Replies

No, not “if it would save just one life”.

Because it has saved many, many more. And sitting at a computer playing arm chair quarterback does not change facts.

I’ve heard people say “Damn I can’t drive home right now there might be a checkpoint and I’ve been drinking.” They don’t stumble around the bar saying I can’t leave because I’m hammered and might kill someone, no, they’re more afraid of the checkpoint because they’re drunk. Good. I don’t want them on the streets. “But I’m not like everyone else I drive fine when I’m drunk.” You hear that one a lot, to. Or “I’m not drunk, but the cops will harass me if I leave.” after you’ve seen them down 5 shots of Wild Turkey and two Pitchers of beer.

Now you are just making stuff up.

So you want us to believe that these folks are completely hammered, but they have the common sense and wherewithal to worry that there “might be a checkpoint”? And you heard this where?

The BS meter has just pegged.

Well you could save a lot more lives by banning automobiles altogether, wouldn't you? Why not make that argument? Around 30,000 lives are lost each year in automobile accidents in the U.S. alone (that's 15 9/11s!). Same argument could be made for banning fast food, mountain climbing, skydiving, etc., etc. Why not ban every dangerous activity?

This is the slippery slope you are taking us down when you decide that giving up freedoms is worth it in order to save lives.