• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DNA Collection

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gbu28 wrote:
thelongone13 wrote:
It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea.

And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know.

At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.

Response to statement #1:
Permanently revoked? So a 20 year old female has 2 glasses of wine at dinner, feels fine drives home. On the way, she is pulled over for a tail light out. Officer smells alcohol, gives breath test, she's 0.08. In your world view, she is revoked permanently, never to drive again. Sorry, that's insanity. Here's a link for you, I think it'll fit your nazi sense of justice.
http://www.livinginsingapore.org/

Response to statement #2:
Zero tolerance is ridiculous. If I'm point 0.001, your world view would ban me from driving forever. What a silly, silly indefensible position.

Response to statement #3:
So people show a complete lack of responsibility and utter disregard for safety. Interesting. Someone like that should have their children taken away also. Hell, if they can't be trusted to handle an inanimate object such as a firearm, it's outright dangerous to leave them in charge of innocent children. In fact, I would say it's so dangerous, we should ban them from, let's say 1000 ft of all school zones. We'd probably be wise to create an online offender list so we can all keep track of these dangerous individuals. And don't forget about doctors, police officers, teachers, child care workers. On second thought, drunk drivers are really sort of like horses with broken legs. They really are too irresponsible for this world. We would probably be better off just shooting them in the head on the side of the road. Hell, saves taxpayer money that way.

Response to statement #4:
You're trying to defend against an argument that nobody is making. Again, your logic is deeply flawed. As Nutz said, it's an argument of appropriate punishment, not an argument
on whether it should be punished.

Response to statement #5:
This tells me all I need to know about you. My only question is, you were either beat up a lot in high school, or your stepdad beat the @#$%e out of you?

I do feel sorry for the people of Little Chute having to deal with little Miss 'You Better Show Me Respect Because I Wear A Gun And A Badge'
If you plan on drinking alcohol, don't drive. It really is that simple. So get a designated driver and build a bridge & get over it already.

Responding to statement 5: I have no stepdad. I was not beat up at all in high school. You make assumptions about me and have never met me. I don't come from some trashy family where beating the snot out of kids is accepted practice. You're only making yourself look like a complete tool.



AaronS: Exactly my sentiments.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug is correct when he says "we may all be legally disbarred by suffieciently lowering the bar of "felony"". We already have an example of that in Wisconsin re. school zones. First offense for carrying a dangerous weapon other than a firearm in a school zone carries a first time penalty of a Class A misdemeanor. First offense for carrying a loaded visible firearm in a school zone is a felony. No question that firearms are singled out.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

thelongone13 wrote:
Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege.

[ ... ]

At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
You haven't read here long or enough to know my thoughts on driving as a privilege. In a word, I stopped counting my bicycling miles at 50,000.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth. <<-- that might be you 'long gone'.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shiela Harsdorf is my Senate representative. She asked for my comments concerning the "DNA Bill". My response was along the line of A.G. VanHollen. I responded that under the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. To subject an accused but still presummed innocent person to an involuntary bodily invasion to collect a DNA sample is in my opinion an infringement of their civil rights. I seldom disagree with Harsdorf's position on issues, but on this one I do.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

thelonggone13:

Despite my earlier comments, nothing personal to you as an individual. I'm sure you're a fine individual.

As far as your thoughts on this topic... :cuss:
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Lammie wrote:
Shiela Harsdorf is my Senate representative. She asked for my comments concerning the "DNA Bill". My response was along the line of A.G. VanHollen. I responded that under the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. To subject an accused but still presummed innocent person to an involuntary bodily invasion to collect a DNA sample is in my opinion an infringement of their civil rights. I seldom disagree with Harsdorf's position on issues, but on this one I do.

Lammie, thanks to you, and I believe Brendon .45 for knowing what civil rights are all about from all who still remember what freedom is. I just got done watching a documentary on Britain and the crazy f'up things going on over there, and starting to happen here. So I'm riled a bit.
 

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gbu28 wrote:
thelonggone13:

Despite my earlier comments, nothing personal to you as an individual. I'm sure you're a fine individual.

As far as your thoughts on this topic... :cuss:
I see. I did take that a bit personally.... I'm half Polish and part German. I'm one stubborn SOB...
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Each year aproximately 25,000 people are killed in vehicle accidents where at least one of the drivers was alcohol impaired. Last week a man in the Twin cities area of Minnesota was arrested with his 18th DWI and get this, he had a valid drivers license. No question that something in the system is broke. I don't know the answer, but lowering the limit probably isn't. All it does is give the legislators the excuse to say they are trying to fix the problem. Hell, many of them have DWI convictions on their record. I don't recall the exact source but I do recall that during the time the limit reduction from .1 to .08 was being debated one of the legislators quoted a source that said 90% of the drivers cited for DWI exceeded the limit of .1. All that effort was spent treating 10% of the problem.

It may seem radical but I think the only method that will be successful is to have federally mandated alcohol detectors in vehicles. If you don't blow a safe level the vehicle doesn't start. Or if that is too radical; the rear center stop light will flash alerting law enforcement that there is an alcohol impaired driver. We already have mandated seat belts, air bagsand minimum crash test requirements. (Probably too many drunks in Congress for this to pass).
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Optimus Prime wrote:
They took a DNA sample of me way back when I reported for basic... pretty much anybody who was in the service in the last 20+ years or so will be on record already.
There are serious limits on use of the DOD DNA database - not like general criminal DNA databases.

You can force the DOD to destroy your DNA after you leave the service - the website of the DNA office has instructions on how to do this.

Downside is that maybe someday your DNA may be needed to ID you and your loved ones may sufer if you destroy youir DNA.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

My personal thoughts:

If CONVICTED of a felony, I have no issue with taking DNA. I admit I don't know the legalities, but in my mind, felons should not have the same rights as non-felons. Look at firearm laws, voting laws, etc. for felons. I'm all for that.

Since it came up, I'll bring up my personal thoughts on driving drunk.

I think that the second offense should be a felony. If you're in an accident and it is proven that you were the primary at-fault party, and alcohol is determined to be a factor, I think a felony enhancer should be included. In my mind, it shouldn't matter whether you hit a cone or a kid, if you're drunk when you did it.

Now, if you got pulled over and were drunk, the first I don't think should be a felony.

My fiance has an OWI. She's learned her lesson, and doesn't drink and drive anymore. She agrees with me that a 2nd should be a felony. I have a coworker that has an OWI, and thinks the 1st should be. It's funny how those I know that have gotten busted now think they should have been punished harder.

Regarding OWI felonies and 2A laws:

If you were operating a firearm while intoxicated, even just once, you better believe I'm going to tell you never to drink again or never to handle a firearm again, because you clearly can't show self control when mixing the two.

Driving is just as dangerous as firearms. It's all in the operator. It's funny how people who try to use stats about car accidents causing more deaths per year than firearms are willing to let people get away with operating cars while drunk.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Lammie,

While I like your "radical idea", I can see it not holding much ground in court if one were to blow below .08 for the simple reason of tolerance.

I'm not saying it's right, but I can see a lawyer using it as a defense.

That, and I'm reminded of the scene from "40 Year Old Virgin"...
 
Top