, after you've had those few beers, and through no fault of your own run over a child who darts out into the street, you might not think my idea is so paranoid when the authorities lock your ass up for an extended period of time and ruin your life.

Beers or iced tea, running over a child who darts out in front of my car will give me the same legal nightmare culminating in ruining my life. Don't blame my 2-3 beers.

mtmynd1 wrote:Beers or iced tea, running over a child who darts out in front of my car will give me the same legal nightmare culminating in ruining my life. Don't blame my 2-3 beers.

That's where you're dead wrong, my friend. If you were drinking iced tea, it would just be considered a tragic accident. If you had a couple of beers, you're guilty of vehicular homicide. Book 'em, Danno, case closed!

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: It's the same with guns. You give the government any concession at all, and it will never be enough, so you might as well draw a line in the sand from the very beginning.

The vast majority of countries ban guns to varying degrees which makes life safer for that majority. America's insistence on arming ourselves to the hilt under the premise that we are saving our families and neighbors from crime is ludicrous as the stats will show. Arming ourselves with the "latest and greatest firearm on the market" only fattens the pocketbook of the gunmakers. This does nothing to promote further safety against crime.

But the U.S. Government has an obligation to uphold the 2nd amendment until such time the majority vote it down... any amendment is in the hands of the people as to whether it is necessary or not. Being a conditioned nation regarding firearms, anyone alive today will never see the second amendment taken off the books. So bobevenson, rest easy and stop the nonsensical fear mongering that is so prevalent today regarding gun ownership. President Obama does not want to take away your right to own guns, period.

The Government is not an autonomous group of masked individuals nobody knows plotting against the country and the desires of people. That is not the way of our government nor the way of most people's governments that are on this site.

If you want to be fearful of something, don't pick your government but perhaps the officials that you have vote for that are unstable. Rather direct your fear against the exploding power of the Corporocracy that has a tight grip on those same public officials. How much do any of us know about those corporations that literally control the earth and it's shrinking resources? What names can you spit out behind those anonymous entities that have been given the right to vote in America? Can you vote them out of the positions of authority..? Think about it.

I guess you haven't been following the news. Obama has hit the trifecta: lying to the American public about Benghazi, using the IRS to harass his enemies, and spying on the news media. You don't think we should be fearful of the government? Since you obviously don't know it, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting or protecting people from common criminals, it's about being able to resist an oppressive government.

bobevenson wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:You may be overreacting a bit.

I am not overreacting. For the government to say that a particular level of blood alcohol makes you unfit to drive is pure lunacy. For a particular level of blood alcohol, some people will be able to meet any driving standard you specify, while others fail miserably. To base driving fitness on a blood alcohol level is preposterous beyond belief, and anybody who supports this kind of law has absolutely no respect for liberty or human rights.

But, there is nothing in your Bill of Rights that prevents a government from imposing a blood alcohol level for driving. Unless, you can find it somewere.

Ginkgo

Ginkgo wrote:But, there is nothing in your Bill of Rights that prevents a government from imposing a blood alcohol level for driving. Unless, you can find it somewere.

That's true, but you can't put the entire spectrum of human rights in a set of amendments. You either recognize that blood alcohol levels are oppressive bullshit or you don't. And that's the reason the American Energy Party (AEP) is destined to turn American politics on its head!

.









............................................................................








.

bobevenson wrote:Since you obviously don't know it, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting or protecting people from common criminals, it's about being able to resist an oppressive government.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

Giving the right to keep and bear arms to every "Tom, Dick and Mary" hardly makes for a "well regulated militia" but rather a very close definition of anarchy.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state" is questionable when guns have killed so many citizens whose very security was lost along with their lives, and the security of others unnecessarily threatened. This does not make for a truly "Free State" but rather an "Paranoid State" at constant war with the citizens, the country and the world.

Giving people the right to bear arms should not include those who are incapable of good judgement or have unstable mental problems.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Since you obviously don't know it, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting or protecting people from common criminals, it's about being able to resist an oppressive government.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

Giving the right to keep and bear arms to every "Tom, Dick and Mary" hardly makes for a "well regulated militia" but rather a very close definition of anarchy.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state" is questionable when guns have killed so many citizens whose very security was lost along with their lives, and the security of others unnecessarily threatened. This does not make for a truly "Free State" but rather an "Paranoid State" at constant war with the citizens, the country and the world.

Giving people the right to bear arms should not include those who are incapable of good judgement or have unstable mental problems.

When the government becomes so oppressive that citizens need to take action, they will form their well-regulated militias, my friend, but they need to have their guns and ammunition at the ready. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

bobevenson wrote: When the government becomes so oppressive that citizens need to take action, they will form their well-regulated militias, my friend, but they need to have their guns and ammunition at the ready. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

\

Do you really feel as though you are oppressed by our government or even close to being repressed.? Please explain, Mr Tea Party.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: When the government becomes so oppressive that citizens need to take action, they will form their well-regulated militias, my friend, but they need to have their guns and ammunition at the ready. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

\

Do you really feel as though you are oppressed by our government or even close to being repressed.? Please explain, Mr Tea Party.

First of all, the American Eneregy Party (AEP) is not in the slightest way equivalent to the so-called Tea Party, but I'll ignore the insult. Secondly, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with the present government, but refers only to a future oppressive government.