To Protect and to Serve II

#7,451
#7,451
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
Click to expand...

Your point isn't lost on me, and I am sorry about your aunt, however, I'd much rather prevent even just one tragedy from occurring, and enforce DUI laws rather than allowing inebriated fools the "freedom" to make decisions that they aren't capable of making.

Per usual, we're on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,452
#7,452
GreyWolf1129 said:
Solid post, Ras. You just eliminated our entire national debt.

Send Xi Ping, or whatever his name is, a full moon shot. We're back in the black.

:cool:

Honestly, I've never liked someone so much that I disagreed with so often.

Well, except for my bride...
Click to expand...
You may be surprised at how true my statement is, unfortunately. We literally print money out of thin air. Every dollar created today makes the dollars created before it less valuable. The more they print, the less purchasing power you have in your wallet.
 
#7,453
#7,453
orangeblood79 said:
Your point isn't lost on me, and I am sorry about your aunt, however, I'd much rather prevent even just one tragedy from occurring, and enforce DUI laws rather than allowing inebriated fools the "freedom" to make decisions that they aren't capable of making.

Per usual, we're on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
Click to expand...
Then let's make all drugs and alcohol illegal...
 
#7,454
#7,454
orangeblood79 said:
Your point isn't lost on me, and I am sorry about your aunt, however, I'd much rather prevent even just one tragedy from occurring, and enforce DUI laws rather than allowing inebriated fools the "freedom" to make decisions that they aren't capable of making.

Per usual, we're on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
Click to expand...
Let's abolish the 2A also.
 
#7,455
#7,455
orangeblood79 said:
Your point isn't lost on me, and I am sorry about your aunt, however, I'd much rather prevent even just one tragedy from occurring, and enforce DUI laws rather than allowing inebriated fools the "freedom" to make decisions that they aren't capable of making.

Per usual, we're on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
Click to expand...

Let's ban cars.
 
#7,457
#7,457
orangeblood79 said:
Your point isn't lost on me, and I am sorry about your aunt, however, I'd much rather prevent even just one tragedy from occurring, and enforce DUI laws rather than allowing inebriated fools the "freedom" to make decisions that they aren't capable of making.

Per usual, we're on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.
Click to expand...

Can you think of anything else you want to ban just to save one life?
 
#7,461
#7,461
I think the DUI thing might not be assigned the right context in some people's minds. At issue is the overt public safety risk associated with impaired driving. Cars aren't the issue. Alcohol isn't the issue. Being drunk isn't the issue. Being chemically impaired while operating thousands of pounds of rolling potential death in the public domain is a direct action unambiguously associated with greatly increasing the likelihood of harm. While we're talking context let's consider the previously cited 70%/30% fatality figures. Let's ruminate on that for a moment. Consider all the gazillions of miles driven by all those people out there and 1 in 3'ish fatalities are alcohol related? That sounds like a huge overrepresentation to me.

Consider being out in public and someone just starts randomly shooting. Now we can't tell what this person's intent might be and he hasn't actually shot anyone yet. Hell, we don't know if he was going to ever shoot anyone. Do we just wait? Does somebody have to actually be shot before it's any big deal? If you were there and had a gun and some bullets whizzed past you and your wife/child/gf do you think you'd be justified in shooting back with lethal intent? If you killed them given that scenario how likely do you think you'd be charged with murder and why/why not?

I'm pretty high on freedoms associated with one's own dealings but public roads are not your own dealings. (the whole public thing) Becoming intoxicated and putting yourself behind the wheel is a direct line of action and volition that needlessly puts people that aren't you at risk. Trying to keep them off the roads prior to getting people killed isn't a terribly difficult thing to justify IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496, luthervol and RockyTop85
#7,462
#7,462
Rasputin_Vol said:
Then let's make all drugs and alcohol illegal...
Click to expand...
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's abolish the 2A also.
Click to expand...
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's ban cars.
Click to expand...
Rasputin_Vol said:
If we banned drugs, alcohol, cars and guns, how would police departments make money on the citizens?
Click to expand...

We will never agree on this, Ras. Ever.

We both feel as though our opinions are rooted in logic and a fundamental sense of decency towards the overall freedoms of citizens.

I'm just the type of person that would prefer to have this discussion in person, over a few beers, so that we could, at the very least, see that the other person is sincere, well intentioned, and simply wants the best for people...it's just that we both have differing views on how things should be.

...or maybe one or both of us are a**holes, I don't know.

