In 2006, 13,470 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

[cliffordu]

I want to ban automobiles because they kill too many people.


Cars kill people. Not drunk drivers. Car enthusiasts and their cars.

[Taverner]

1. LOL love it

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. .

:popcorn:

[sandnsea]

3. We have increased drunk driving penalties

And we did increase liabilities on those who enable drunkeness in the last 20 years to reduce some of these fatalities.

[cliffordu]

4. I know- the figure used to be 40 thousand a year.....

This post is NOT about drunk drivers.....

[sandnsea]

16. It's not? You're kidding!!

Gun Addicts. That's all most of you are.

[cliffordu]

17. Gun addicts? Hmmm.....

Hysteria, much??


:rofl:

[sandnsea]

18. Absolutely. Gun Addicts.

An addict obsesses over something under the delusion that it is beneficial to them, when it is actually harming them and the ones they love.

[cliffordu]

20. I don't have any guns. I could if I wanted to. That's kind of the point.

I can quit anytime I want to.

:rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:
:rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:
:rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Imagine sandnsea doesn't have anything else to say.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Aside from a few facists in WWII, none of my guns have ever harmed anyone.

I keep an eye on them though. You never know when one might jump up and start blazing away.

[iverglas]

101. it's really the only possible conclusion

Given how long and loudly they do love to pretend that firearms and alcohol (and drugs) are just exactly the very same.

Prohibition doesn't work for alcohol and drugs ... so it won't work for handguns ...

Obviously, they gotta have their fix and won't be deterred by laws and punishments, just like alcoholics / drug addicts. 'Cause otherwise, their "argument" just makes no sense at all.

[tuckessee]

58. Yes, and the founder of MADD quit in disgust because she felt they went too far.

She didn't like the fact MADD was taken over by, in her words, "neo-prohibitionists".

[havocmom]

5. Waiting for: you can have my car

when you rip my drunken dead hands off the wheel.

It always amazes me that so many insist guns are the problem instead of mental health issues, social ills, general tendency of the population to use violence instead of healthy communication. And so few will look at cars that way. Nuances & critical thought are OK with cars that aren't acceptable with guns

And our over-use of cars does more than rack up a body count. When one starts counting in the costs to provide so much for cars, and the toll of keeping the oil flowing.... WAY too expensive and I want them banned too

Do we have our fire-proof BVDs on? ;)

[cliffordu]

7. I tossed my fireproof bloomers the other day and am now trying

high temp manifold paint applied directly to the skin.....


I look like a fat assed superhero dipped in Rustoleum.

And yes, I expect full flamiage.....

[HereSince1628]

6. If we could increase that by 148,000 per month it would solve unemployment

You make fun of Freepers, I'll make fun of Libertarians

No one will appreciate cynical humor but us.

[cliffordu]

8. I'm with you. I think EVERYONE should drink and drive and carry automatic weapons...

All at once...

[HereSince1628]

22. Exactly, while I'm in the bunker at my undisclosed location.

[Hannah Bell]

60. while smoking non-filtered cigarettes and eating twinkies spread with lard.

[cliffordu]

67. lol. Now we're describing my family...Drunk, heavily armed, driving and eating

lard....
:rofl:

[old mark]

9. We need an organization to protect us legal car owners from

car grabbers - How about some sort of National Car Association?

mark

ADDED: Don't forget the many Americans killed each year in swimming related incidents. We need to do something about that too.

[cliffordu]

10. now yer talkin!!

[petronius]

11. May I propose that we ban cars that look 'scary fast'?

You know - the ones with spoilers and racing stripes and an excessive number of aerodynamic features. The super-dangerous cars that nobody needs to go shopping for food...

[cliffordu]

13. That's right. Anything that looks military in nature:

Hummers are scary and have to go!!!!!

[rrneck]

106. No need to ban them. Just write the law

to require the car to have not more than three(3) cosmetic high performance accessories that actually do nothing to make the car go faster. Rims but no spoiler, spoiler but dull paint, shiney paint but skinney tires...

[hfojvt]

12. "Handguns are made for killing. They ain't no good for nothing else"

"and if you like to drink your whiskey. You might even shoot yourself."

