Sobriety check points and the 4th amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
That is the issue.


Driving is/can be dangerous. Those who have not proven they can drive safely (either new drivers or those with a lot of tickets), are not allowed on the road.
Those who cannot see, are not allowed on the road.
Those who are impared, are not allowed on the road.

If you drive a vehicle more than ___lbs, you must have more proof of being able to safely operate that vehicle.
In many states, you must prove your vehicle is safe to drive through inspections.
 
The obvious argument would be that it's a privilege because you don't own the roads; the state does. The state allows you to use their roads. The formal process of getting permission is via its licensing program. The state, however, does not own the guns. Any licensing program with regards to purchasing a weapon is an infringement.




Your arguments are not nearly as clever as you'd like us to think they are. This is especially true when you try to dabble in philosophy.
 
show me where it says that you have a right to breathe...

or suck your wife's tits...

or cook bacon cheeseburgers
 
Stop posting.

I didn't read Joe's reply, but I'm sure he mopped the floor with you.

It isn't a preventive measure. It's a means to make money for the department.
 
Ok, so you're approaching it from the licensure/administrative angle? I can buy that. So the penalties dished out for drunk driving should be limited to administrative ones. There should be no possibility for jail time, for example, unless you have harmed or otherwise endangered another person.
 
And from that open-minded point of view, you won't mind if the state cuts off your dick to keep you from raping women in the future, right?
 
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I win
 
Back
Top