Hunting Forum

Actually it is not illegal to drink and drive, as long as your blood alcohol level is within the established legal parameters. It becomes illegal when your blood alcohol level exceeds those maximums and you are considered to be driving drunk that results in a problem. Unfortunately, under all of the zero tolerance laws, there is no longer any differentiation between drinking and being drunk. I used this example in another thread. Two guys on their way home from a round of golf are stopped at a traffic check point. One guy drank during his entire round of 18 holes, including a half hour or so at the turn, and then spent another hour after 18, in the clubhouse drinking with his buddies. The second guy after completing 18 holes has one beer and heads for home. Both are deemed just as guilty as the other under zero tolerance. Did the guy who had one beer deserve the same punishment as the first guy???

what RT said, and no, I don't believe he does.I no longer even drink. but lets face it most of us who do have driven impaired at one time or another in thier life. I know I did when I was young and foolish, for this I will forever be ashamed(by the grace of GOD  I never had an accident or  got pulled over by the law).My question is should we really treat a first time offender like a criminal when he hasn't even hurt anyone?because this is what we do.now if someone is so foolish to be a repeat offender then I HAVE NO PROBLEM  with throwing the book at them.most kids who drink have driven impaired but most also grow up , mature and become responsible citizens without being persecuted by the law

I never had an accident driving while under the influence of either booze or pot. There was that wreck in England, where my room mate was driving and both of us were drunk. I did almost get killed in a couple of accidents where I was as sober as a teetotaler.
Two were caused by the other driver being drunk, and one was caused by a rutting buck. Then there was the case where the Budweiser delivery truck ran me off the road while I was operating a motorcycle.

lol. those damn animals, I once hit an elk that ran out in front of me in the dark . I was not drinking ,don't know about the elk, never had her tested.

It is illegal in my state to drink and drive, also to have an open container. Here the legal limit is .08 which would be more than 2 beers in an hours time

If you have zero tolerence how can it be legal to drink and drive? It's legal untill you get pulled over?

No I don't think it is right to have the same punishment.

IT IS LEGAL to drink and drive ,it is illegal to drink while driving

All good points and well-taken opinions of those who posted them. But we all have to remember 1 key thing. Driving is a "Priviledge" not a "Right". As with all the other complex laws out there, we must be responsible to those laws to maintain out "Priveledges". And I don't believe many of us have a problem with that. As far as the seatbelt and DWI laws goes, those are the main ground rules for us to be responsible to. Being from Wisconsin (And it sickens me to say that this state has the highest DWI stats in the country. It's even sicker to see all the law firm commercials that are so willing to fend for these jerks.) I hear about these multiple DWI convictions all too often. Someone mentioned 7 offences. More like 10+! And in some of these, the offender gets 2 or 3, or even 4 in a matter of hours! There have even been news reports of these repeated offenders driving away from their (multiple) court hearings even after their license was revoked from past offences. Plain abuse of "Priviledges" to that extreme is nothing less than pure ignorance and negligence on those idiots parts. I get so ticked that the laws have never just said the hell with them and an eye for an eye. And locked these lowlifes up and throw away the key! (Should be that way after 2nd offence in my book.) Which moves on to seatbelts for the respectable drivers. That law might just protect the safety of those innocent victims that are negligently hit by the jagoff (Including multiple offence) drunk driver. I don't drink and drive, and because of that I can be proud that I am doing my part to keep others safe. Unfortunately, I shamefully admit that I do not always wear my seatbelt. In the event that I am hit by a drunk driver, If I survive, I really think he/she won't if I get to the drunk before the cops do. At any rate, they will leave the scene in an ambulance weather or not they needed it before I got to them.

I don't give a damn what condition I or the other driver is in, should someone ever cause an accident involving me.........whether they are drinking or not. Whatever the case, EMS will have to remove me from my vehicle and carry me to the emergency room, and my first call will be to my attorney!!!!!!!!!!! I've decided I will join the mass lawsuit craze and hopefully if the situation ever does arise, I can realize a huge monetary gain from it.

While in the courtroom one day there was a feller that came in with his attorney and when he was called they both stood in front of the judge and the judge read the charge of DUI and then proceed to tell the feller that he had read his entire record. This was just before they really started to get tough on DUI especially the repeat offenders. This feller had a total of 53 arrest for DUI since he was 16 and he was in his early 40's at the time ( 1987 ) so you do the math. But this time he had gotten a judge that was offended by the fact that this man's father was a very successful business owner and had always provided a high dollar lawyer for his son. Sooo ! The judge then asked the feller if he had in fact brought his toothbrush with him and then proceeded to sentence him to the maximum he could at the time which was 1 year in the county jail ( the judge told him he would do everyday of the year before being released ) and a $2,000.00 fine. I don't drink at all anymore and even when I did I knew when I could and could not drive and acted accordingly and either took a cab or called someone for a ride. I also had as has been mentioned drove after only having a beer or maybe two knowing if I had been stopped I would have been arrested but luckily it never happened. I had and have seen the outcome of a drunk driver hitting and causing either severe injury to the other cars occupants and a couple of times the death of the occupants. We make the choice to drive or not after drinking and we know the laws so if we do drive and get caught we should expect to be given whatever the law allows the judge to give. My opinion is IF you choose to drive after drinking enough to be drunk and cause an accident and injure or kill another then you should have to do time in prison whether it is your first time or not. If caught without an accident having happened then you should go to jail, have to make bond, then when appearing in court be given a sentence that is severe enough to at least make you think twice before driving dunk again. There ar way to many of those described in a couple of te reply's here who have had 3 or more DUI's which is 2 more than should be allowed without some kind of jail time. Again this is simply my opinion and nothing more nor less than any of the others posted here.

