I'm for universal checks

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    18,925
    113
    Lafayette
    Let me clarify. I am NOT for "universal background checks" for firearms.

    I am talking about something entirely different, and a much more pervasive danger to our nations youth, and the public in general.

    I'm talking about the carnage caused by alcohol related "violence" being perpetrated against our populace.

    Drinking and driving kills many, many more children in the United States each year than do firearms. It maims yet even more, and the "violence" is not restricted to our youth. Alcohol related deaths and injuries are SO common in our society today that we don't even hear about all of the incidents. If we did, it would dominate the air-waves.

    So, to address this scourge against the citizens of our great nation, I propose the following, "common sense" solution.

    I propose we demand a law that requires an on-board breath analyzer that would need to be manipulated before the engine would start. This would need to be "universal", or required on ALL vehicles on public or private roads.
    There would need to be no exceptions. Zero. Not one. Not for police, or fire, or POLITICIANS! Absolutely ANYONE who wanted to drive would need to comply. After all, it's for our kids safety! You CAN'T say no to THAT!

    I know some people could not afford to retro-fit their older cars and trucks with analyzers, so there would be, by necessity, a government subsidized program to ensure compliance. This will only work if EVERY single vehicle is so equipped, so that we may check to ensure that EVERY single driver on the road is alcohol free EVERY time they get on the road.

    What could possibly go wrong? If we check EVERY single driver, EVERY single time they drive, wouldn't our streets be free from these horrible atrocities?

    No serious, rational person could POSSIBLY disagree with a plan like this. It should have overwhelming bi-partisan support.
    It's not "infringing" on your "right to drive". It's just putting "common-sense" laws in place to protect our nations most precious asset.

    Now, show me a politician willing to do something about it.

    Until I see someone address THIS issue, I don't even want to hear the mention of "gun-control".
     

    El-Cigarro

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 30, 2011
    691
    18
    Let me clarify. I am NOT for "universal background checks" for firearms.

    I am talking about something entirely different, and a much more pervasive danger to our nations youth, and the public in general.

    I'm talking about the carnage caused by alcohol related "violence" being perpetrated against our populace.

    Drinking and driving kills many, many more children in the United States each year than do firearms. It maims yet even more, and the "violence" is not restricted to our youth. Alcohol related deaths and injuries are SO common in our society today that we don't even hear about all of the incidents. If we did, it would dominate the air-waves.

    So, to address this scourge against the citizens of our great nation, I propose the following, "common sense" solution.

    I propose we demand a law that requires an on-board breath analyzer that would need to be manipulated before the engine would start. This would need to be "universal", or required on ALL vehicles on public or private roads.
    There would need to be no exceptions. Zero. Not one. Not for police, or fire, or POLITICIANS! Absolutely ANYONE who wanted to drive would need to comply. After all, it's for our kids safety! You CAN'T say no to THAT!

    I know some people could not afford to retro-fit their older cars and trucks with analyzers, so there would be, by necessity, a government subsidized program to ensure compliance. This will only work if EVERY single vehicle is so equipped, so that we may check to ensure that EVERY single driver on the road is alcohol free EVERY time they get on the road.

    What could possibly go wrong? If we check EVERY single driver, EVERY single time they drive, wouldn't our streets be free from these horrible atrocities?

    No serious, rational person could POSSIBLY disagree with a plan like this. It should have overwhelming bi-partisan support.
    It's not "infringing" on your "right to drive". It's just putting "common-sense" laws in place to protect our nations most precious asset.

    Now, show me a politician willing to do something about it.

    Until I see someone address THIS issue, I don't even want to hear the mention of "gun-control".
    "THEY'RE" wanting to make POT legal, so don't hold yer BREATH!!!!! ;)
     

    mbills2223

    Eternal Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 16, 2011
    20,138
    113
    Indy
    I'm not sure if you were being literal or making a point, but let me say that I just couldn't get on board with something like that.
     

    No2rdame

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2012
    1,637
    38
    Noblesville
    I'm not sure if you were being literal or making a point, but let me say that I just couldn't get on board with something like that.


    Oh, he's definitely making a point. He's turning the exact same gun argument around on the people who think we should give up all firearms "for the children" yet probably get hammered on New Years' Eve and don't mind getting behind the wheel.
     

    mbills2223

    Eternal Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 16, 2011
    20,138
    113
    Indy
    Oh, he's definitely making a point. He's turning the exact same gun argument around on the people who think we should give up all firearms "for the children" yet probably get hammered on New Years' Eve and don't mind getting behind the wheel.

    *Wipes sweat away from forehead* Phew
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    18,925
    113
    Lafayette
    Oh, he's definitely making a point. He's turning the exact same gun argument around on the people who think we should give up all firearms "for the children" yet probably get hammered on New Years' Eve and don't mind getting behind the wheel.

    On the nose, but you notice the text is in normal color.

    There is nothing wrong with my purple.

    I would not expect ANYONE to "get on board" with that!
    Rush Limbaugh says demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.

    Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,232
    113
    Merrillville
    And why do you "need" to go more than 20 mph??
    Unless you're running from the police.
    So all cars should be "regulated" with a govenor, to less than 20 mph.
     

    Johnny C

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 18, 2009
    1,534
    48
    Solsberry , In
    And why do you need more than 7 gallons in your tank?
    You could surely kill more people if you can go farther between fill ups.
    Ban high capacity assault gas tanks!

    Higher MPG cars should also have tanks smaller than 7 gallons...think of the Children!
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Ummm.. they are actually proposing systems like this. Be careful what you ask for, even in jest.

    I'll see if I can dredge up the article I read a while back.

    Edit
    Found some:
    (yes, in France)
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...arry-breathalyzer-kits-cars-article-1.1106213

    (from 2009, so a little dated)
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

    (From last month - folks are doing this willingly to save a few bucks)
    http://www.business2community.com/a...-would-take-breathalyzer-for-discount-0437179
     
    Last edited:

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    As long as we're talking about "commonsense vehicle control," how about, in addition to the mandatory breathalyzer tests, an automated valid driver's license check before the ignition will start. It would have to use fingerprints and retinal prints to ensure the correct driver was using the valid license.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    Most of you guys would advocate 'reasonable' restrictions regarding drunk driving.

    I don't see the distinction between that and 'reasonable' restrictions regarding gun ownership.

    The only difference is the majority's definition of 'reasonable'.
     

    Tanfodude

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2012
    3,914
    83
    4 Seasons
    Mgderf said:
    It's not "infringing" on your "right to drive". It's just putting "common-sense" laws in place to protect our nations most precious asset.


    Driving a vehicle is not a right, it's a privilege.
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    18,925
    113
    Lafayette
    Most of you guys would advocate 'reasonable' restrictions regarding drunk driving.

    I don't see the distinction between that and 'reasonable' restrictions regarding gun ownership.

    The only difference is the majority's definition of 'reasonable'.

    I live in the real world. There is no purple to denote sarcasm.

    If you'd read my later post you'd see I said I wouldn't expect ANYONE to submit to this.
    I was just pointing out how absurd the idea was if you only change the object of discussion.
     
    Top Bottom