Senate Bill 1018

[Chee-to]

Did you read the article I linked to?

You gotta be kidding, a link to a "DUI blog" is what you call proof ? I thought you're studying law ? You champion a liberal California lawyer who's sole purposes in life is to get drunk drivers a lighter sentence or off scot free.....

I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don't think it's from North Korea. I don't think it's from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.

Is this all you got, you're one of the few ??

 

[ZachS]

You gotta be kidding, a link to a "DUI blog" is what you call proof ? I thought you're studying law ? You champion a liberal California lawyer who's sole purposes in life is to get drunk drivers a lighter sentence or off scot free.....



Is this all you got ??

Unless you have something more to offer than an ad hominem attack against the author of the article, I'm not going to bother discussing this issue with you - but here's a single-page summary without all of the offensive rhetoric and confusing citations that might be easier for you to digest: <broken link removed>

 

[Chee-to]

Unless you have something more to offer than an ad hominem attack against the author of the article, I'm not going to bother discussing this issue with you.

You attack MADD based on this this guy's opinions, provide a link to the "proof." then refuse to discuss the matrix of your proof.... I'm calling BS.......

 

[ZachS]

You attack MADD based on this this guy's opinions, provide a link to the "proof." then refuse to discuss the matrix of your proof.... I'm calling BS.......

I didn't say that was proof, I said it was a summary, sans citations, for readers like you who are unwilling or unable to read something more than a page long.

Have you read the original article yet?

 

[Chee-to]

I didn't say that was proof, I said it was a summary, sans citations, for readers like you who are unwilling or unable to read something more than a page long.

Have you read the original article yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chee-to View Post
Please provide proof on your assertions, or is this just more of your opinionated conjecture ?...

Did you read the article I linked to?

Yes, and he is a great DUI lawyer. His opinions and attacks on MADD are understandable, they make his job harder, and make for more convictions . No where in his opines did I find one inkling of proof that MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization as you asserted.........Now that's cleared up, lets try again, prove you statements that; "I have a problem with people who disguise their crusade against alcohol as a fight against drunk driving". "MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization. " Seems we both agree California DUI Attorney and Author Lawrence Taylor's blog is not proof....

 

[ZachS]

Yes, and he is a great DUI lawyer. His opinions and attacks on MADD are understandable, they make his job harder, and make for more convictions . No where in his opines did I find one inkling of proof that MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization as you asserted.........Now that's cleared up, lets try again, prove you statements that; "I have a problem with people who disguise their crusade against alcohol as a fight against drunk driving". "MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization. " Seems we both agree California DUI Attorney and Author Lawrence Taylor's blog is not proof....

Great. Then I'll just agree with you that it's merely my opinion that MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization. You're welcome to disagree. It's not, at all, the main point I was trying to make. My main point, as was obvious to everybody else who read my post, was that courts apply different constitutional standards to drunk driving than they do to other crimes? Do you still think that's just an "opinion"?

MADD uses emotional stories about tragic deaths and self-serving, inaccurate statistics to encourage legislatures and judges to take away people's rights much like gun control organizations do. It's the quintessential nanny-state organization.

 

[Chee-to]

Great. Then I'll just agree with you that it's merely my opinion that MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization. You're welcome to disagree. It's not, at all, the main point I was trying to make. My main point, as was obvious to everybody else who read my post, was that courts apply different constitutional standards to drunk driving than they do to other crimes? Do you still think that's just an "opinion"?

My best friend's 5 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had 3 previous DUI convictions and was driving on a suspended DL, what do you think ?? In Oregon, 1st , 2nd and 3rd offenses are class A misdemeanors, 4th and subsequent offenses are class C felonies. Citation:&#167;&#167;813.010(4) & (5), 161.605(3) & 161.615(1) (2)

 

[Jamie6.5]

My best friend's 5 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had 3 previous DUI convictions and was driving on a suspended DL, what do you think ?? In Oregon, 1st , 2nd and 3rd offenses are class A misdemeanors, 4th and subsequent offenses are class C felonies. Citation:&#167;&#167;813.010(4) & (5), 161.605(3) & 161.615(1) (2)

I think this is the same type of circumstances that we face in the gun control battle.
It should be obvious this guy was gonna drive with or without alcohol or a driver's license.
Just like the criminal that will always find a way to acquire a gun.

I am in no way defending drunk drivers, but you can't deny the parallel between the two.

And the legislation being proposed still constitutes a random search policy. I'll agree with that as soon as I agree to the police going door to door searching house by house looking for bad guys. <- Read: NEVER.
Without warrants or probable cause.
Be careful what you wish for!

