Federal law may require ignition interlocks; step stone to ALL cars required.

This bill would require states to mandate ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers. No big deal, you say? The next step is the federal mandate that all cars have them. Won't that be nice? I feel safer all ready.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/restaurant-lobby-seeks-to-put-ignition-interlock-provision-on-ice/?test=latestnews

What I find scarier than pinhead politicians proposing such laws, is the number of sheeple who will either think its a great idea, or simply go along with it without so much as a whimper.

Couldn't agree more... Its like requiring child molesters to register, revoking hunting privileges from poachers and requiring parolee's to check in with their PO's...

SMH

Like I said.......

voiceofreason wrote:

Couldn't agree more... Its like requiring child molesters to register, revoking hunting privileges from poachers and requiring parolee's to check in with their PO's...

SMH

Sure, just add another $8k to the cost of an automobile that only .05% of the public really need. In your case I'd require a helmet to go with it.

UH BASSY loosen the tin foil just a bit... If you are convicted of a DUI I see no problem of having this requirement in place..

Driving is not a right.. It ain't Constitutionally guaranteed.. You break the law you pay the consequences.

vor you need to reread what bass and pro are saying or you may just get your own forum title

So I am supposed to take for gospel the opinion of a special interest group with a financial dog in the fight, which is being reported by the fairest and most balanced of the news crews and further spun by two ultra right wing fruitcakes??

Seriously Yonnster????

WHAT PART OF CONVICTED OF A DUI AM I MISSING HERE???

Your IQ must be low, what Bass and Pro have an issue with is making this MANDATORY FOR EVERYBODY, and not just those who get a DUI. Apparently slippery slopes are okay with you. When you make something mandatory for a specific group of people it doesn't take much to effect all of us.

Yonni wrote:

Your IQ must be low, what Bass and Pro have an issue with is making this MANDATORY FOR EVERYBODY, and not just those who get a DUI. Apparently slippery slopes are okay with you. When you make something mandatory for a specific group of people it doesn't take much to effect all of us.

EXACTLY! The density of treason's grey matter is that of spent uranium.

I finally understand how ya'll tick... You are genetically pre-disposed to full blown paranoia. You simply can't help yourselves.

Look you've got the Director of a special interest group playing on your genetics.
All she has to do is mention a key word like "require", "freedom" or "liberty" and you idiots swallow the hook every time.

Here is what you ass clowns don't get.
1. You can't decipher a sales job full of F.U.D. ( fear uncertainty doubt )
well enough to make your own decision. Do you know that for a guy my size to hit .019 I'd have to drink almost a 12 pack IN ONE FU@#$%& HOUR?? Do ya want my car to start around your loved ones at minute 61??

2. Repeated AGAIN. Driving isn't a RIGHT. You want to be on the road after being convicted of a DUI then you are going to blow in to the nice little machine before your car will start. Don't wanna have to do this??? DON'T F-ING DRINK AND DRIVE

3. If I wished, right now, I could go buy a half dozen guns. Black, semiautomatic weapons. I could buy thousands and thousands rounds of ammo. I could buy high capacity magazines and every legal accessory for these guns.
Know why???? CAUSE I'M NOT A CONVICTED FELON!!! Following your logic you'd be pissed that CHARLES MANSON WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE SAME PURCHASE.

Keep responding to the bell Pavlov's pooches

Again, treason, you completely missed the point. The STATES are requiring interlocks when judges see that they are necessary and it works.
The FEDERAL GOV"T wants a mandate that would require ALL convicted drunk drivers to have them. The EXPERTS believe it's best to only require them for repeat offenders or those that were significantly over the limit. This is fine. It works.
The feds are working their way up to requiring all cars have them. This is TREATING DANDRUFF BY DECAPITATION, which is obviously what you nanny staters are all about...control and loss of liberty.

voiceofreason wrote:

I finally understand how ya'll tick... You are genetically pre-disposed to full blown paranoia. You simply can't help yourselves.

Look you've got the Director of a special interest group playing on your genetics.
All she has to do is mention a key word like "require", "freedom" or "liberty" and you idiots swallow the hook every time.

Here is what you ass clowns don't get.
1. You can't decipher a sales job full of F.U.D. ( fear uncertainty doubt )
well enough to make your own decision. Do you know that for a guy my size to hit .019 I'd have to drink almost a 12 pack IN ONE FU@#$%& HOUR?? Do ya want my car to start around your loved ones at minute 61??

2. Repeated AGAIN. Driving isn't a RIGHT. You want to be on the road after being convicted of a DUI then you are going to blow in to the nice little machine before your car will start. Don't wanna have to do this??? DON'T F-ING DRINK AND DRIVE

3. If I wished, right now, I could go buy a half dozen guns. Black, semiautomatic weapons. I could buy thousands and thousands rounds of ammo. I could buy high capacity magazines and every legal accessory for these guns.
Know why???? CAUSE I'M NOT A CONVICTED FELON!!! Following your logic you'd be pissed that CHARLES MANSON WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE SAME PURCHASE.

