DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[Into the Night]

You're not a Libertarian. You're an anarchist.

No, he's a libertarian all right. Anarchists don't want any government at all. Not even a republic (constitutional government).
He is standing firm supporting our Constitution. It is YOU that wants to ignore the 4th, 5th and 10th amendments here.

 

[Scut Farkus]

With the new years kicking in, it looks like more counties are going to implement 'no refusal' checkpoints, meaning that if you refuse a breathalyzer, then they can force you to submit to a blood draw.

Is this a violation of your rights?

fuck yes it is, good buddy.

 

[Scut Farkus]

He is making a false equivalence. The problem is that he is using the assumption that a driver MIGHT be drunk to stop ALL drivers (including those that are not drunk). Thus, he is justifying interfering with a legal activity to stop an illegal activity.

This kind of thinking is what creates the so-called justification for gun control laws, the TSA making people take off their shoes and searching their luggage, implementing laws that punish everyone for the act of a single person, etc.

Such thinking is itself a fallacy, known as the attempted force of negative proof fallacy. In simpler terms, a man is guilty until proven innocent. This fallacy is a dangerous one. It starts wars.

this is the totalitarian mindset.

 

[Into the Night]

That is the function of the supremes. They rule on whether laws and actions are constitutional. That requires interpretation since it is not precise. There is not even agreement among the judges. it is not settled by the people.

WRONG. The Supreme Court does NOT have authority of any kind over the Constitution. They cannot interpret it or change it. They MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. They may rule on laws of Congress, actions by the President, etc.; but they MUST conform to the Constitution when doing so. They cannot interpret the Constitution itself.

The States, own the Constitution of the United States. They are the only ones that have the authority to interpret it or change it. Each State is in turn a republic. Each State also has a constitution. The owners of THOSE constitutions are the people of that State. Only those people have the authority to interpret or change those constitutions. The States represent the people. Thus, the people of each State are the ones to have final say over anything in the Constitution of the United States. They do so through their various States.

Thus, the United States is not an oligarchy ruled over by the Supreme Court (or anyone else). It is not a democracy. It is a federated republic (layers of constitutions).

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. It has NO authority over it.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't understand what the founders, and I, believe(d).

You don't have a right to drive drunk. PERIOD.

You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

You have no facts and logic. You're a spoiled brat. That's a sign of poor upbringing.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacies. Redefinition fallacies (logic<->proof, proof->void). The Constitution of the United States is the fact in question. Denying the Constitution of the United States is simply ridiculous. You are not using logic. You are making fallacy after fallacy. A fallacy is an error in logic just as an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Really? Then who is? YOU?

He is not the people. He is, however, part of the people, just as you are.

The Constitution of the United States is written plainly. So are the constitutions of the individual States. Redefinition fallacy (people<->individual).

 

[Into the Night]

We have finally found some common ground. Yay you! First thing you have gotten right here.

It is not correct. The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution. They can neither interpret it nor change it.

 

[Into the Night]

No, he isn't making that argument. But he is an anarchist who believes that the Constitution does not prohibit someone from dong anything he feels like.

He is not an anarchist. He is not arguing in any way for no government at all. Redefinition fallacy (anarchy<->republic).

 

[Into the Night]

Not a strawman. He is absolutely correct and it was about the subject at hand. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[jimmymccready]

they're bad stops. no probable cause.

A safety and welfare issue (the general welfare of the community) does not require probable cause, as you well know. SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

[Into the Night]

So the constitutionality of our laws are decided by jury?

You might say that. It is all the people, collectively, acting through their States that represent them, which are also acting collectively.

 

[Into the Night]

I believe it is based on your history here. I like you, but sometimes you are way out there.

It is true. He is absolutely correct on this. You have championed Trump and continue to do so. You champion the right to bear arms and continue to do so. Yet, here you are making a paradox with yourself by denying your own arguments. You are arguing for the federal government to have power over the Constitution that created it. Such is not a republic, it is an oligarchy...dictatorship by committee.

Your argument is actually justifying gun control laws and the seizure of guns (any anything else) on a whim of the Supreme Court...a part of the federal government. If the Supreme Court can do it, why not Congress? or the President?

 

[Into the Night]

I believe it is based on your history here. I like you, but sometimes you are way out there.

An argument is not changed by age. Neither is a fallacy.

SmarterthanYou's arguments have a solid reference: The Constitution of the United States. By you attempting to justify powers the Supreme Court does not have, you are attempting to justify the destruction of that same document.

 

[Into the Night]

That makes ZERO sense. If the MOBS were to decide, there would be no guns period.

Which is why the United States is not a democracy. Traditionally, democracies have no weapons allowed as they almost always degrade into an oligarchy or a dictatorship. A democracy is an unstable for of government akin to anarchy. There are currently no democracies in the world today.