 

[ZachS]

My best friend's 5 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had 3 previous DUI convictions and was driving on a suspended DL, what do you think ?? In Oregon, 1st , 2nd and 3rd offenses are class A misdemeanors, 4th and subsequent offenses are class C felonies. Citation:§§813.010(4) & (5), 161.605(3) & 161.615(1) (2)

I'm sorry to hear about your friend's daughter...

 

[Chee-to]

I think this is the same type of circumstances that we face in the gun control battle.
It should be obvious this guy was gonna drive with or without alcohol or a driver's license.
Just like the criminal that will always find a way to acquire a gun.

I am in no way defending drunk drivers, but you can't deny the parallel between the two.

And the legislation being proposed still constitutes a random search policy. I'll agree with that as soon as I agree to the police going door to door searching house by house looking for bad guys. <- Read: NEVER.
Without warrants or probable cause.
Be careful what you wish for!

Well, we all put up with metal detectors and having someone running a wand all over our body at the court house and sporting events, emptying our pockets and putting our shoes in a plastic container, having our travel bags gone through and x-rayed , and now they're going to x-ray each passenger at the airports, and they do this why ???

 

[The B]

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," covers things like MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

some of you guys are grade-A jackasses and are getting exactly what you deserve in this country. anyone not OUTRAGED by any further attack on our personal liberties, much like being stopped and breathalyzed for absolutely no reason, is a damn institutionalized idiot not deserving of the once-honored and meaningful title American Citizen.

yea, i'm lookin right straight at YOU.

"those who would sacrifice small freedoms for small securities deserve neither and will lose both." - a brighter man than you

 

[Chee-to]

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," covers things like MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

some of you guys are grade-A jackasses and are getting exactly what you deserve in this country. anyone not OUTRAGED by any further attack on our personal liberties, much like being stopped and breathalyzed for absolutely no reason, is a damn institutionalized idiot not deserving of the once-honored and meaningful title American Citizen.

yea, i'm lookin right straight at YOU.

"those who would sacrifice small freedoms for small securities deserve neither and will lose both." - a brighter man than you

Got news for ya, driving ain't a right it's a privilege (not in the bill of rights or the Constitution) or do you know something nobody else does ? As far as name calling is concerned keep it up and see what happens to your right to post............yea, i'm lookin right straight at YOU.
...

 

[The B]

Got news for ya, driving ain't a right it's a privilege (not in the bill of rights or the Constitution) or do you know something nobody else does ? As far as name calling is concerned keep it up and see what happens to your right to post............yea, i'm lookin right straight at YOU.
...

what kind of a mind do you have to have to think that any peaceful activity you participate in isn't a right?

i don't give a flying crap what some traffic judge had to say about driving and rights. why do you? what do you think a man from before the "progressive" movement would have said if you told him riding his horse was a privilege, and boy he better toe the damn line or he'd lose it? do you seriously think that because not every single activity a person can engage in isn't spelled out in the bill of rights that they aren't rights, but are ALL PRIVILEGES? what about wiping my ***? is that a right? i guess not. what about making love to my wife? privilege granted to me by my government? how about buying food for my children? what about driving my children to the hospital when they're in need of medical attention? that's a privilege that's granted to me by my government?

you and me are made of different stock. for some crazy reason, i developed the idea that i'm supposed to be free in my peaceful activities. that the government exists to protect my peaceful activity and freedom- not to limit it with bubblegumed terms like "privilege." the only entity in this country that's supposed to be limited under granted privileges is the damn government, not the PEOPLE.

i'm so disgusted. every time i turn around, theres more laws being enacted, more taxes. and every one of them takes money or freedom from me for causes that have nothing to do with me. every last one. to the point that my fellow countrymen think police officers should have the privilege of being able to harass me for no reason whatsoever, while engaged in my God given right to go on about my business un-molested.

 

[Karma]

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," covers things like MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

some of you guys are grade-A jackasses and are getting exactly what you deserve in this country. anyone not OUTRAGED by any further attack on our personal liberties, much like being stopped and breathalyzed for absolutely no reason, is a damn institutionalized idiot not deserving of the once-honored and meaningful title American Citizen.

yea, i'm lookin right straight at YOU.

"those who would sacrifice small freedoms for small securities deserve neither and will lose both." - a brighter man than you

I agree completely! It is easy to see why this state is going to crap! I can't believe all of the people who are constantly fighting the government to keep our rights, are so quick to hand rights away!

So are you guys of the belief that the constitution of the united states lays out all of our rights, and everything else goes to the government? LOL. I think you have it a little backwards!