Shootn"J An eye for an eye. Old Testment. But if those who get DUIs have harmed no one, have taken no eye, why are you taking their eye. Take an eye unjustly, should you not loose yours. They have done no harm to any one. If they harm someone then, punish them, if they kill someone hang them. And I mean hang them, literally.

And it is like gun control, guns have harmed no one, But they want to ban or even more closely control them because they could harm someone. And it is the person who does the harm not the gun. Same as DUI if a person Kills someone Hang them.

Same goes for gay marriage, it harms no one. It is not natural, but it harm no one. There should be no laws banning or condoning it.

Everybody wants to make laws, take liberty and freedom, for things where no harm has been done, the potental for harm exist but none has been done. It is all a slippery slope.

And gay marriage does not fit in either catigory. Yes unsafe sex has a potental of harm to those who practice it, but no real harm exist or has been done.

The differance I see in gay marriage is it is not natural, and is an un-natural act, praticed by a small precentage of the world population. So it should not be recognized, as a legitimate natural act legal or other wise. Just what it is, an abnormality, mental or other wise.

We should ban emotional wrought over zealous people from making or being part of any legal, political decisions, til they prove they have come to terms with, and can make reasonable, rationally fair, with very limited emotion in those decisions.

What do you say to the father, mother, grandfathers , grandmothers, and other close relatives of a SEVEN MONTH OLD killed two weeks before Christmas by a drunk driver at 9AM? The car was ripped in two breaking the seatbelt and throwing the infant in the infant seat 100ft. It was the drivers second offense and she was out on bail the next day. This took place in a small town under 1500 pop. The judge is the business partner of the drunks father. The DA has asked that the judge step down there has yet to be a deciesion but the DA has said there is no way he will allow this judge to hear the case.

Just a lil side note. If you do NOT have your seat belt on during a crash the lawyers will LIMIT your damage claim. Saying if you had the belt on you would not have such bad injuries and you contributed to your own injuries by not obeying the law. Happens all the time, let us say you were awarded 100k and the judge felt you were 20% responsible, then you get 80k. Then the lawyer takes out his cut.

Posted By gutpile on 26 Dec 2012 08:33 AM
What do you say to the father, mother, grandfathers , grandmothers, and other close relatives of a SEVEN MONTH OLD killed two weeks before Christmas by a drunk driver at 9AM? The car was ripped in two breaking the seatbelt and throwing the infant in the infant seat 100ft. It was the drivers second offense and she was out on bail the next day. This took place in a small town under 1500 pop. The judge is the business partner of the drunks father. The DA has asked that the judge step down there has yet to be a deciesion but the DA has said there is no way he will allow this judge to hear the case.

um, I guess I would say I'm sorry for your loss. take comfort, your child is cradled in the arms of jesus.at that point there is really not much else to say
   but I certainly would not say, let's go punish everyone who drinks because of his iresponsibility

What do we tell the Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, Family of those 20 children killed in that School. For your grief and suffering we are going to punish all gun owners. We will punish people who have done no harm, to make up for the one that did.
The guy who killed all those kid is dead.

The guy who kill that one child, should have a trial some where were all can recieve a fair trial. And let justice be served to him,and him alone for what he has done, if found guilty.

I am in no way shape or from defending DUI, it is a stupid act in which you put yourself and others at risk. But good people do stupid things, if the stupid thing results in someones death you should pay the price and know that price will be high, without fail. But emotional witch hunts are not the answer to any problem. Has any law actually stopped anything. No we don't just throw out all laws, because they don't work, but we can take those who have done actual harm off the street forever, if we use those laws we already have.
People are getting rich off of DUI, it maybe slowing it down a bit, but Lawyers, Insurance Co. and others are getting rich. You get a DUI , goes on your Record and stays there, no problem. But it can only be used in a case where you have caused harm, to determent your punishment. A large number of them would indicate you really don't give a crap, and your punishment should fit that, I don't give a crap attitude.

Posted By ckell on 25 Dec 2012 04:49 PM
We should ban emotional wrought over zealous people from making or being part of any legal, political decisions, til they prove they have come to terms with, and can make reasonable, rationally fair, with very limited emotion in those decisions.

I was not that serious about banning the emotionally wrought, but it makes about as much sence, maybe a little more than the laws they want to enact, during their emotional state, which they may never get over.   Poeple who are hurting want everyone else to feel their pain as well. And in many cases there is no reasoning with them.

