DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
CFM said:
In case you were too drunk to pay attention, that post wan't to YOU, bitch. Into the Night wasn't there. Are you also Into The Night?

If someone you claim was "somewhat shitfaced" is cognizant enough of what was going on to make that kind of determination, he would be capable of driving. That means he was either too drunk, and therefore, not able to make that determination or he was and is only going on what you told him to believe. He can't be too drunk to drive yet not so drunk he can make that type of determination.
Click to expand...

You're a racist liberal idiot.
 
too many people ignore the constitution when it comes to positions that they are highly emotional about. Domer needs government to tell him what the constitution means, which means he/she fails as an American. CFM says the founders didn't give us a right to drink and drive, but can't provide a shred of evidence to support his claim. The founders didn't believe in victimless crimes, so USF has to go hyperbolic and take it to mean he can shoot at anyone he wants, so long as he doesn't inure them..................which is also stupid. This is why most of y'all can't be trusted with governing yourselves, much less others.
 
RB 60 said:
That's Michigan, dickhead. How many DUI checkpoints have you gone through?
Click to expand...

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

SCOTUS, you fucking idiot.

Dumbfuck moron.
 
RB 60 said:
Yep, I pissed them off because I wasn't drinking and they hoped I was. Screw them.......and you too, asshole.
Click to expand...

One time many years ago, a cop pulled me over while coming home from work a bit after 9pm because I was supposedly "weaving". I was not weaving at all. He just wanted to see if I was drinking and driving.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
too many people ignore the constitution when it comes to positions that they are highly emotional about. Domer needs government to tell him what the constitution means, which means he/she fails as an American. CFM says the founders didn't give us a right to drink and drive, but can't provide a shred of evidence to support his claim. The founders didn't believe in victimless crimes, so USF has to go hyperbolic and take it to mean he can shoot at anyone he wants, so long as he doesn't inure them..................which is also stupid. This is why most of y'all can't be trusted with governing yourselves, much less others.
Click to expand...

But-but-but; you said "NO VICTIM MEANS NO CRIME"!!

Were you lying??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not at all, you simply appear to be too ignorant to make a distinction between clearly dangerous actions and actions that MIGHT be dangerous........that's on you
Click to expand...

How is something "dangerous", if there are no victims; because even you've admitted that just because it MIGHT be dangerous, doesn't mean it is. :good4u:

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME
 
SmarterthanYou said:
too many people ignore the constitution when it comes to positions that they are highly emotional about.
Click to expand...
PRECISELY this!!! :nodyes:

Their intense emotions cloud their ability to reason.

SmarterthanYou said:
Domer needs government to tell him what the constitution means, which means he/she fails as an American.
Click to expand...
Domer's issue is that he fails at basic English reading and comprehension. In his case, he has spoken Liberal for so long that he has completely forgotten the English language.

SmarterthanYou said:
CFM says the founders didn't give us a right to drink and drive, but can't provide a shred of evidence to support his claim.
Click to expand...
CFM is basing his argumentation on a false equivalence. He is equivocating [driving] with [drinking and driving]. He seems rather emotional about this topic, which goes back to what you said at the beginning of this comment.

SmarterthanYou said:
The founders didn't believe in victimless crimes, so USF has to go hyperbolic and take it to mean he can shoot at anyone he wants, so long as he doesn't inure them..................which is also stupid.
Click to expand...
USF is ignoring the fact that those actions would amount to reckless endangerment. He seems rather emotional about this topic too.

SmarterthanYou said:
This is why most of y'all can't be trusted with governing yourselves, much less others.
Click to expand...
:nodyes:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How is something "dangerous", if there are no victims; because even you've admitted that just because it MIGHT be dangerous, doesn't mean it is. :good4u:

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME
Click to expand...

do you get in a car and drive with other people in cars heading straight for you, separated by nothing more than a broken/solid white line on the highway? compare that to someone pointing a gun in your general vicinity.

now you see the difference
 
gfm7175 said:
PRECISELY this!!! :nodyes:

Their intense emotions cloud their ability to reason.


Domer's issue is that he fails at basic English reading and comprehension. In his case, he has spoken Liberal for so long that he has completely forgotten the English language.


CFM is basing his argumentation on a false equivalence. He is equivocating [driving] with [drinking and driving]. He seems rather emotional about this topic, which goes back to what you said at the beginning of this comment.


USF is ignoring the fact that those actions would amount to reckless endangerment. He seems rather emotional about this topic too.


:nodyes:
Click to expand...

WAIT just a minute, are you saying that driving while drunk or impaired would also amount to reckless endangerment??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
do you get in a car and drive with other people in cars heading straight for you, separated by nothing more than a broken/solid white line on the highway? compare that to someone pointing a gun in your general vicinity.

now you see the difference
Click to expand...

But you said no victim means no crime; so how is just pointing a gun a crime, if there is no victim??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top