Common sense Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I see both sides of the argument here actually, its tough. I see the point of preventing D&D'ing, but I also understand the point the other side is making about gov't encroachment. If its for people WHO HAVE D&D'ed then it makes sense (like we have now here), punish the offenders not everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22Sedinery33 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Finally something I can agree on with the French... It's what we need here to take the morons off the road when they can't handle themselves and think there cool by driving recklessly down the highway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems a lot of you did not read the article. Its for a mandatory breathalyzer but NOT the immobilizer you see in people convicted of DUIs. Its just any old breathalyzer test. The driver is not forced to use it before starting his or her car. Its not going to do a whole lot for stopping drunk driving and its not overly intrusive. I personally think its pointless because I doubt its going to have a lot of people use it and change their mind about driving. Also, its government heading one step in the direction of Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 so rather than present an argument as to why you disagree with me you insult me and call into question my mental health . i will tell you what i am , i am a person who takes responsibility for his actions and does not want/need people telling me how to live my life . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems a lot of you did not read the article. Its for a mandatory breathalyzer but NOT the immobilizer you see in people convicted of DUIs. Its just any old breathalyzer test. The driver is not forced to use it before starting his or her car. Its not going to do a whole lot for stopping drunk driving and its not overly intrusive. I personally think its pointless because I doubt its going to have a lot of people use it and change their mind about driving. Also, its government heading one step in the direction of Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 No they were not, but clearly their point still stands. To say otherwise is ignorant. Oh really? The Patriot Act Free Speech Zones (whatever those are) SOPA/PIPA whatever its being called these days. The Espionage Act No more Habeas Corpus FEMA Camps TSA Income Tax is a fraud Property Tax is a fraud Carbon Tax is a fraud Interest is a fraud I dunno, sounds like a lot of stealing freedoms and money is going on to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Clearly the point stands? It's not so clear to me, care to explain how this encroaches onto your rights and freedoms? Go ahead, I'll wait. Can I use other laws that benefit the people to contradict the point you think you are making by pointing out freedom-encroaching laws? And let's not pretend that I see the government as representative of the people's wishes as it stands today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dank. Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Clearly the point stands? It's not so clear to me, care to explain how this encroaches onto your rights and freedoms? Go ahead, I'll wait. Can I use other laws that benefit the people to contradict the point you think you are making by pointing out freedom-encroaching laws? And let's not pretend that I see the government as representative of the people's wishes as it stands today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Their point. Not the point. The points of men much wiser than either of us. If you fail to comprehend their simple meanings, that's really too bad for you, but don't expect me to explain them to you when none is needed. So wait all you want. So you admit there's laws that encroach on our freedom? Right after saying the government doesn't do that? Good Game. Point out all of the other laws for all I care. Freedom isn't a game of balance, there isn't any amount of "contradictory" laws that will make up for the ones that strip us of our rights and freedoms. Your thought process on this subject is frightening. And your last sentence makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 All my life I've heard how alcoholism is not a problem in Europe. Everyone has a glass of wine with their meals and people learn from a young age to treat it the same as any other beverage. Everytime someone wants to change the laws to make it more accessible they point to Europe. I've always said this is not Europe and simply making alcohol more accessible isn't going to magically transform social norms. Recently theatres here lobbied to serve alcohol and used the Europe arguement. One third is a staggering number. Clearly alcohol is a larger problem now than in the past in France. It is not your fathers' Europe any more. Edit: For the record I strongly oppose this law. It is frigthening how people jump up in support, just frightening. Do you know that in the UK there are government cameras in the homes of "problem families" to assure Big Brother that the children are properly cared for and other problems are under control??? And the people there feel this is acceptable!?!?! We are lining up pleading for our rights to be seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Somebody does not have a sense of humour. Anyways, are you okay with people's right to bear firearms? I've never heard anything from you about it and don't know your position on it, but if you're of the belief that it's not guns that kill people and a few criminals shouldn't ruin it for the rest, then at least you're consistent and I can respect you for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dank. Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 People like you have one problem, too many words say nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Is it a privilege when your taxes pay for the infrastructure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTo ThE WiLD Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 At least breathalyzer manufacturers and retailers are prolly having a toast ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 That's ironic considering your whole argument stems from a post in which I only used words of famous people. I'm really not going to bother. Why should I? I can listen to Butthead here, trying to tell me what Freedom is all about... Butthead or a Founding Father. Thomas Jefferson I choose the latter. So continue your argument for a tyrannical big brother, nanny state if you'd like, I'm tuning out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donky Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Let me guess....many members of the ruling party are heavily invested in breathalyzers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Judging from the posts in this thread, it seems a lot of you did not read the article. Its for a mandatory breathalyzer but NOT the immobilizer you see in people convicted of DUIs. Its just any old breathalyzer test. The driver is not forced to use it before starting his or her car. Its not going to do a whole lot for stopping drunk driving and its not overly intrusive. I personally think its pointless because I doubt its going to have a lot of people use it and change their mind about driving. Also, its government heading one step in the direction of Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I don't see why it's a bad idea. Put them in all cars. If your not drinking, you can drive. Simple. If the government will subsidise it and it's free to install, why not? We would be in a much safer world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Diem Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 lol i don't think is the same type of breathlyzer that prevents a car from starting. also, is a $11 Euro fine for not having one. Hardly government oppression, more like encouragement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Diem Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” (Thomas Jefferson, To Archibald Stuart in Philadelphia 1791.) so the majority has to give up another freedom because of the mistakes of very small minority , where do we draw the line ? i do not drink and i believe that if you kill someone while driving under the influence you should be charged with murder , but this is a ridiculous idea with so many ways to circumvent it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.