Are you claiming a drunk driver has the right to kill others in exercising a right you think he/she has to drive drunk?
Are you saying the founders would have supported a drunk driver killing an innocent person because you think that person should be able to drive drunk? If you do, you're an idiot.
It's a fact you're a smartass.

you've asked those questions before and they were answered. why are you stuck on the continuation of thinking that's what i've said?
It's a fact that you're a dumbass.![]()
It's a fact that you're a dumbass.![]()
Facts are things that have been proven. You've proven nothing. That makes you a liar and a smartass.
You are a racist dumbass...
You prove that every fucking day you draw breath...
LOL
Well played sir,
You oppose anything that could prevent the drunk driver from doing such things.
again, that is not what I've said. you have an extremely serious problem with comprehension. come back when you gain some.
So you support DUI checkpoints that give breathalyzer tests or the drawing of blood in situations when someone refuses to take a breathalyzer test? You keep saying I am misstating you yet you don't say what you believe.
DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional for obvious reasons, therefore I do not support them. I have no problem with people being stopped and tested IF they display behaviors associated with driving under the influence. I do not support blood draws without warrants, nor do I support 'exigent' circumstances.
obvious reasons being the 4th Amendment. you are supposed to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. that means that police cannot just stop you on the road and do a license check unless you've given them REASONABLE SUSPICION of having committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.You keep saying obvious reasons yet you can't give even one.
if you're referring to 'common sense' standards, then yes.IF? Don't you mean to the standards YOU think are valid?
once again, dumbfuck, my son is dead from a drug overdose. I've emotionally suffered and I STILL don't believe that the feds have any power to prohibit what people want to put in to their own bodies.Like I've said before, I hope that someone you love and care about falls prey to one of these drunk drivers you're so willing to protect with a system so restrictive they really can't be caught. I don't want it to be you. You need to emotionally suffer.
obvious reasons being the 4th Amendment. you are supposed to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. that means that police cannot just stop you on the road and do a license check unless you've given them REASONABLE SUSPICION of having committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.
if you're referring to 'common sense' standards, then yes.
once again, dumbfuck, my son is dead from a drug overdose. I've emotionally suffered and I STILL don't believe that the feds have any power to prohibit what people want to put in to their own bodies.
now that you've declared your idiotic ideology of not giving a fuck about anyone else and hoping that people suffer all kinds of shit in their life to promote YOUR ideals of statism, I hope YOU get to suffer it.
![]()
In October 2015, the Washington Post reported that there had been 43 instances that year of American toddlers injuring themselves or others with guns. There had been more incidents of toddlers causing injuries with guns than there had been weeks in the year.
The newspaper defined a toddler as a 1-, 2-, or 3-year-old.
That means that in this year's tally, Jamie Gilt's son wouldn't make the list.
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2016/03/mom_shot_by_4-year-old.html