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:
Bullshit. At least one claimed unless their is a victim, no crime was committed. At the very least that means unless someone is hurt, the belief is it's OK to drive drunk.

The only clear thing is that it's an ugly baby. It's not an insult if it's true.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it was OK to drive drunk, nor did anyone else. Why must you have issues about this fact?

Yep, an ugly whining baby. Seems there is a resemblance.
 
Miss Margot Frank said:
You can't own a bazooka!Joe!
Click to expand...
yes, you can.
Miss Margot Frank said:
2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can own weapons of war.
Click to expand...
yes, you can. I can purchase an automatic weapon, legally. and get this, the kicker that shows your stupid assed bullshit about you cowards with the 2nd amendment is that machine gun has to have been made before May 18th, 1986. That alone shows how wrong you and the courts are about shall not be infringed.
Miss Margot Frank said:
Just like 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can yell fire in a movie theater
Click to expand...
you should read the following and learn how justice holmes completely regretted that wrong headed decision he made in the name of patriotism.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
 
will you fucking idiot gun grabbers ever realize that people like sty have your back too if bad things ever really happen in our safe space? you're acting like ungrateful spoiled retarded march of dimes children.
 
RB 60 said:
He didn't say it was OK to drive drunk, nor did anyone else. Why must you have issues about this fact?

Yep, an ugly whining baby. Seems there is a resemblance.
Click to expand...

He did. He believes in the freedom to make personal choices being more important that an innocent person not being killed by someone so selfish they'd drive drunk.

There's a resemblance to you. YOU'RE the one whining because you were inconvenienced. Remember, I wasn't the one stopped that complained about it. You were.
 
CFM said:
He did. He believes in the freedom to make personal choices being more important that an innocent person not being killed by someone so selfish they'd drive drunk.

There's a resemblance to you. YOU'RE the one whining because you were inconvenienced. Remember, I wasn't the one stopped that complained about it. You were.
Click to expand...

you don't understand probable cause sufficiently. does your brain hurt from being so dumb?
 
CFM said:
Stopping drunk driving is a cause.
Click to expand...

There is no individual cause. You are assuming that people are guilty until their innocence is proven.

Maybe we should start jailing married men so that they stop beating their wives?? After all, stopping wife beating is a cause. ;)

Looks like you're headed to jail, good buddy... ;) ;)
 
CFM said:
He did.
Click to expand...
No he didn't.

CFM said:
He believes in the freedom to make personal choices being more important that an innocent person not being killed by someone so selfish they'd drive drunk.
Click to expand...
It is.

CFM said:
There's a resemblance to you. YOU'RE the one whining because you were inconvenienced.
Click to expand...
No, he simply doesn't enjoy his rights being violated.

Enjoying your stint in jail yet?? As you very well know, according to you anyway, stopping wife beating is a cause.

CFM said:
Remember, I wasn't the one stopped that complained about it. You were.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't enjoy my rights being violated like that either...
 
gfm7175 said:
There is no individual cause. You are assuming that people are guilty until their innocence is proven.

Maybe we should start jailing married men so that they stop beating their wives?? After all, stopping wife beating is a cause. ;)

Looks like you're headed to jail, good buddy... ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Hopefully a drunk driver will hit your family since you believe the personal choice to drive drunk is more important that the right to life of the innocent person they hit.
 
gfm7175 said:
No he didn't.


It is.


No, he simply doesn't enjoy his rights being violated.

Enjoying your stint in jail yet?? As you very well know, according to you anyway, stopping wife beating is a cause.


I wouldn't enjoy my rights being violated like that either...
Click to expand...

No one has the right to make the personal choice to drive drunk.

No one's rights were violated. Being inconvenienced doesn't do that. If you think so, run a red light or a stop sign.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
domer has proven to be too much of a coward to answer this question, so lets see if you are........

Can police set up checkpoints to stop drivers, who have broken no laws, and check for drivers licenses?
Click to expand...

Here's a better question. Is it OK if a person makes the personal choice to drive drunk?

If you're driving without a license, you've broken the law.
 
CFM said:
Here's a better question. Is it OK if a person makes the personal choice to drive drunk?

If you're driving without a license, you've broken the law.
Click to expand...

so you're too much of a coward to answer the question. i understand. you hate being shown you're a dumbfuck failed american.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top