Active shooter at beer factory
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
Where are the exact words in the Constitution that protect your right to drive drunk?
Not made in Murica.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Two things about you have been proven:
1) You think drunk driving is OK
2) When a pussy like you can't answer a question, you run like a coward.
No sir, it isn’t. I also drive a Yamaha motorcycle. Previously I rode Honda’s. Never had a Harley or Indian. I drove a VW Bug back in my younger days. My wife carries a Taurus 38, a fine, dependable weapon ... also not made in ‘Merica but likely by brown people in Brazil (who conservatives are supposed to hate or something...
... but that is fodder for another thread). But it’s all good as far as I’m concerned. I’m not some white supremacist or some dimwit that the left would like to paint all gun owners (yea, verily, all conservatives) to be. I am an America first person but have never shunned at purchasing some foreign made items.No sir, it isn’t. I also drive a Yamaha motorcycle. Previously I rode Honda’s. Never had a Harley or Indian. I drove a VW Bug back in my younger days. My wife carries a Taurus 38, a fine, dependable weapon ... also not made in ‘Merica but likely by brown people in Brazil (who conservatives are supposed to hate or something...
Mine come from all over
Desert Eagle .50AE - Magnum Research/IMI in Israel
Multiple Glocks - Austria
Taurus 38 and 44 Magnum - Brazil
Multiple Ruger revolvers - Southport, CT
Multiple Smith/Wesson Revolvers including the 500 Magnum - Springfield Massachusetts'
Kimber 9mm and 45 - Yonkers, NY
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1) Then your words should quit indicating that you do. You keep proving it.
2) You're the one that didn't answer the question and pretended it was a different question
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I'm reading YOUR words.
When it comes to drunk driving, you said you didn't believe you should be stopped when no crime had been committed. Why do you think drunk driving isn't a crime?
When you can't answer the question, you pretend that it was a different question.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is how you fail. you jump to a conclusion that I didn't make. you read only what you want to read......you believe that because I don't think law enforcement can stop people randomly at checkpoints to see if they are breaking a law, that I must support drunk driving............nothing could be further from the truth, but you don't care for truth, you only care for your feels and emotes like a liberal
It's not jumping to a conclusion when your words indicate what you believe. I read your entire claim.
No, you said they can't stop you if no crime had been committed. Why do you think drunk driving isn't a crime?
It's not jumping to a conclusion when your words indicate what you believe. I read your entire claim.
No, you said they can't stop you if no crime had been committed. Why do you think drunk driving isn't a crime?
Just be honest. You're an anarchist that believes you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want. You'd still be an idiot but you'd have some self respect.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there is my proof that you're jumping to the conclusion you want.
A long time ago we had a debate about reasonable suspicion........apparently you forgot that lesson. A checkpoint isn't a stop with reasonable suspicion, it's an unreasonable and unwarranted stop for a fishing expedition and you know it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You believing you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want without regard to how it affects the rights of others is what makes you an anarchist.
You, based on what YOU'VE said, believe it's OK to drive drunk. That's why I hope when a drunk driver in your area hits someone, it's your family.
Where does the Constitution say you can drive drunk? You believe you can and claim the Constitution supports you doing so.
If that dipshit has guns in the house, MORE likely to experience gun violence.
When you base something off what another person SAID, it's not jumping to a conclusion.
There was no debate. You made a claim and demanded it be the one that was accepted.
What is your argument, wait until an INNOCENT person's right to life has been violated because a selfish bastard like you thinks he should be able to drive drunk?
Based on your logic, it's wrong for the police to run radar and write citations to speeders.