Ninjahedge
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2005
- 4,149
- 1
- 91
the second group knows when to blow off steam, but finds more salient things to do with their time--and their minds--on other occasions.
Mmmmmm. Salty.
the second group knows when to blow off steam, but finds more salient things to do with their time--and their minds--on other occasions.
They may spend their time differently but I don't think that makes one group losers and the other not. My point is I think both groups are mostly filled with losers. 95%-99% of people are losers at the end of the day irregardless of how much time they spend at the bar.
Warn away, beautiful being. What are you going to do, sue me?
????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
That was the mostest smartest thing I have heard around here in a long time.....
This all sounds good to me. The war on drugs has done more to harm society than help it. The bad guys already have guns so I doubt gun violence will increase. These are all great ideas.
I am paying attention, and your emotional, over-the-top argument missed the mark -- which is a recurring theme with you, it seems. Unless I misread your comment and it WASN'T sarcastic:
I agree. I would also have MUCH stricter penalties on DUIs. 1 offense and you lose your license for 5-10 years and 20k in fines.
The point was that we have background checks for legal guns to check for violent history. Alcohol is just as dangerous. Maybe if we had background checks for alcohol and saw DUIs or abuse in their history they would be denied alcohol. Why shouldn't it be the same? I simply posted the reverse.. why not just give guns to everyone with no checks just like we do alcohol?
Also, nothing I am saying is emotional in the least. It is completely logical and has no emotional component. I've never been in an accident with a drunk driver nor lost anyone.
The point was that we have background checks for legal guns to check for violent history. Alcohol is just as dangerous. Maybe if we had background checks for alcohol and saw DUIs or abuse in their history they would be denied alcohol. Why shouldn't it be the same? I simply posted the reverse.. why not just give guns to everyone with no checks just like we do alcohol?
Also, nothing I am saying is emotional in the least. It is completely logical and has no emotional component. I've never been in an accident with a drunk driver nor lost anyone.
They may spend their time differently but I don't think that makes one group losers and the other not. My point is I think both groups are mostly filled with losers. 95%-99% of people are losers at the end of the day irregardless of how much time they spend at the bar.
i must be a loser because i'm going to cancun in january and will be partying my ass off with my wife and my younger brother as well as other friends.
i turn 29 this saturday.
BOY IM SUCH A LOSER SHEESH!!!
Thats stupid. Instead of ruining thousands of lives it would make more sense to put technology in a car to prevent it from starting if you have been drinking.
You'd probably have better success arguing that maybe we should install those devices that won't let you start your car unless you blow into them and you're below the legal limit.
When I was 14, we were hit by a drunk driver. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured but it did destroy my mom's car. And yet, I don't think alcohol should be banned or regulated to the degree that a background check should be required when you buy alcohol.
Umm, LOL, NO there isn't. I can go to any gun show or private sale and buy a gun with no background check and the background NICS check at a dealer isn't for violent history except for a protection order against you. Learn about what you keep spouting.
fair enough.
but "regardless" is fine. "Irregardless" is not a word. I don't care what dictionary.com or Websters bullshit link you want to send me, but "Irregardless" is NOT A FUCKING WORD.
it has been misused for years and years in place of "regardless," which is a real word.
why the fuck would people accept this shit??
:twisted:
Why would that ruin lives?
No technology would prevent someone else from starting the car or other workarounds.
If this is indeed correct, then we are in worse shape than I thought.
No, a ban would suffice; I doubt you have any assets.
They tried the devices.
The problem is, they get circumvented and they are not 100% reliable (I don't know if they can faill when you are clean, or vice versa) they are just not the solution. I think they are a definite step up though.
The thing is, all that has to happen is someone over 30 with an open container of 4-loko in their car with minors and an unlicensed revolver they got at a local gun show to run over a family with a 14 year old in a car on their way to the club and this whole thing goes right to hell.
It's irrefutable.
I don't think I need to explain why putting people in jail for 20 years is a bad idea. Let alone go into the financial impact for society.
However, we could easily implement a device that determines BAC. Maybe it takes readings to start the car and then periodically while the car is on. I'm not an engineer but I'm certain there is a non intrusive solution that can be worked out here. I mean first we made driver airbags mandatory. Now we have airbags stuffed inside every crevice of the car. Its all possible.
Tampering with the sensors would be punishable by a permanent driving license ban. or some other such deterrent. I'll leave the details to be worked out by the law makers. It is a very feasible and fairly cheap to implement solution that wouldn't destroy lives or put unnecessary financial burdens on society and could immediately save 25k lives a year.
When did I say to put people in jail at all, let alone for 20 years?
I agree. I would also have MUCH stricter penalties on DUIs. 1 offense and you lose your license for 5-10 years and 20k in fines.
sorry must have confused your post with someone elses post. 5-10 years and 20k in fines would certainly ruin most americans lives completely just as much as jail. So without a car surely they will lose their job. So they can't provide for their family they will likely lose their house, They go on welfare , declare bankruptcy becuase americans dont have any savings let alone 20k. That kind of punishment would be horrible. makes alot more sense to implement a non intrusive technological solution.