While the automobile IS a weapon of mass destruction, it has a non-lethal purpose which it fulfills for the average person perhaps half a dozen times a day and typically without incident. A gun, unlike other lethal tools such as knives and sledgehammers, does not have a non-lethal function other than the entertainment value of shooting tin cans and clay pigeons and buoys off of Captain Nemo's ship.

[cliffordu]

15. I'm surprised there aren't more killings. A couple hundred million guns say

There should be HUNDREDS of killings every day, right???

We have a culture that enjoys death and killing. We LIKE shooting each other.

We are, when you add up the Fundy obsession with resurrection, a regular death cult.

[Johonny]

28. I agree

the analogy simply doesn't work. People can and do die from the improper operation of many devices. None of these devices are devised to kill other human beings. Guns kill people when you use them correctly or incorrectly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. I've used firearms correctly for over thirty years and never killed anyone.

[cliffordu]

68. Yep - I've been using them since the '50's without civilian casualty.

[Statistical]

32. Most guns must be defective...

300 million guns in circulation
10,000 murders per year w/ firearms

99.997% of firearms must be broken....
Maybe you are advocating we need far more lethal weapons because a 99.997% failure rate is pretty bad?

[hfojvt]

42. many of them are used to kill non-human animals

And lots of shots miss or just wound, or the gun is 'only' used to threaten. Medical science and services are also more capable of saving victims of gunshots.

So people buy guns they don't use, just like the treadmills and total gyms they buy. That doesn't change the lethal nature of the 'tool' even if other, much more utilized tools, are deadlier.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. If quoting Lynyrd Skynyrd lyrics is the best you can do in this debate...

.. you might just want to sit it out...

just sayin'...


"A gun, unlike other lethal tools such as knives and sledgehammers, does not have a non-lethal function other than the entertainment value of shooting tin cans and clay pigeons and buoys off of Captain Nemo's ship."

Doesn't the cognitive dissonance make your head hurt?? Way more people use their guns every day in non-lethal ways, like shooting cans, clay pigeons and paper targets, than those who choose to use them in illegal, lethal ways. For some reason though, I think you just choose to ignore that fact. Facts are nasty little critters to some folks here...

[varkam]

73. Point being...

that the utility of shooting clay pigeons is not equivalent to the utility of having personal transportation.

[Ghost in the Machine]

78. Counterpoint being...

The Constitution *guarantees* my *right* to own a gun... it says *nothing* about a right to drive a vehicle. In fact, driving is a *privilege*, so you have no point at all....

[varkam]

80. That's not a counterpoint in that it has nothing to do with the line of argument...

being engaged in. I believe they call that a "red herring", at least for these purposes. That's not to say that there isn't a Constitutional argument to be made, but I believe what was being discussed was the relative utility of recreational shooting and owning a vehicle.

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. I believe that you are wrong...

"I believe what was being discussed was the relative utility of recreational shooting and owning a vehicle."

What the poster I replied to was saying was that although automobiles *are* weapons of mass destruction, that's not their intended use but that guns have no other use... well, except for shooting targets (clay pigeons, tin cans, etc.) He didn't see the cognitive dissonance in his own statement, did he? Does the gun have another use besides killing or not?

As for "utility uses", you're going off into a very grey area there because you don't seem to understand the fact that, yes, guns can and do kill people, but they do have other uses too (shooting targets). The poster even tried to describe it as an "entertainment use", although he has no insight into the psyche of every gun owner/user. We could argue that guns have a therapeutic use for some people. What about the person who gets frustrated and goes out and pops some rounds at a stump or target, instead of a person... much like we tell people to go out and hit a tree or punching bag instead of another human being?

The simple fact, and point, is that millions of Americans buy their guns for reasons other than killing another human being, we just don't hear about them. Another simple fact, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, is that more people die each year (twice as many) from accidental choking than they do from accidental shootings.

Another simple fact is that until the rabid anti-gun crowd can start dealing with these facts and use them in their debates, instead of emotional, reactionary responses, they have nothing to say that I want to hear. Reactionary hyperbole isn't a good debate tactic, nor does it lead to reasonable discussion.

[varkam]

82. .

