🚀 go-pugleaf

John Burton  <j.c.burton@gats-inc.com> wrote:
> "John E.R. Jasen" wrote:
> 
> > > Maybe if you could take a "Ride-A-Long" with a state trooper in your
> > > area, on a Friday or Saturday night, and see the *destruction* ONE drunk
> > > driver can cause, you might be more concerned about the problem -- and
> > > solution.
> > >
> > > Or, do you just enjoy bashing authority figures?
> >
> > 'public safety' is never a good reason for the abrogation of the
> > individual's rights. Else, why don't we institute house to house searches
> > for 'contraband'? Maybe we can even cook up some sort of 'implied consent'
> > -- they built/bought a house in our state, they _want_ to be searched!
> >
> 
> Apparently many people forget that with individual "rights" comes individual
> "responsibilities". Do you *really* think a person who has had 4-5 drinks
> within the last couple of hours and gets behind the wheel of a car is acting
> "responsible" ?  Do you *really* think a person who is irresponsibly
> exercising their individual rights, has the "right" to violate the basic
> human rights of others (i.e. the right to live) ?  "Your rights *end* where
> my nose begins..."

And your support of a system where _everyone_ loses their rights --
ie: they can be stopped at a sobriety checkpoint; forced to take a breath
test or get arrested/lose their license (which, BTW, I seriously doubt the
integrity of the breathalysers); and generally harassed into the ground --
your support of that is touching my nose.

--
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
-- You can have it: right; cheap; now. Pick any two.