100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: cops out for blood | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just a quick reminder for all those who think otherwise also.
You do not have the legal right to a drivers license, no matter how old you are, how safe you are or anything. An American Drivers License is a priviledge, and always HAS been a priviledge and not a right. Most states now, if not all, allow a parent of a minor to confiscate a drivers license, even the permenant one, and even destroy it, if they feel their child does not deserve said privilige. I do not know of a single state on the reverse side either, that dictates a parent HAS to allow their child to take drivers training or safety courses and get thir license at 16 years of age. So please remember folks, the bottom line is that driving is a privilige and not your right. And like ALL priviledges it CAN BE taken away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hvnly, u keep debatin the same thing, that drunk drivin isn't a crime when it fact I have proven it by providin a link where u can find the laws in all 50 states that make drunk drivin in fact a crime. U've also said that crime has to have a victim in order to be a crime which in fact I have also disproven by providin the definition of crime. I feel that u are ignorin this because I have actually proven ur points to be mute an invalid. 
Actually he did say that he understood it was currently a crime, he just views it as a victimless and thinks it shouldn't be illegal. I have my issues with truly victimless crimes, but drunk driving is far from victimless. It claims far too many lives every year to be victimless. The question really is risk, how much risk should one person be able to inflict on another before it is illegal. I know in the US many would like to think that no amount of risk is acceptable, but that's just not feasible. There are too many factors that add risk while driving, cell phone use and make are just two. Having kids in the car, less than normal eye sight, poor hearing, youth, old age are all extra risks, and the list goes on and on. So really our laws are determining what is an acceptable amount of risk for one person to impose upon another. I can see arguing that limits are unreasonable but not that they shouldn't exist. Just because one can spin a the gun chamber and pull the trigger their entire life and never actually fire a shot doesn't mean they should be allowed to keep pointing that gun at someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hvnly, u keep debatin the same thing, that drunk drivin isn't a crime when it fact I have proven it by providin a link where u can find the laws in all 50 states that make drunk drivin in fact a crime. U've also said that crime has to have a victim in order to be a crime which in fact I have also disproven by providin the definition of crime. I feel that u are ignorin this because I have actually proven ur points to be mute an invalid.
Actually he did say that he understood it was currently a crime, he just views it as a victimless and thinks it shouldn't be illegal. I have my issues with truly victimless crimes, but drunk driving is far from victimless. It claims far too many lives every year to be victimless. The question really is risk, how much risk should one person be able to inflict on another before it is illegal. I know in the US many would like to think that no amount of risk is acceptable, but that's just not feasible. There are too many factors that add risk while driving, cell phone use and make are just two. Having kids in the car, less than normal eye sight, poor hearing, youth, old age are all extra risks, and the list goes on and on. So really our laws are determining what is an acceptable amount of risk for one person to impose upon another. I can see arguing that limits are unreasonable but not that they shouldn't exist. Just because one can spin a the gun chamber and pull the trigger their entire life and never actually fire a shot doesn't mean they should be allowed to keep pointing that gun at someone. I suppose when one of his loved ones is killed by a 'safe' drunk driver he might change his view on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hvnly, u keep debatin the same thing, that drunk drivin isn't a crime when it fact I have proven it by providin a link where u can find the laws in all 50 states that make drunk drivin in fact a crime. U've also said that crime has to have a victim in order to be a crime which in fact I have also disproven by providin the definition of crime. I feel that u are ignorin this because I have actually proven ur points to be mute an invalid.
Actually he did say that he understood it was currently a crime, he just views it as a victimless and thinks it shouldn't be illegal. I have my issues with truly victimless crimes, but drunk driving is far from victimless. It claims far too many lives every year to be victimless. The question really is risk, how much risk should one person be able to inflict on another before it is illegal. I know in the US many would like to think that no amount of risk is acceptable, but that's just not feasible. There are too many factors that add risk while driving, cell phone use and make are just two. Having kids in the car, less than normal eye sight, poor hearing, youth, old age are all extra risks, and the list goes on and on. So really our laws are determining what is an acceptable amount of risk for one person to impose upon another. I can see arguing that limits are unreasonable but not that they shouldn't exist. Just because one can spin a the gun chamber and pull the trigger their entire life and never actually fire a shot doesn't mean they should be allowed to keep pointing that gun at someone. I suppose when one of his loved ones is killed by a 'safe' drunk driver he might change his view on this.
One would hope, but I have my doubts. He seems pretty committed to this fantasy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some unfortunately refuse to be educated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some unfortunately refuse to be educated.
Some don't want to be 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, drunk drivers have no business getting behind the wheel of a car. If they own the car, they do have business getting behind the wheel. They DON'T have business causing harm to others, however. That is the only extent that any law can logically/ethically be applied. --------------------------------------------------------------------- drunk driveing is a crime . it causes thousands of innocent peoples deaths every year . and driveing is not a right in this country its a privilege and you have to obey it or lose your right s . can you imagene what would happen to you if you told someone that no one had the right to stop them from driveing and they went out and killed the newspaper boy . that guy would go to prison and you could lose every thing you own and well ever be able to get . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, drunk drivers have no business getting behind the wheel of a car. If they own the car, they do have business getting behind the wheel. They DON'T have business causing harm to others, however. That is the only extent that any law can logically/ethically be applied. --------------------------------------------------------------------- drunk driveing is a crime . it causes thousands of innocent peoples deaths every year . and driveing is not a right in this country its a privilege and you have to obey it or lose your right s . can you imagene what would happen to you if you told someone that no one had the right to stop them from driveing and they went out and killed the newspaper boy . that guy would go to prison and you could lose every thing you own and well ever be able to get . people in this country have seen the courts rewrite the law so much they think its ok for them to do it to . we need one set of law written by the proper people ,one body to enforce it and another to judge it . NO MORE ROYALTY HERE . |
|
|
|
|