I am truly sorry to the guy who knew the little girl that was killed by the drunk driver. That is horrible. I have a uncle who was helping some elderly people change a tire along I-5 when a drunk driver went off the road and killed him. I understand loss due to idiocy of someone who would endanger others lives in such a way. That being said, I absolutely will not agree to a violation like this in order to catch a few bad guys, anymore than I would agree to the police randomly searching homes to find meth labs!

I have a cousin who was shot in L.A. also, it doesn't mean I am going to allow violations of our assumed rights because of that either!



"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have."
-- Harry Emerson Fosdick

"A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot -because the first leads inevitably to the second."
-- Harry Browne

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Chee-to]

what kind of a mind do you have to have to think that any peaceful activity you participate in isn't a right?

i don't give a flying crap what some traffic judge had to say about driving and rights. why do you? what do you think a man from before the "progressive" movement would have said if you told him riding his horse was a privilege, and boy he better toe the damn line or he'd lose it? do you seriously think that because not every single activity a person can engage in isn't spelled out in the bill of rights that they aren't rights, but are ALL PRIVILEGES? what about wiping my ***? is that a right? i guess not. what about making love to my wife? privilege granted to me by my government? how about buying food for my children? what about driving my children to the hospital when they're in need of medical attention? that's a privilege that's granted to me by my government?

you and me are made of different stock. for some crazy reason, i developed the idea that i'm supposed to be free in my peaceful activities. that the government exists to protect my peaceful activity and freedom- not to limit it with bubblegumed terms like "privilege." the only entity in this country that's supposed to be limited under granted privileges is the damn government, not the PEOPLE.

i'm so disgusted. every time i turn around, theres more laws being enacted, more taxes. and every one of them takes money or freedom from me for causes that have nothing to do with me. every last one. to the point that my fellow countrymen think police officers should have the privilege of being able to harass me for no reason whatsoever, while engaged in my God given right to go on about my business un-molested.

Well, tell it to the judge. I suppose everybody is born with the right to conceal carry, at any age and anywhere they want ? If you're thinking restricted rights that may or may not be granted and can be revoked ya, but that's called a privilege..not inalienable rights, Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another, Not subject to forfeiture, NO !! Sorry you don't approve...............

 

[Karma]

Well, tell it to the judge. I suppose everybody is born with the right to conceal carry, at any age and anywhere they want ? If you're thinking restricted rights that may or may not be granted and can be revoked ya, but that's called a privilege..not inalienable rights, Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another, Not subject to forfeiture, NO !! Sorry you don't like it...............

So your position is that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we have to have permission from our government? O.k. so by your logic, our government can revoke your right to make love to your wife? That is just a right that can be revoked? It isn't covered specifically in the constitution, so that must be the case.

Man, you need to read the writings of the framers of our Constitution! They didn't even plan to write the Bill of Rights because they figured it was unnecessary! The government was meant to govern in very specific areas, not have total control over us!

 

[The B]

Well, tell it to the judge. I suppose everybody is born with the right to conceal carry, at any age and anywhere they want ?

from a legal perspective: you betcha.

 

[Chee-to]

So your position is that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we have to have permission from our government? O.k. so by your logic, our government can revoke your right to make love to your wife? That is just a right that can be revoked? It isn't covered specifically in the constitution, so that must be the case.

Man, you need to read the writings of the framers of our Constitution! They didn't even plan to write the Bill of Rights because they figured it was unnecessary! The government was meant to govern in very specific areas, not have total control over us!

It ain't a position it's fact. Get a dictionary and look up the definition of privilege. To drive you have to be a certain age, pass a test, have proof insurance and "IF" you qualify you are issued a license which is a legal document giving official permission to do something, now this license can be revoked for many reasons, you following so far ? That's the law. So is your position , the first ten amendments and laws that control behavior aren't necessary, and we should be able to run around and do what ever we want to do when ever we feel like it, whether it harms someone else or not, no rules, sorry but that's called anarchy, you may have to look that up also. As far as making love to your wife is concerned, that may or may not be covered under the pursuit of happiness, only you can determine that.........

 

[Chee-to]

from a legal perspective: you betcha.

What legal perspective ?

 

[The B]

What legal perspective ?

a Constitutional perspective. the government can make no laws that inhibit an individual's liberties- except to ensure them. it's a child's parents' job to police their children, NOT the government. don't you ever wonder where these laws came from, and why they haven't existed for most of our country's history? you must have had a public education.

there's no point getting into these petty side debates. we're probably not going to agree on the color of the sky at this point, if only for spite.