As for "utility uses", you're going off into a very grey area there because you don't seem to understand the fact that, yes, guns can and do kill people, but they do have other uses too (shooting targets). The poster even tried to describe it as an "entertainment use", although he has no insight into the psyche of every gun owner/user. We could argue that guns have a therapeutic use for some people. What about the person who gets frustrated and goes out and pops some rounds at a stump or target, instead of a person... much like we tell people to go out and hit a tree or punching bag instead of another human being?

I'm not sure why you say that I "don't seem to understand the fact that...(guns) do have other uses too" when I stated other such uses in one of my posts. One could argue that guns to have a therapeutic use for some, and good for them, but what I took from the discussion was a comparison of the relative utility of cars and guns. One could argue the very same thing for going for a drive, and then you still have the fact that cars are used for all sorts of pro-social and beneficial purposes that seem to go above and beyond firearm ownership.

The simple fact, and point, is that millions of Americans buy their guns for reasons other than killing another human being, we just don't hear about them. Another simple fact, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, is that more people die each year (twice as many) from accidental choking than they do from accidental shootings.

Granted, but those are also red herrings. Well, they are if we are still concerning ourselves with relative utility.

Another simple fact is that until the rabid anti-gun crowd can start dealing with these facts and use them in their debates, instead of emotional, reactionary responses, they have nothing to say that I want to hear. Reactionary hyperbole isn't a good debate tactic, nor does it lead to reasonable discussion.

I think you would agree that both sides of any strongly-argued debate, this one included, have their fair share of bomb-throwing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. ...

"I think you would agree that both sides of any strongly-argued debate, this one included, have their fair share of bomb-throwing."

Yep, I can agree with that wholeheartedly...

Sorry I missed your post about guns having other uses, my mistake. Thanks for the reasonable discussion on this issue...


Peace,

Ghost

[stillcool]

14. well...way back when I went to school...

there were less fatalities because there were less autos. Just saying. I think it's ridiculous to attempt gun restrictions at this stage of the game. If there were ever a time for people to cling to their guns, it is now.

[Paladin]

19. You Gun Obsessives Lose Every Time When You Talk About Cars

The reason is very simple: the ratio of active car use in this country vs. active use of guns in this country has got to be something like 10,000,000-to-1 or more. Of course there are going to be more car-related deaths than gun-related deaths. It's a meaningless comparison......

[cliffordu]

21. Confusing hardware with malicious acts is meaningless.

Hysterical and meaningless.

Like the drug laws in this country.......





FWIW--- I hate the fucking NRA.

[barb162]

23. If we took away drivers licenses for about 5 years and threw

people in jail for driving without licenses and fined them about 20,000 per offense, I think we'd get this more under control. They have hugely strict penalties in Scandinavia for drunk driving, and they keep it under control there.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. I don't want to ban automobiles but I do want to regulate them

You know, like having all drivers required to take driving tests before they are allowed behind the wheel; having safety checks of the vehicles to make sure that the owners are taking care of the vehicles properly; and not allowing those convicted of drunk driving being allowed to drive cars again for a certain period of time, or,if the offense was severe enough, never. I also think it is wise to make sure that certain types of vehicles, like racing cars, are not allowed on public highways.

Don't you think these measures are reasonable?

[prayin4rain]

25. yep, exactly n/t

[alarimer]

30. Yes, so let's license guns the same way.

Require a gun safety course for ANY weapon purchase, no matter the reason. And gun owners should have to be tested the way drivers license holders are tested.

I wish driver's ed was mandatory in every state. It should be and was offered when I was in high school but was a victim of budget cuts. The drivers here certainly need a Driver's ed. class.

[cliffordu]

31. Yep - I'm with you on both items.

[Statistical]

34. You broke the analogy....

See you DONT need any training to buy, own, or operate a vehicle on private property.

You only need license & registration if you want to use it on public roads.
So maybe people who want to carry weapons in public should have a license/permit....

Wait they already do. Concealed Carry Weapon permits almost always require some combination of training, testing, background check, fingerprints, and license that must be carried with the firearm.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. then I'll include that

I think that there should be training and licensing before operating any vehicle anywhere. As one who has known little kids who have been seriously injured while operating 4-wheelers, I think you understand my position.

