In 2017 due to drunk driving (.08 or greater) since we are passing laws to stop senseless deaths lets pass a law that states we can only drink in the confines of our own home . I mean people obey laws ....right
10,874 deaths
- Thread starter roadtrasheer
- Start date
When adversaries walk amongst us, hiding in plain sight and undetectable, with the eradication of mankind in their hearts to their personal detriment, it takes an incredible amount of cowardice to beg the government to deny ones ability to protect themselves.
Says the Antifa member who wants to keep his and take everyone else's guns he disagrees with away.
Did you and the Dayton shooter smoke Meth together ? Get your butt back in rehab before you hurt someone.
Last edited:
Because assault weapons shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but law enforcement and military. I own over 50 guns
I have claymores I'll sell you? Even has directions on which way to point them![winking]
This is quite a stupid perspective as there are countless studies that show the change in impaired and drunk driving laws coupled with stronger enforcement have been extremely effective at reducing deaths and injuries. Next up, why don't you educate us on how vaccines kill or how people still die while wearing seat belts.
Try again. Your take was a total fail.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 3, 2018) —Drunk driving claimed the lives of almost 11,000 people in 2017 and 2016, according to new data released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that shows drunk driving remains the leading cause of death on our nation's roads.Oct 3, 2018
You are dumber than a box of rocks. Since 1982 drunk driving deaths are down 48% and for people under 21 years old, they are down 80%.
Lordy, you can't get out of your own way. No law eliminates all risk or exposure but you know that....or maybe you don't
Dah....the stats don't lie. What part of this report are you disputing?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 3, 2018) —Drunk driving claimed the lives of almost 11,000 people in 2017 and 2016, according to new data released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that shows drunk driving remains the leading cause of death on our nation's roads.
Hey dumbass* no one said they weren't down. Its because of more DUI check points and better police work. Now compare DUI arrests to what they were years ago. It's not for a lack of people trying. You have to be the biggest idiot on here. Also never got an answer from you as a ballistics expert on how many people you have shot defending yourself and others. What calibers were used and how effective they were. You're friggin IQ is definitely below 50.
Perhaps the most important stat......how many lives have been SAVED because of new legislation?
Pass a law againt White Supremacy and racism. Maybe then I can get my "reparations" Dems are promising.:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
So how much you gonna pay me Roadtrasheer?[winking]
It would be THE LAW don't ya know?
My take was not a fail ...if we are only allowed by law to drink at our own homes how many lives would be saved ? Drinking is not a constitutional right neither is driving, but owning a gun is ..see the difference..
Seat belt laws have saved a lot of lives..but seat belt laws are total ********, we should never pass laws to protect me from me , im all for dui laws , texting laws . Seatbelts was for insurance companies if you or anyone else thinks people in D.C or insurance companies care about you , i have ocean front property in eastview for sale
The right to "bear arms" is a Constitutional protection........but like the Freedom of Speech and Religion and Assembly and Press, there CAN BE limitations placed on those "Freedoms".
Maybe....who knows? With drugs & gangs populating our city streets, im pretty sure that drug dealers & gang members dont pay attention to law makers & i dont think they will give 2 f@#cks about limitations on capacity of mags, but im sure you like the idea of government protection
If Democrats win & start taxing for all the free stuff i wont have money to give ya ...if reparation would happen wonder how many people will claim some African heritage? Haha i know i am ...dont know if i have any but im dam sure gonna claim it
I don't blame you roadtrasheer. It's free money! If faking Indian heritage was good enough for Elizabeth Warren, who am I to criticize you for claiming some Blackness?
No where in the 2nd amendment does it give US citizens the right to carry around firearms. The 2nd amendment states as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This clearly states that as part of being part of a MILITIA people have the right to keep and bear arms. Basically it takes a twisted interruption to convert the 2nd amendment into a constitutional right to bear arms outside of a well regulated MILITIA. This is of course what happens with all constitutional provisions. Regardless of the plain meaning they get interrupted by the Courts and then the public is stuck with those interpretations.
An interpretation that the 2nd amendment gives any one outside of a well regulated MILITIA the right to keep or bear arms would be a LIBERAL interpretation. An interpretation that one can only keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia would be a CONSERVATIVE interpretation. Most early opinions on the 2nd Amendment were CONSERVATIVE. In the last few decades they have become LIBERAL.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This clearly states that as part of being part of a MILITIA people have the right to keep and bear arms. Basically it takes a twisted interruption to convert the 2nd amendment into a constitutional right to bear arms outside of a well regulated MILITIA. This is of course what happens with all constitutional provisions. Regardless of the plain meaning they get interrupted by the Courts and then the public is stuck with those interpretations.
An interpretation that the 2nd amendment gives any one outside of a well regulated MILITIA the right to keep or bear arms would be a LIBERAL interpretation. An interpretation that one can only keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia would be a CONSERVATIVE interpretation. Most early opinions on the 2nd Amendment were CONSERVATIVE. In the last few decades they have become LIBERAL.
It’s the drive by moron. Welcome back. Thanks for the hot take that completely discounts the Federalist Papers which gave the courts the deepest look into the founding father’s intent. Appreciate the retread liberal gun grabber’s opinion.
Just how desperate is the Left? So desperate they can't come up with a candidate or any good reasons to vote for Socialism. So they have to create a "race crisis" and a "Constitutional crisis" as a pretext to convince us to surrender our guns because until they can figure out a way to disarm 350 million armed citizens their dreams of setting up a Venezuela style Socialist utopia here will NEVER happen.
NEVER.