From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago - Page 598 - Politics and Economics

I brought it up because there are certain parallels between it and some of the gun safety measures that have been brought up.

In my field (aviation) they quite happily make you take random tests. If you fail they can't prosecute you for doing the drug that is in your system, but they can force your employer to terminate your services. With the BBC they can charge you for lying on a federal form, not for the illegal attempt to purchase the firearm.

4A only applies to criminal prosecution...

06-21-2014 , 01:35 AM

#14928

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

You are depriving their liberty, though. As are you by requiring them to not drive while drinking.

Wtf are you on? People are already required to not drive while drinking.

06-21-2014 , 02:13 AM

#14929

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

#todayinwhatikescangetliberalstospewon

06-21-2014 , 02:29 AM

#14930

problemeliminator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 9,467

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Wtf are you on? People are already required to not drive while drinking.

And that requirement is an infringement on their liberty. Like virtually all laws are. We've just decided as a society that the benefits of outlawing drunk driving> Muh Liberty.

06-21-2014 , 02:38 AM

#14931

dinopoker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,437

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Wtf are you on? People are already required to not drive while drinking.

Yeah but why? 37465 people a year die in swimming pools, why didn't they outlaw them instead of impaired driving?

06-21-2014 , 07:04 AM

#14932

JimHammer

Digg'n the gifs

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 8,742

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

There's a reason you're not a doctor

The thing a doctor and myself have in common is that we both know what a breathalyzer does.

"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the internet." - Dr. Ikes

06-21-2014 , 08:53 AM

#14933

JohnEPark

grinder

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 598

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimHammer

I'll never understand why owning a gun is the most important element to their "liberty".

So if I don't own a gun I don't have liberty? If I have a bunch of guns, do I have more liberty?

1 gun = 1 liberty
1 like = 5 constitutions
1 share = 3 Wayne LaPierre

06-21-2014 , 08:57 AM

#14934

2OutsNoProb

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

It would add to the price of a new car.

How much could it possibly add? A few hundred bucks, spread out over several years of payments? Why does the money matter in this example, but not when gun-nuts go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars apiece on each gun in the arsenal they're collecting? They're willing to pay for safety there, why not here?

06-21-2014 , 08:59 AM

#14935

2OutsNoProb

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

The downside is the massive cost and invasion of privacy. Also, you didn't actually refute anything I said. You're still requiring submitting to a search in order to drive your car because you have nothing to fear.

Please give us a figure that matches the phrase "massive cost". You think such a device would be that expensive, really? And, it isn't an invasion of privacy. You're blowing air into a device for a couple of seconds to indicate that you aren't sloshed. You aren't giving up any freedoms or being asked to do anything invasive.

06-21-2014 , 09:02 AM

#14936

2OutsNoProb

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Because the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not only if there is punishment afterwards. (Which there is)

There's no seizure involved and nothing about it would be unreasonable. If you aren't intoxicated, it costs you about five seconds of your time, doesn't cause you to suffer any negative consequence, and doesn't take anything away from you or record any information.

06-21-2014 , 09:43 AM

#14937

SINKIST

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 383

Bahahaha itt Ikes Lol @ saying a breathalyzer infringes 4a

06-21-2014 , 09:45 AM

#14938

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimHammer

The thing a doctor and myself have in common is that we both know what a breathalyzer does.

"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the internet." - Dr. Ikes

Lol no, you dont

06-21-2014 , 09:48 AM

#14939

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,462

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

You aren't searching anyone by requiring a seat belt

Isnt that exactly what they are doing? Cops are searching the roads looking for people not wearing seat-belts. They then stop those people from driving their cars until the issue is corrected.

06-21-2014 , 09:53 AM

#14940

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb

Looks like you can lease one for voluntary use (non court ordered) for$ 50/mo. Maybe 1,500-2000 for standard equipment?

http://www.intoxalock.com/ignition-i...questions.aspx

06-21-2014 , 09:54 AM

#14941

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Ummm are you seriously equating looking outside as a search. The word unreasonable is there for a reason

06-21-2014 , 09:56 AM

#14942

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINKIST

Bahahaha itt Ikes Lol @ saying a breathalyzer infringes 4a

No, I'm saying that requiring every person to use one to drive their car violates the 4a

06-21-2014 , 09:56 AM

#14943

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,462

Right, and so far you are the only one to seem to find it unreasonable itt.

Are the rest of us just a bunch of unreasonable mother****ers?

06-21-2014 , 09:58 AM

#14944

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Haha your idea would be shot down as massively unpopular. Don't mistake people avoiding the aids of this thread with agreement with you

06-21-2014 , 10:01 AM

#14945

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,462

Maybe, and it wasnt my idea, I just said I thought that it would be a way that we could save innocent lives.

But we've already shown gun nuts in this thread much more care about MAH FREEDUMS! than saving anybody else's lives but their own.

06-21-2014 , 10:04 AM

#14946

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Sigh your idiotic save lives logic is the same horse**** logic that led to prohibition. You should walk away from it

06-21-2014 , 10:08 AM

#14947

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,462

Nobody is prohibiting anything.

There is zero downside to preventing drunk driving, there is zero downside to preventing death by gun. There is a downside to preventing access to alcohol.

Get the difference?