[Statistical]

40. However as of today there is no requirement for vehicles....

yet you want those requirements on firearms.

What exactly does registration accomplish (other than huge cost)?

Did you know you can NOT force felons to register weapons?
Also that if you have registration you can't charge felons with NOT registering weapons?

I am just wonder if you were of that SCOTUS ruling. If we have a nationwide registration system the ONLY people who can be criminally charged for failure to register are otherwise law abiding citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

They also are next to useless at solving crimes or causing convictions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19876-2005Apr1.html

First conviction EVER from the Maryland statewide database.
It has been in existence for 8 years, costs $2.6 million dollars, thousands of manhours of policework and until 2005 had not resulted in a SINGLE conviction.

Since this court case it has never resulted in another conviction.
$2.6 MILLION for a single conviction.
How many police officers would that pay for?
How many mental health programs could use $2.6 million to prevent people from falling into a life of violence?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. You missed my point

I said that we NEED to have legislation requiring safety checks/licensed drivers for vehicles that aren't driven on public streets. I've known of kids who were allowed to drive and who not only wrecked vehicles but wrecked their bodies for life.

And I was talking about vehicle inspections to make sure they were safe and tests to make sure people knew how to drive before they got a license.

Anyone who thinks that just anybody should be able to pick up a rifle, say, and shoot it without instruction and without knowing if the rifle was in safe working condition must be someone who has not lost a family member or friend to a firearm accident caused by these very things.

[iverglas]

103. watch out you don't trip on the elephant in the room

If you were the licensed owner of a registered firearm, just how eager would you be to sell it to someone who was unable to show you a licence, without registering the transfer, knowing it was illegal to do so?

I mean, on the assumption of you being a law-abiding gun owner with a little something to lose if caught breaking the law, and all.

[iverglas]

102. sadly, the analogy was already flawed

But then ALL analogies are. That's why they're analogies, and not the same things.


See you DONT need any training to buy, own, or operate a vehicle on private property.

And vehicles can't be shoved down your pants and taken out in public without anyone knowing.

Additionally, of course, vehicles aren't used to injure, kill or terrorize people on private property all that often, either.


The point of an analogy, I think we really all do know, is to draw on the similarities between two things/situations and then address the distinctions between them.

There are points on which vehicle and firearm possession/use are similar, and points on which they are different.

If you're going to insist that the private-property exemption for vehicles must apply to firearms, then you are going to have to address the rather enormous DIFFERENCE between vehicles and firearms that makes it a very easy matter to tote one around in public undetected and impossible to drive the other around in public undetected.

I've suggested that a cloaking device for cars would level that playing field. Let me know when you come up with one.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. This is how I feel

I know for a fact that the NRA of all groups offers gun safety courses, so even THEY must think it is a good idea.

[SidDithers]

47. Licensing of both vehicles and drivers...

that's a good idea too.

Sid

[CRF450]

66. Hmmm...

"I also think it is wise to make sure that certain types of vehicles, like racing cars, are not allowed on public highways."

I see Honda Civics and pickup trucks being drivin by teenagers racing up and down the roads alot more than a factory high performance or highly modified car. In fact I'm one of those owners of a high performance car.

[JackDragna]

26. Another ridiculous strawman from the gun lobby.

Firstly, there are very few people adovcating gun control who want a total ban on firearms. Secondly, automobile traffic is necessary for our society. Owning and operating a firearm, by contrast, is only a need for a very small percentage of the population.

[MajorChode]

27. Do you have any arguments against gun control that doesn't involve obfuscation?

Just wondering.

[cliffordu]

29. Nope.

We need temper control. Not gun control.

[MajorChode]

33. We need a lot of things...

that also do nothing to strengthen your argument.

[cliffordu]

35. My argument needs no strengthening.

I simply think that the laws banning automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, like we have now, are adequate.


If poverty were eliminated tomorrow gun murder in "those neighborhoods" would fall back to the levels we see in genteel suburbia...

As the economy gets worse, look for spectacular shootings like the ones in the paper the last couple of days to increase.

