Ron Paul on the Aurora Shooting

Yes. If you drive while impaired you have committed a crime. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I agree. The question was geared more towards the libertarians who want to suggest that laws are unnecessary, and that we should simply rely on people to do the right thing. Because anything else is taking away their freedoms.

Libertarians are not anarchists.
You are trying to make this into something that it is not.

I suggest you re-read Ron Paul's statement in the original post.

It seems to me he's making it very clear that he thinks preventive laws have no place in a society that values "freedom".

Which all centers around my point.

Name one fucking law that has stopped crime? That is all he is saying.

And you whiny fucking bleeding hearts are the first one's to start crying if anybody actually puts the penalty of a law broken into perspective of the crime. Can you imagine the pussies that would come out if anybody proposed penalties for laws that would actually decrease crime? Chopping hands off of thieves, chopping heads off of murderers, making drunk drivers go without drinking for 3 or 4 days, and etc. OMG, I can hear the floods of the river of tears already.

You want a law to protect everybody, but not one that will actually punish the people who break the law. Stupidity.

I read it and then I read it again to try to see where you could come up with the "meaning" of what he said. I do not see it the same way but, I bleieve much as Paul does that yu cannot legislate morality. This does not mean that you cannot have laws to provide for punitive measures for infringing on the rights of others. What he says is that individual, family, relatives, should be the ones that privide the proper morla compass that would do more to prevent these sorts of things than government laws.

Just as you have decided that you will drive drunk in violation of the law goes to his point that a law alone will not make you a better citizen. It would have been better if your parents had taught you right from wrong. This is part of the problem with our society today; we do not have parentS, for the most part, that are active in setting the moral compass of their spawn.

If you buy a gun in Texas there's a question about being treated for a mental illness or seeing a psych within a time frame. If you answer affirmative they may deny you the purchase of the weapon. I doubt there is any backend database of individuals who have been to a shrink in the last two years, except perhaps to a state run institution.

So another example of a gun law that criminals or nutcases are breaking to get guns.

Doove is right about one thing, they don't make good trolls anymore.

Let's talk facts, not theory.

1.Most people charged with DWI were not even suspected of being impared when they were stopped.

2.Most people in prison for DWI have never caused an accident.

3.Most people over the limit can drive successfully, and many under the limit cannot.

4.In Austin the city police regularly arrest and charge individuals who have passed their sobriety tests. Our Chief has told his officers that they should arrest anyway EVEN IF THEY BELIEVE THE FACTS WILL CAUSE THE PROSECUTORS TO NOT PROSECUTE ...meaning the officer knows there was no evidence of being over the limit. The Austin police are doing this because they're in a budget conflict with the city and are looking for any reason they can find to take themselves off the streets so fewer of them will be available to answer emergency calls.

This is the kind of bullshit that happens when you misapply the criminal law for WELL INTENTIONED social engineering purposes out of anger and alarm and fear.

As I've said before, just because you've been drinking and have a buzz doesn't mean you intend to cause an accident or injure anyone. Without that intent your actions are negligent and wreckless but not criminal.

This thread really inst about DWI.
I counter that if you drive knowingly intoxicated then while your intent is or may not be to have an accident you have shown criminal disregard of the law.

I do not believe that the majority of DWI offenders that are incarcerated were not involved in an accident. I doubt that most are not first or even second time offenders but habitual offenders.
Knowing full well the cost of a single DWi, I fail to understand, other than the mental impairment from alcohol, why anyone would want to gamble that they will not get caught. For what it cost for one DWI you can hire a tow truck to take you and your vehicle home at least 50 times.

The point is that if you have the right moral compass, you will not drive whi8le intoxicated.

Let's talk facts, not theory.

1.Most people charged with DWI were not even suspected of being impared when they were stopped.

2.Most people in prison for DWI have never caused an accident.

3.Most people over the limit can drive successfully, and many under the limit cannot. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Do you have links to substantiate these "facts that aren't theory"? Or are they just facts because they're your theory?