I just don't have the patience to type it all out. Sorry dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,463
#7,463
Rasputin_Vol said:
If we banned drugs, alcohol, cars and guns, how would police departments make money on the citizens?
Click to expand...
Hell, if we’re going by numbers we should get serious and ban doctors. They kill upwards of 250,000 people every year due to medical errors. Considering 35,000 people die on American roads every year and of that number only 10,000 are alcohol related. Yes, ban doctors.

Sarcasm off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#7,464
#7,464
ob79 said:
We will never agree on this, Ras. Ever.

We both feel as though our opinions are rooted in logic and a fundamental sense of decency towards the overall freedoms of citizens.

I'm just the type of person that would prefer to have this discussion in person, over a few beers, so that we could, at the very least, see that the other person is sincere, well intentioned, and simply wants the best for people...it's just that we both have differing views on how things should be.

...or maybe one or both of us are a**holes, I don't know.

I just don't have the patience to type it all out. Sorry dude.
Click to expand...
Better not drive afterwards. I couldn’t resist.
 
#7,465
#7,465
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Hell, if we’re going by numbers we should get serious and ban doctors. They kill upwards of 250,000 people every year due to medical errors. Considering 35,000 people die on American roads every year and of that number only 10,000 are alcohol related. Yes, ban doctors.

Sarcasm off.
Click to expand...
Ban sugar.
 
#7,467
#7,467
ob79 said:
We will never agree on this, Ras. Ever.

We both feel as though our opinions are rooted in logic and a fundamental sense of decency towards the overall freedoms of citizens.

I'm just the type of person that would prefer to have this discussion in person, over a few beers, so that we could, at the very least, see that the other person is sincere, well intentioned, and simply wants the best for people...it's just that we both have differing views on how things should be.

...or maybe one or both of us are a**holes, I don't know.

I just don't have the patience to type it all out. Sorry dude.
Click to expand...
I agree that we are both "sincere, well intentioned, and simply wants the best for people". But we disagree on the point of "overall freedoms of citizens". Your idea is to make as many things illegal as necessary for the sake of public safety. I'm not sure where you draw the line at with regards to making things illegal, but you have to be honest and admit that your idea of public safety revolves around prohibitions of certain activities and aggressive enforcement of "pre-crime" laws. Again, all are well intentioned, sincere, and aimed at helping the people. But don't think that these ideas are not restrictive to freedoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#7,471
#7,471
1972 Grad said:
You can't help who you love.
Click to expand...

Missed this comment originally but it's spot on. California elementary schools are teaching that pedophilia should be an accepted sexual orientation, why not beastiality? The dog couldn't give written consent but neither can kids, right?
 
#7,472
#7,472
Rasputin_Vol said:
I agree that we are both "sincere, well intentioned, and simply wants the best for people". But we disagree on the point of "overall freedoms of citizens". Your idea is to make as many things illegal as necessary for the sake of public safety. I'm not sure where you draw the line at with regards to making things illegal, but you have to be honest and admit that your idea of public safety revolves around prohibitions of certain activities and aggressive enforcement of "pre-crime" laws. Again, all are well intentioned, sincere, and aimed at helping the people. But don't think that these ideas are not restrictive to freedoms.
Click to expand...
Fair...here's where I stand then...

I believe in our system of government, flawed as it may be.

I believe in the three branches of government, though not so much in its politicians.

I believe in the law and that it is there not to infringe upon or restrict personal liberties but there as a safeguard for citizen's peace and security (yes, that's something I studied in school...I just happen to agree with it), even if it means there a consequences for certain actions some may deem legal, moral, or what have you.

I believe that police are here to protect, serve AND enforce, though the last is by far its least popular, most scrutinized and, unfortunately, too often abused aspect of policing.

I believe that police officers are comprised, perhaps mostly, of some of the finest human beings on the planet, with a smattering of some of the most insecure, overly aggressive, power hungry a**holes around, who make my job harder and harder on a daily basis.

I believe that what a man (or woman) does with power is the measure of a man (or woman) and that wielding it is intoxicating, can corrupt, and can be more addicting than any substance on Earth, and happens to be the downfall to far too many.

I also believe that the common U.S. citizen hasn't a clue as to how much power they actually have against our government or what, if properly organized, they have the power to change. And no, I'm not talking about overthrowing our government or anarchy but the power of their own vote and how much change could be implemented if even 75% of our population exercised that fundamental right...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,474
#7,474
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
Click to expand...
So you're ok with laws that mandate drivers carry insurance?
 
#7,475
#7,475
Huff's image communicates the very thing that frustrates me perhaps the most- the double standard regarding the police's actions versus regular citizens' actions in high stress situations. Why are they given so much more leeway than regular citizens when they have actually been trained and are paid to handle those situations professionally and not emotionally? It's ass backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cdywolfe and davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top