It's as regular as rain. And it has NOTHING to do with guns.

[MajorChode]

38. Poverty exists all over the world including all developed nations...

yet gun violence in the US rivals or exceeds many 3rd world countries. You also ignore the tens of thousands of gun related accidents each year, especially against children, and the enormous success of programs that reduce the availability of illicit guns.

So while gunnuts continue to chant their mantra that "guns don't kill people", the fact is that gun violence in the US is epidemic and quite a few other countries have figured out a better way to do things.

[cliffordu]

43. Mogadishu.

Afghanistan pre USA....and what the hell, post usa, too....

Poverty and guns, poverty and guns.....never JUST guns.....Sometimes religion and poverty and guns.

SO:
You're basically full o' shit. I know you don't know it and that's OK.

Blaming guns absolves you of any real effort to eliminate poverty......a real clear look at WHY people kill each other and not how they do it will tell you bunches about your argument.........

And your take on the world at large.

[MajorChode]

54. So let's assume your nonsense is correct (which it isn't)

But for the moment let's just assume it is, fair enough?

You assume the ONLY answer is to eliminate poverty. Yet even you postulate that both are required for gun violence. Blaming poverty absolves you of any real effort to reduce the number or availability of guns.

SO:
You're basically full o' shit. I know you don't know it and that's OK.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Do tell about these enormously successful programs, with cites please.

[MajorChode]

84. Am I your personal research service?

I noticed you didn't request a cite when the previous poster made the assertion that there was an inseparable link between poverty and gun violence, even though such an assertion was ridiculous. Yet when I make an assertion that there have indeed been successful programs to reduce gun violence, you jump right in the middle and demand one sided proof. So the question that needs to be asked is, do you indeed have a burning desire for knowledge, or do you just want to harass someone on one side of the issue?

And yes, I can provide proof of my assertions, but I'm not going to do it for someone who wants to interject themselves into the middle of a discussion and demand cites while providing none themselves.

Here's your cite:
www.google.com

That's where I found it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. So you have no proof of these enormously successful programs, got it thanks.

[MajorChode]

89. Have you always had this much trouble with reading comprehension?

Or do you just think that childishly substituting what you wish I had written qualifies as anything approaching an intelligent reply?

I tell you what. I'll make a deal with you. If you admit you aren't literate enough to find such proof you desperately seek on your own, I'll be willing to provide you with a few hints.

Fair enough?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. People who offer facts and then can't back them up often rely on these tactics.

Of course they are usually right wingers. The proof doesn't exist. How can one find something that doesn't exist?

David

[MajorChode]

93. Wingnuts are generally the ones who always demand "proof" but never provide any of their own

All you have to do is say the words.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. What have I offered as fact that you would like me to prove?

[MajorChode]

95. Just the fact that your demands for "proof" are only on one side of the argument...

would be sufficient.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. Most of the pro 2nd Amendment people here are very good at citing our facts.

[iverglas]

108. so you've met our Dave

Here's one for you:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

(From a case in which Canadian firearms control legislation was challenged on essentially jurisdictional grounds; for Alberta, think Texas. My emphasis)

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

[Hannah Bell]

65. The US is the most unequal of all the developed countries. With one of the poorest

safety nets.

In the third world, the level of violence correlates best with measures of inequality, same as here.

[MajorChode]

85. So where's the direct association?

Germany has almost the exact same poverty rate as the US, yet the firearm homicide rate in the US is over 6 times higher, and the overall homicide rate in the US is almost 5 times higher.

[jeepnstein]

99. I looked at the data...

I'm having trouble making the connection between firearm ownership and overall murder rates. It seems to me that American society has more murder overall no matter what method employed.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I'm pretty sure that's what he just said.

[jeepnstein]

104. So basically,

he's full of crap?

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Well, your second sentence

in that post was correct. We have more murder overall, than quite a number of countries. Suicide with and without firearms is pretty high too.

[iverglas]

107. nice try

The statement:

the firearm homicide rate in the US is over 6 times higher, and the overall homicide rate in the US is almost 5 times higher.

Your reply:

It seems to me that American society has more murder overall no matter what method employed.

