If it saves just one child... Echoes of Brady arguments here

[oni.dori]

All nanny-state pushers feed off of the same emotional rationality and ignorant arguments to support their lazy ideologies.

[a1c]

There is no constitutional amendment making it a right to drive drunk. Nor to drive, period. I got no problem with this.

Oh, and I've reported drunk drivers too. And my wife has prosecuted quite a few of them.

[Brianguy]

If more people were LTC perhaps these kids wouldn't have been shot and a mailman would still be alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Jewish_Community_Center_shooting

Think of the children!

[scarville]

We are always trying to restrict the rule abiders in an attempt to cover up our unwillingness to deal directly with the rule breakers. e.

Yep. And here is a good example of the kind of thinking.

There is no constitutional amendment making it a right to drive drunk. Nor to drive, period. I got no problem with this.

[Wernher von Browning]

It was surreal following him for a few blocks and then seeing patrol cars converge like that.

Like calling in an artillery strike...

Did they get in touch with you later, perhaps to ask "what tipped you off" etc? In my case, they did phone me to follow up. I gather they were dotting their i's and crossing their t's to cement that case. So the defense couldn't say he was pulled over without probable cause; I gave them probable cause.

[Mofo-Kang]

Want to get serious about drunk driving?

For convictions:

1st. offense -- one year in jail. $25,000 fine. Loss of car.

2nd offense, five years in prison, $100,000 fine. Loss of car.

3rd offense. Life in prison. Minimum sentence -- 15 years.

But, we don't have the will to actually do something, so we keep killing thousands of people, set up illegal road blocks, and come up with goofy ideas such as ignition blocks and holding bartenders responsible.

I'd be behind something like that. There's really no excuse.

[Deadbolt]

There is no constitutional amendment making it a right to drive drunk. Nor to drive, period. I got no problem with this.

I have no problem with this provided it is willful implements installed by the car companies.


If its a mandate, then perhaps our government chambers, vehicles, offices, and all - should have these installed prior to the private sector.

[Paper Boy]

Do as I say not as I do
Former MADD Head Charged With Drunken Driving

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-madd-head-debra-oberlin-charged-with-drunken-driving/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C46630

[Wherryj]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mission-creep-this-tennessee-highway-is-now-patrolled-by-tsa.html

How about this for a "if it saves just one" argument?

The TSA is now employing random searches of vehicles on highways. NO probable cause, just searches similar to those we have allowed to be forced upon us for air travel.

Just how much freedom are we willing to give up for a sense of security?

[Wernher von Browning]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mission-...ed-by-tsa.html

How about this for a "if it saves just one" argument?

The TSA is now employing random searches of vehicles on highways. NO probable cause, just searches similar to those we have allowed to be forced upon us for air travel.

Just how much freedom are we willing to give up for a sense of security?

Yes, and no. It's bad enough what they're doing, but it's not as bad as the innuendo makes it out to be.

They are searching trucks and buses. Read comment #8 here for example.

On the other hand, they can do this because people, ordinary citizens (riding buses), truck drivers, and the Teamsters Union lets them get away with it.

If it really is a problem, the simple, non-confrontational way to address this is for those entities to bite the financial bullet and boycott TN. Or for the Teamsters to strike there. Or have rolling roadblocks to protest. That is, if there is indeed heavy-handed enforcement. There may not be anything to see here, after all.

Problem is, these actions come with a price and today everybody expects their freedom to be free. If you were stopped, what would you do? How far do you think you, as a solitary "crazy man", will get with that? So, bottom line, nothing will be done. Just as nothing is done about grannies and toddlers being groped by the smart, highly-trained, dedicated public servants at the airport.

Again, at this time TSA is not stopping private cars. That doesn't mean they don't wish they could, or that they won't try to someday.

There are enough other situations that should tick you off already. For decades we've had inland border patrol checkpoints, even secret, roving checkpoints on back roads. We've had DUI checkpoints. None of these show any signs of going away.

[a1c]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mission-...ed-by-tsa.html

How about this for a "if it saves just one" argument?

The TSA is now employing random searches of vehicles on highways. NO probable cause, just searches similar to those we have allowed to be forced upon us for air travel.

Just how much freedom are we willing to give up for a sense of security?

The argument is not the problem - it's all about how it's used.

Preventing a vehicle from starting if the driver is over the limit is not unconstitutional. It does not infringe on anybody's rights. You have no right to drive drunk. You don't even have a right to drive.

The "if it saves just one" argument is only devious - and it usually is when it's used - when it's used to justify the infringement of rights of law-abiding citizens - 1st, 2nd, 4th, privacy (although originalists will argue the right to privacy is not a constitutional right), etc. Some pro-life activists who would like to see a federal ban on abortion also use that argument to justify their position.

It's not what we're talking about here. No one's right would be infringed. Some will call it nanny state. Manufacturers will progressively implement this, and at some point there might be state laws mandating it for new vehicle.

[scarville]

Just how much freedom are we willing to give up for a sense of security?

How much have do you have? There is always someone willing to sacrifice your freedom on the altar of his delusions.