Started By
Message

re: Why don't we talk about prohibition of alcohol after DUI fatalities?

Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:27 pm to
Posted by fareplay
Member since Nov 2012
4786 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:27 pm to
so you are ok with banning muslims?

Are you ok with a wall?

That isnt what our founding fathers intended, that isnt in the constitution
Posted by magildachunks
Member since Oct 2006
32479 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

So you are saying the founding fathers thought of the world 300 years from theirs and wrote this?



Back then, if you were good, you could reload one shot two-three times in a minute.
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

What was guns made for? What was alcohol made for? design and purpose

Can you explain what you mean in something more than butcher haiku?
Posted by Tridentds
Sugar Land
Member since Aug 2011
20331 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:29 pm to
Way too much money to be made in alchohol. Got your advertisers in mainstream media. Got your taxes at all levels of consumption.

It's all about the money.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
111495 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:30 pm to
quote:

That isnt what our founding fathers intended, that isnt in the constitution.


You’re a disorganized and sloppy thinker. Good luck.
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:30 pm to
quote:

better question would be why don't we advocate for ending prohibition on alcohol for minors after binge drinking catastrophes?


Why?? That makes no more sense than wanting to ban guns.
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
24717 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:31 pm to
quote:

Then if they have a legitimate purpose, whats wrong with going through tougher rigor to get them?

Also why do you need multiple guns?





"shall not be infringed"
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

Then if they have a legitimate purpose, whats wrong with going through tougher rigor to get them? Also why do you need multiple guns?


Why? The restrictions are stringent enough for any constitutionally protected right.

Rights have nothing to do with "needs". nDo liberals really "need" to spout the the simplistic crap that they do?
Posted by IAmReality
Member since Oct 2012
12229 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:34 pm to
quote:

Oranges to apples comparison.


Great counterargument. Care to actually expound on why?

As far as I can tell, 10,000+ people are dying every single year due to alcohol and almost nobody bats an eye and is trying to get alcohol banned or further restricted.

Is there any doubt that there would be fewer alcohol related deaths if we banned alcohol in this country? Why not outcry to do so?

Could it be that the freedom to drink alcohol somehow outweighs the lives lost?
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:36 pm to
quote:

So you are saying the founding fathers thought of the world 300 years from theirs and wrote this? you are saying documents shouldnt be readjusted? Also dont answer my question, why do you need multiple high powered rifiles and multiple pistols?


You're confused.
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:37 pm to
quote:

except speech wasnt built to a killing purpose


So what?
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
66993 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:37 pm to
quote:

Why?? That makes no more sense than wanting to ban guns.


Because the biggest reason for binge drinking by minors is that they drink as much as they can when they can because it's A. illegal and therefor cool; and B. it's hard to get.

If your SO only had sex with you for one weekend per year, you would probably f&%k to exhaustion that weekend. Maybe your heart wouldn't be able to take that kind of strain.

It's largely the same concept with alcohol.

When a resource is heavily restricted, the people who will be using it are typically the least responsible people because they had to break the rules just to access it.
Posted by Aristo
Colorado
Member since Jan 2007
13292 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:39 pm to
quote:

Also why do you need multiple guns?


For the same reason I have multiple pens, computers, and tablets. Our rights are not limited to one.
Posted by thebigmuffaletta
Member since Aug 2017
12809 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

Exept speech wasnt built to a killing purpose


So how did a YouTube video cause a terror attack?
Posted by IAmReality
Member since Oct 2012
12229 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:40 pm to
If I went to the store and tried to buy 10 cases of beer, I doubt anybody would stop me because I didn't "need" that much.
Posted by Tyrusrex
Member since Jul 2011
907 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

We live in a society where you can legally buy and drink alcohol.

Very frequently people abuse this freedom, they get drunk, get behind the wheel, and kill themselves or others.

This is not exactly a rare occurrence. Over 10,000 people a year die in the US in alcohol related car accidents.

So where are the people demanding alcohol be banned because of these deaths?


Just one big difference. We've done a lot research and implemented a lot of technologies to make cars much more safer, with seat belts, air bags, and crumplezones. While on the other hand, research into seeing what we can do to make gun safer has been prohibited by law.
LINK
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

so you are ok with banning muslims? Are you ok with a wall? That isnt what our founding fathers intended, that isnt in the constitution

That only exists in your mind.
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:41 pm to
quote:

Back then, if you were good, you could reload one shot two-three times in a minute.

There were multiple shot guns back then. The FF's loved them.
Posted by Aristo
Colorado
Member since Jan 2007
13292 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:43 pm to
Would probably ask, "what time's the party"
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:44 pm to
quote:

When a resource is heavily restricted, the people who will be using it are typically the least responsible people because they had to break the rules just to access it.

So what? How is that an analogy to the rights protected by the 2nd?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram