DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[SmarterthanYou]

But-but-but; you said "NO VICTIM MEANS NO CRIME"!!

Were you lying??

not at all, you simply appear to be too ignorant to make a distinction between clearly dangerous actions and actions that MIGHT be dangerous........that's on you

[USFREEDOM911]

not at all, you simply appear to be too ignorant to make a distinction between clearly dangerous actions and actions that MIGHT be dangerous........that's on you

How is something "dangerous", if there are no victims; because even you've admitted that just because it MIGHT be dangerous, doesn't mean it is.

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME

[gfm7175]

too many people ignore the constitution when it comes to positions that they are highly emotional about.

PRECISELY this!!!

Their intense emotions cloud their ability to reason.

Domer needs government to tell him what the constitution means, which means he/she fails as an American.

Domer's issue is that he fails at basic English reading and comprehension. In his case, he has spoken Liberal for so long that he has completely forgotten the English language.

CFM says the founders didn't give us a right to drink and drive, but can't provide a shred of evidence to support his claim.

CFM is basing his argumentation on a false equivalence. He is equivocating [driving] with [drinking and driving]. He seems rather emotional about this topic, which goes back to what you said at the beginning of this comment.

The founders didn't believe in victimless crimes, so USF has to go hyperbolic and take it to mean he can shoot at anyone he wants, so long as he doesn't inure them..................which is also stupid.

USF is ignoring the fact that those actions would amount to reckless endangerment. He seems rather emotional about this topic too.

This is why most of y'all can't be trusted with governing yourselves, much less others.

[SmarterthanYou]

How is something "dangerous", if there are no victims; because even you've admitted that just because it MIGHT be dangerous, doesn't mean it is.

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME

do you get in a car and drive with other people in cars heading straight for you, separated by nothing more than a broken/solid white line on the highway? compare that to someone pointing a gun in your general vicinity.

now you see the difference

[USFREEDOM911]

PRECISELY this!!!

Their intense emotions cloud their ability to reason.


Domer's issue is that he fails at basic English reading and comprehension. In his case, he has spoken Liberal for so long that he has completely forgotten the English language.


CFM is basing his argumentation on a false equivalence. He is equivocating [driving] with [drinking and driving]. He seems rather emotional about this topic, which goes back to what you said at the beginning of this comment.


USF is ignoring the fact that those actions would amount to reckless endangerment. He seems rather emotional about this topic too.

WAIT just a minute, are you saying that driving while drunk or impaired would also amount to reckless endangerment??

[USFREEDOM911]

do you get in a car and drive with other people in cars heading straight for you, separated by nothing more than a broken/solid white line on the highway? compare that to someone pointing a gun in your general vicinity.

now you see the difference

But you said no victim means no crime; so how is just pointing a gun a crime, if there is no victim??

[SmarterthanYou]

But you said no victim means no crime; so how is just pointing a gun a crime, if there is no victim??

you're going to hang on to that desperately, aren't you? well, your choice to be that obtuse if you want to.

[Into the Night]

1990. SCOTUS. 6-3

Read it and weep, cunt.

LSMFT

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

And you still haven't addressed what was presented.

Yes he has. RQAA.

[Into the Night]

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME, RIGHT??

Alread answered. RQAA.

[Into the Night]

Are you guys speaking in Swahili again? Us old white Americans don't understand it

YALIFNAP: Yet another lame insult fallacy, no argument presented.

[Into the Night]

I see you're unable to discuss the premise behind my comment and instead just want to emote!!

Does that normally work out for you, when you have nothing else to offer??

Question already answered. RQAA

[Into the Night]

You are so caught up in NEEDING to be correct, that you aren't able to comprehend that my presentation was a challenge to DTY's comment of "NO VICTIM / NO CRIME".

So instead of discussing what he believes, you instead just want to sit in a corner, stick your fingers in your ears, and constantly repeat "NEENER-NEENER-NEENER"

OH-WAIT; do you really believe that as long as there's no victim, then there's no crime??

Because if that's your stance, then there's no reason for stop signs, stop lights, speed limit laws, among a multitude of things.

Question already answered. RQAA.

[Into the Night]

And you still can't do anything but emote, more's the pity.

If you truly believe that no victim means no crime, then why are you trying to promote that I'm wrong??

If no one is hurt, then who's the victim and why would it be a crime.

I honestly don't expect you to provide anything in the way of common sense of a reply and instead am enjoying watching you floundering in confusion.

RQAA

[Into the Night]

YES, I agree.

That totally explains your discussion inabilities.

Inversion fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.