A sobering warning.

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Unforgiven Seems to me this is how you feel about gun ownership. Why the flip flop here?[/QUOTE said:
Flip flop???????????????????? What the f**K has gun ownership have to do with drinking and driving? I don't actually recall making any comments about gun ownership recently.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Eventually it's going to come right down to zero alcohol behind the wheel because there will never be agreement about how much is too much.

Well- I'd go for 0.0000000000000000000000002- don't want to deprive a guy of his Xmas pudding.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
the law should be changed to zero. The SS oh I mean 'police' in Ontario will take punitive action in the form of confiscating your car for 72 hrs and suspending you license as well with no charges even being laid. Sounds like the cops are the judge and jury at the road side.

Unf.
I can have 3 Guinness with dinner over a couple hours and I am legal to drive. Why wouldn't I take my car?

I think not. I think you could drive and blow under but that is not applicable in Ontario anymore. Especially Torono.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Flip flop???????????????????? What the f**K has gun ownership have to do with drinking and driving? I don't actually recall making any comments about gun ownership recently.

Yeah flip flop. Gun ownership doesn't have anything at all to do with drinking and driving. I don't know if you have made any comments lately or not.

The point is your meaning that took from what you said about guns is that everyone should be judged on their own merit, so if you commit a crime with a gun then you should be investigated and if need be charged. Otherwise it's none of the government's business if you have a gun or what you do with it.

Here you seem to be advocating that the government step in and make sure that no one can have a drink and drive a car that day. For the safety of everyone on the road I guess. Which is exactly a flip flop of your other argument.

Personal responsibility vs the Nanny State. Is this incorrect?

the law should be changed to zero. The SS oh I mean 'police' in Ontario will take punitive action in the form of confiscating your car for 72 hrs and suspending you license as well with no charges even being laid. Sounds like the cops are the judge and jury at the road side.

Unf.

I think not. I think you could drive and blow under but that is not applicable in Ontario anymore. Especially Torono.

Well I don't drive when I've had too much to drink to drive responsibly and safely. But when I do, the police don't bother me. The few times they have ever stopped me when I have been drinking, they haven't even bothered to pull out the test kit.

I agree with the sentiment about the Ontario Police though. Toronto is a hotbed for over eager Neanderthal cops.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Yeah flip flop. Gun ownership doesn't have anything at all to do with drinking and driving. I don't know if you have made any comments lately or not.

The point is your meaning that took from what you said about guns is that everyone should be judged on their own merit, so if you commit a crime with a gun then you should be investigated and if need be charged. Otherwise it's none of the government's business if you have a gun or what you do with it.

Here you seem to be advocating that the government step in and make sure that no one can have a drink and drive a car that day. For the safety of everyone on the road I guess. Which is exactly a flip flop of your other argument.

Personal responsibility vs the Nanny State. Is this incorrect?



.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can possibly equate gun ownership with car ownership, and you can possibly equate care and use of a gun while under the influence with care and use of a car while under the under the influence, but can't compare them individually with drinking. :smile:
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can possibly equate gun ownership with car ownership, and you can possibly equate care and use of a gun while under the influence with care and use of a car while under the under the influence, but can't compare them individually with drinking. :smile:

Please explain.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Back on a subject: What an a$$hole, I hope he gets the maximum.

Yep, and yet so many otherwise law abiding people do it. (I was as guilty as anyone 30 years ago)- hopefully maybe people reading this will save two lives.

Please explain.

This is going to be hard as I'll have to stick to a vocabulary a grade 3 student can understand. Guns don't do anything any more than a hammer does anything any more than a car does anything. If you are going to outlaw guns, then you may as well outlaw bows and knives and tire irons. Get the picture? :lol:
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Yep, and yet so many otherwise law abiding people do it. (I was as guilty as anyone 30 years ago)- hopefully maybe people reading this will save two lives.



This is going to be hard as I'll have to stick to a vocabulary a grade 3 student can understand. Guns don't do anything any more than a hammer does anything any more than a car does anything. If you are going to outlaw guns, then you may as well outlaw bows and knives and tire irons. Get the picture? :lol:

I'm not outlawing anything. You're the one calling for outlawing one drink and driving regardless of sobriety.
Also, when have you ever used vocabulary at a higher level than grade three here?:lol:

You're flip flopping on this whole nannystate business.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I'm not outlawing anything. You're the one calling for outlawing one drink and driving regardless of sobriety.
Also, when have you ever used vocabulary at a higher level than grade three here?:lol:

You're flip flopping on this whole nannystate business.

Let me see if I understand you correctly- you think you should be legally able to drive after having one drink? What about your neighbour who can't handle driving after one drink? Should he be legally able to drive too? Now take the guy making the laws, how does he know who can drive safely after one drink? How can he ensure us the roads will be safe if everyone is allowed to drink & drive? :smile:
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Let me see if I understand you correctly- you think you should be legally able to drive after having one drink? What about your neighbour who can't handle driving after one drink? Should he be legally able to drive too? Now take the guy making the laws, how does he know who can drive safely after one drink? How can he ensure us the roads will be safe if everyone is allowed to drink & drive? :smile:

There will always be bad drivers. Drinking or not drinking in moderation won't change that. I am legally able to drive after one drink. That's the law right now. What makes you think my neighbour can't drive after one drink? You don't know him. If you feel that you can't drive after one drink then please don't drive. But don't project your inability on me. I can drive just fine after one drink. The law agrees with that.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
There will always be bad drivers. Drinking or not drinking in moderation won't change that. I am legally able to drive after one drink. That's the law right now. What makes you think my neighbour can't drive after one drink? You don't know him. If you feel that you can't drive after one drink then please don't drive. But don't project your inability on me. I can drive just fine after one drink. The law agrees with that.

You're missing the whole frickin' point..........................ah forget it. :roll:
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Why is it the drinking that's the thing people grasp most tightly about this story, and not the hit and run? People do that sober too, and would end up in the same place, criminally, that he's in, sober or not.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
You're missing the whole frickin' point..........................ah forget it. :roll:

No I'm not, you're point is stupid and you never bothered to think it through. That's not my fault.
Like Karrie said there were plenty of laws broken here and the only thing you can focus on is that he was charged with drunk driving.