The right to self defense, including the right to the use and ownership of guns, is inherent. The Constitution of the United States never gave the federal government power to mess with that. Indeed, the 2nd amendment specifically directs them to not mess with that, AND forwards that directive to the States as well (which are bound by that amendment just as surely as the federal government is).

You have the right to defend yourself. Yes, that means from criminals, from rogue government agents including any policeman or military man. That right is inherent. Even animals have that right. You cannot take it away.
The 2nd amendment does not specify type of weapon or make of weapon. Yes, that means you have the right to use ANY weapon to defend yourself. Machine gun, semiautomatic rifle, pistol, sword, rock, club, knife, or even a bomb.

The federal government is specifically prohibited, and the States with it, from implementing ANY law that limits the use of any weapon or weapon system for your self defense.

Banning bumpstocks is unconstitution. They are part of a weapon system. Banning machine guns is unconstitutional. Banning AR-15's is unconstitutional. Banning or limiting a magazine size is unconstitutional.

Does the federal government pass laws that are unconstitutional? Yes. What is there to protect you from them, the federal government???

 

[Into the Night]

I am absolutely with you on that. The difference is, you're more like a NO Government and NO regulations guy.

Patently false. He has clearly shown his support for the Constitution of the United States, and the laws implemented UNDER that Constitution. That IS government.

The term 'regulations' stems from the term 'regulate' or to 'make regular'. What this means is that these are methods used to make things consistent for all (that's what 'regular' means).
It does not mean to limit arbitrarily, or to limit to all but a select group. It means to make it consistent across all groups.

Taxes must be consistent across all groups. Standards must be consistent across all groups (whether anyone wishes to use the standard or not). If a regulation requiring aircraft to fly at certain altitudes when heading in certain directions is written, it must apply to ALL aircraft consistently. If a radio service is designated a frequency band by regulation, ALL radio services must have a frequency band also so designated, and ALL stations providing that service must have equal access to that band so designated.

These examples are legal regulations. They are constitutional. Both aircraft and radio are interstate by their very nature. They are legitimate things to fall under federal regulation (the authority to set standards in Article I, $8) and are serving the general welfare of the people of the United States (as directed by that same Article).

This is not anarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you going to shoot everyone who tries to confiscate your guns? I prefer to let the Supreme Court interpret that right so States cannot pass such laws. But we also have found that unlimited access is also a bad idea. aka the 1930s.

Nothing has changed from the 1930's. Machine guns still exist just as they did in the 1930's. Mobsters still use them just as they did in the 1930's. Whether it's alcohol or drugs, the mobsters still exist and are still funded by ineffective attempts to limit access to a market. People want these substances. You cannot kill the free market, even if you drive it underground. It's immortal. See your local drug dealer for details. They will happily sell you any drug, gun, or anything else on the black market for the price set by market forces. The government can do NOTHING to stop it.

Personally, I wouldn't blame him if he DID shoot someone trying to confiscate his guns.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution of the United States. It cannot add any clause to the 2nd amendment designating what weapon or weapon system you may use as your 'arms'.

 

[Into the Night]

Your problem is you think you do. Typical uneducated, arrogant asshole that is still mad he got a dishonorable discharge from the military because they wouldn't let him do what he wanted.

The country would be better off if you suffered a friend fire "accident"

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand English and freedoms far better than you.

Apparently not.

I'm not the one that thinks anything I want to do is OK because I want to do it.

He never made any such argument. Compositional error fallacy.

If you think so, bring your ass to where I am, try to enter my house without permission, and see what rights I exercise.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

They keep lowering the limit you are considered drunk, and if you have a commercial license, the limit is even lower. A truck driver coming home from dinner with his wife in his personal vehicle can lose his license after 1 or 2 glasses of wine or 2 beers.

It's even tighter for pilots of aircraft.

I was harassed at a checkpoint coming home from a big team pool tournament a few years ago, they set the checkpoint up less than a mile from the tournament. The cop said he smelled alcohol. I told the cop I don't drink and haven't for years (my friend was somewhat shitfaced). He shined his flashlight in my eyes until it hurt, arrogantly and said my eyes were red and I was at a pool tournament and wasn't drinking? I looked him in the eyes and angrily said I told you I don't drink! You just shined your flashlight in my eyes, the room was smoke-filled and not everyone who shoots pool drinks, that's why I'm driving and he's not. The cop looked over at where they already had 3 or 4 cars pulled over, handed my license and registration back and snarkily said he didn't believe me and walked back to the car behind me. So yeah, it pissed me off that he didn't believe me and my friend said the cop was an asshole. That's why I don't think much of DUI checkpoints.

A clear example of the 'guilty before innocence' operating rule at such checkpoints. This is also known as the Attempt to force a negative proof fallacy.

The cops broke the law by setting up such a checkpoint. They denied you your protections under the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You were searched without a warrant. Your right to your security of yourself and your friend was violated.

They also denied you your protections under the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The cop was attempting to make you a witness against yourself.