Your problem:

The "overall homicide rate" INCLUDES the firearms homicides, which account for pretty close to exactly 2/3 of all homicides in the US.

And the day when someone comes up with, oh, 100 of those firearms homicides in which it is reasonable to say "but they would have been committed anyhow some other way!!!" is the day I'll pay any heed to that meme.




html fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Do tell about these enormously successful programs, don't even worry about the cites.

[dsc]

36. then treat guns like cars

require licences to operate them, require insurance to own them, require that people who violate reasonable laws governing their use lose the right to have them. But people like you nearly always say we can't do that.

[cliffordu]

44. People like me.......

:rofl:

[dsc]

49. You are the one decrying gun control

the vast majority of people who wish gun control would be satisfied with guns being treated like cars. Virtually no one wishes to wholesale take guns way.

[Mike 03]

46. Good point. Where I live, it's easier to get a gun than a driver's license. In fact,

we can carry guns anywhere as long as they are in plain sight. Even into bars!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. You can buy a gun from a licensed dealer easier than obtaining a drivers license?

Please let me know where you live I might move there. With all of those guns being carried there must be multiple shootings each day in your city. Is that the case?

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. I believe that would be unconstitutional.

[SidDithers]

45. Do cars serve any other purpose in society than to kill people?...nt

Happiness is a warm gun.
Bang Bang Shoot Shoot

Sid

[cliffordu]

50. In the long run, no.

[L0oniX]

48. Oh but the terrorists are much more deserving of our attention. Yea right!

I am more afraid of the other driver than any ol terrorist. There's a 10000000 times more of a chance of a drunk driver will kill me than a terrorist.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/L0oniX/3

[old mark]

51. Actually, it's probably better just to ban drinking alcohol. nt

[cliffordu]

52. That's right!!!! No one will EVER kill themselves driving SOBER!!!!

Or shoot their neighbor, for that matter....

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. In 2007, some 41,059 people were killed in highway crashes, 13,000 of which were alcohol related

... which is less than 1/3rd of all crashes...
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/08/15/news/story10.html


Yep, I agree.. time to ban automobiles... *and* alcohol!

Also, twice as many people died from accidental choking than from accidental shooting... I think we should ban eating, too. Fuck it, let people learn how to take their meals through an IV.

:evilgrin:

[cliffordu]

55. And 379,000 people died taking a crap. We should outlaw FECES, too....

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. Elvis has left the throne....

:evilgrin:

[cliffordu]

69. lol. Lenny Bruce, too....

Too bad about Lenny. He gave me a lot of my outlook on life, I think.


I was corrupted as a yout'

[gmudem]

57. And yet marijuana is illegal. Nt

[cliffordu]

70. Yep. Specially fully automatic fatties.

[Thothmes]

72. Don't ban automobiles, ban alcohol.

[Darth_Kitten]

74. I fail to see the humour?

Sorry, but what am I missing? Know anybody that was killed by a drunk driver?

I do.

[cliffordu]

76. Yep I do.

I also know someone who was murdererd with a handgun.

[NightWatcher]

75. over 100 people drown in the bath each year and 70 die from burns...OUTLAW BATHS and SHOWERS

we'll be stinky but safe.

[cliffordu]

77. That's right!!!!

[anonymous171]

79. Fucking car nuts. nt

[chollybocker]

87. Are two or more Strawmen allowed in the Carpool Lane?

[L0oniX]

88. Why not start with banning bombs and mines ..then worry about cars.

[cliffordu]

90. now you're talking.

Just so we don't have to listen to Paul McCartney's ex wife ever again....

[ieoeja]

92. If they were writing the Constitution today...

There would be no Amendment in the Bill of Rights concerning quartering of troops, as that isn't done much nowadays, but there would be one guaranteeing the right to drive on public roads after three decades of Reaganite MADDness.

Had I predicted in 1980 that we would have random roadblocks in a few years looking for drunk drivers, nobody would have believed me. "The people would rebel," I would have been told.

Now even post-Reagan Liberals side with this fascist tactic.


And it is "alcohol related" fatalities, not "alcohol impaired". If a sober driver runs off the road and kills a pedestrian who just had half a glass of beer, that gets included in that number.