Keep responding to the bell Pavlov's pooches

You jump to the oddest and nonsensical conclusions and assumptions, where the hell did you get all of this from a simple explanation? I just don't get where you are coming from and probably never will!

Yonnester it ain't me jumping to or drawing conclusions. They
Draw the parallel of requiring convicted drunk drivers proving
Their sobriety before their car will start to ALL CITIZENS having
To do likewise.

I drew the parallel of Charles Manson purchasing a firearm
As compared to the rest of NON FELON citizens having the same
Right. I'm not the one crying govt take over here.

It's a good common sense safeguard for society against those
Hat disregard the law.

voiceofreason wrote:

Yonnester it ain't me jumping to or drawing conclusions. They
Draw the parallel of requiring convicted drunk drivers proving
Their sobriety before their car will start to ALL CITIZENS having
To do likewise.

I drew the parallel of Charles Manson purchasing a firearm
As compared to the rest of NON FELON citizens having the same
Right. I'm not the one crying govt take over here.

It's a good common sense safeguard for society against those
Hat disregard the law.

Sayeth the window licker.

I can't believe how easy and quickly people are willing to surrender their liberties. It explains a lot though, about vor. Liberty is very rarely taken all away in one swoop, it is usually done one tiny increment at a time. That this even needs to be explained to a supposed adult is evidence of our deeply flawed public education system.

If my Aunt had testicles or if she grows them she will be my Uncle...

Talk about jumping to extreme's.

So the evil Govt places restrictions on CONVICTED CRIMINALS???
No Shit??? When did that start???

How you numbnuts can PROGRESS from that to a full mandate that all
cars have this addition is beyond me.

If I am convicted of a crime my "Liberty" and the method I used to break the law will be taken away. Simple as that. How that would affect you and how you are paranoid to JUMP to that conclusion is beyond me.

Whats next with you assclowns??

Hey. vor, have you ever heard of this thing called the Constitution? If so, can you tell me where the FEDERAL government has been given the green light to have ANY say/power in this realm? At most, this is a state issue, at most! That this escapes you is disturbing, at the least!!

Arguing with 'treason is like playing chess with a pigeon. When you win he still doesn't know it and then he just craps on the board and flies away.

BASSY that was quality.

So what part of the Constitution are you going to use to defend a CONVICTED CRIMINAL'S LOSS OF FREEDOM???

Isn't part of being a CONVICTED CRIMINAL a loss of freedom?? Help me here
I'm struggling to make the leap from part of a penalty of being CONVICTED OF A CRIME to a INNOCENT CITIZEN.

voiceofreason wrote:

BASSY that was quality.

So what part of the Constitution are you going to use to defend a CONVICTED CRIMINAL'S LOSS OF FREEDOM???

Isn't part of being a CONVICTED CRIMINAL a loss of freedom?? Help me here
I'm struggling to make the leap from part of a penalty of being CONVICTED OF A CRIME to a INNOCENT CITIZEN.

The part I would use.....the part that is NOT in there giving the federal government the power to have ANYTHING to do with this issue! Drunk driving is NOT a federal issue, WTFU!

voiceofreason wrote:

BASSY that was quality.

So what part of the Constitution are you going to use to defend a CONVICTED CRIMINAL'S LOSS OF FREEDOM???

Isn't part of being a CONVICTED CRIMINAL a loss of freedom?? Help me here
I'm struggling to make the leap from part of a penalty of being CONVICTED OF A CRIME to a INNOCENT CITIZEN.

UNREAL!

A CONVICTED DRUNK DRIVER may have, as part of his sentence, an interlock device installed on his car. He pays for it with his own money because it is part of his sentence. This is presently the law and it is prudent and just.

Someone NOT CONVICTED of drunk driving should not have to pay for an interlock device, even if MADD lobbies successfully to require, THROUGH FEDERAL LAW, all vehicles to have them.

Do you now disagree?

Never did disagree, just wondering where you saw that
Anyone other than a convict would be required to do this??

voiceofreason wrote:

Never did disagree, just wondering where you saw that
Anyone other than a convict would be required to do this??

I knew you either didn't read it your comprehension was suspect. From the article:

"...Even with the relatively small sum allocated for the provision nationwide, the cost of the program to states would be prohibitive, Longwell argued, citing an estimate by the American Probation and Parole Association that the price of supervision of offenders to states would exceed $432 million. She also thinks it's the first step to a federal mandate on alcohol-detecting technology in all cars sold in the United States.

"It's not that far away," said Longwell, adding it might be widespread within the next decade. "It sets the stage for new technology that is much more sophisticated, that would automatically be in new cars just like airbags and seatbelts. This is an important step for interlock proponents to get them there."

FMR. SHE IS A SALES PERSON YA PARANOID FREAKS