CB Jones
Senior Master
I meant was, people could own long guns. I don't know of any developed country where you can walk around with a long gun and that includes most places in the USA.
Actually 45 states in the US allow open carry
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I meant was, people could own long guns. I don't know of any developed country where you can walk around with a long gun and that includes most places in the USA.
What I meant was, people could own long guns.
Than I suppose Wikipedia was wrong. Wikipedia can be a good source of info but it isn't always reliable.
Gun ownership might be a privilege in your country, I believe you're from Australia, but in the USA it is a right as defined by the constitution. I also don't support what the drunk guy did in the video just like I don't support drunk people driving which you will find way too much of in the USA.
Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?
If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.
Sure I do, as long as they don't use it while they're drunk.Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?
I never said I supported what he's doing.If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.
I agree with taking licenses from people who drink and drive. However, I am not against drunk people owning cars as long as they don't drive them while they're drunk.If we catch people drunk driving we take their licence off them. That would be not supporting drunk driving.
Put it in the Windows.
Itās a great idea... until thereās a fire and fire fighters have to break a window to get people who are trapped out. Then itās a catastrophic mistake.That might not be a bad idea but it would be expensive.
Yes
No, he is still responsible for his actions and if he commits a crime then he should be punished.
Although he is a complete moron.....he did not break a law and therefore his constitutional rights are just that..... his rights.
And that is the difference. I dont support his actions. I wont fight to support his actions.
So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but not use them while drunk?Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?
If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.
If we catch people drunk driving we take their licence off them. That would be not supporting drunk driving.
Lets stay off the politics, I don't want this thread locked down.Has anybody stated yet that they support his actions? Or would fight to support his actions? I missed it if so. I don't think anyone with any common sense would support his actions, much less fight to support his actions. His actions are foolishly dangerous.
But in the USA a person's right to keep and bear arms has recently been reaffirmed. There are people who don't agree with that, but it is constitutional law. Takes a lot to change it.
Well depends what you mean by using them. Im against people driving cars while drunk but if an intoxicated person wants to use the car to listen to the radio or run the air conditioner Im fine with that as long as the car stays in park.So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but not use them while drunk?
If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.Well depends what you mean by using them. Im against people driving cars while drunk but if an intoxicated person wants to use the car to listen to the radio or run the air conditioner Im fine with that as long as the car stays in park.
If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
How about if the car is off?If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
How about if the car is off?
Yup. Even if the keys are not in the ignition.How about if the car is off?
Yup. Even if the keys are not in the ignition.
Being behind the wheel is, apparently, seen as prima facie of intent to operate.
I disagree with it (in fact, it pisses me off) but that's the way it is.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
In reality here it happens very rarely that someone is charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle and hasn't actually driven in it. What usually happens is that the driver stops and switches off the engine before the police actually reach him. The driver says he's 'resting' or hasn't been driving ( even though the engine is warm) so the police charge him after breathalysing him, with drunk in charge. They aren't charging an innocent person, just someone who was lucky not to have caused an accident and killed someone.
So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but not use them while drunk?
So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but not use them while drunk?