Thomas Paine - "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." 

Posted By ckell on 25 Dec 2012 01:57 PM
Shootn"J An eye for an eye. Old Testment. But if those who get DUIs have harmed no one, have taken no eye, why are you taking their eye. Take an eye unjustly, should you not loose yours. They have done no harm to any one. If they harm someone then, punish them, if they kill someone hang them. And I mean hang them, literally.

And it is like gun control, guns have harmed no one, But they want to ban or even more closely control them because they could harm someone. And it is the person who does the harm not the gun. Same as DUI if a person Kills someone Hang them.

Same goes for gay marriage, it harms no one. It is not natural, but it harm no one. There should be no laws banning or condoning it.

Everybody wants to make laws, take liberty and freedom, for things where no harm has been done, the potental for harm exist but none has been done. It is all a slippery slope.

And gay marriage does not fit in either catigory. Yes unsafe sex has a potental of harm to those who practice it, but no real harm exist or has been done.

The differance I see in gay marriage is it is not natural, and is an un-natural act, praticed by a small precentage of the world population. So it should not be recognized, as a legitimate natural act legal or other wise. Just what it is, an abnormality, mental or other wise.

To each their own, Eye for an eye works for me. "IF" is the most abused word in the english language. We could all play "IF" games all day. "IF" You injure me as a result of your drunken driving, I am gonna injure you the best I can before the cops show up. "IF" it is your first offense, it MIGHT make you think twice before you do it again. (To someone else) "IF" it is a repeat offense, then it coencides with the quote that was posted from Thomas Paine. And "IF" that's the case, I'll be damned to turn the other cheek so you can go out, yet again and injure the other cheek. "IF" you can't grasp the concept of driving priviledges, and the magnitude of responsibility, and "Reason" (As YOU quoted from Thomas Paine) before getting behind the wheel, then why the he** should I apply the same when your blatent negligence jeapordized my life. "IF" I survive the results of such. Screw all the bleeding hearts! Just get word that some pervert violated your kid or wife, and tell me "IF" is gonna make it all better just because they weren't hurt. Can you say mental anguish? Financial burdon from medical bills, or damage repairs that you did not create? Or even loss of work hours/wages from an accident you did not cause? Those are all form of "HURT" that "IF" doesn't play a factor in. There is alot more "HURT" involved than just physical injury when these people violate EXHISTING laws. And it's that much worse when they are repeat offenders. "WE", "THE PEOPLE", are the one's that enforce (Not the cops) the laws by obiding by them. The cops just process the violators when they get caught. We both have our opinions, and "IF" you don't like mine, then pray that you are not the one to injure me by driving drunk. It's as simple as that.      

Not here to have a Pi*ssing contest J. If somone hurts you stomp a mud hole in their a*s. I could care less. But I have concern, if you are stomping their a*s because they may do somthing to you. Would you shot, somone because they" may " at somtime in the furture hurt you. IF so maybe you do not need a gun. So lets take your gun before you hurt somone who has done you no harm yet. You seem to be a little emotional, maybe we should take your gun before you hurt an inocent person, out of rage. And before you become enraged slinging insults cussing me calling me names and such and saying you  come on, just try and take my gun(s) ; think about it. Prove not my point but theirs.

Thomas Paine - "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

CK; I, too go not want to get into a p-match and should not have come across as "Raged" as it may have read.(Nor, did I mean to poke at you personally.) As I stated in my other posts, I am in Wisconsin, which is the worst for this topic in the country. That's what really boils my blood! And the lawyers that get these jerkoffs a break for altering innocent good citizens lives. You can take my guns, but an old cliche' states, "To take my gun, is to pry it from my cold, dead hand." And that wouldn't be an issue, because of what I am about to state about being my last resort and in fear for my life.(I kinda put the carriage before the horse here, but I think you get it.) I assure you here and now, that a gun is not my first choice of self defence, retaliation or even plain vengence, but my last. And that being said is only in self defense and fear for my life! (Hunting is a different story, and I'm sure you can see the transition between the 2 without going into detail.) "Rage" comes from the inside of an individual, and guns are and external part of that same individual. I conciousely keep in my head not to mix the two. I've lived my entire life (48 yrs) dealing/getting through issues with my mind, and am not about to start "Hideing" behind a gun. I thank and praise my parents every day for giveing me the sense to do so. When the 2 are mixed is when an individual becomes one of the controversial issues that society is forced to deal with every day. I refuse to go there out of rage or emotions. BUT I STILL HATE DRUNK DRIVERS!!!! ESPECIALLY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND THE LAWYERS THAT GET THEM OFF!!!! Does that soften/clarify my recent post a bit for you? If I offended you, I apologize. I get to a point that I say what it is and others can take it or leave it. I think they call it venting or being human? And no, I am not bi-polar! LOL

J, You did not offend me. I do not like drunk drivers either. And I mean it when I say if they kill someone hang them, and I mean with a rope, not figurtivaly speaking. I deal with drunks on a regular basis, and I deal with emotional people every day. I have been cussed,My mother called names, ask if my mother and Father were married, hit, slapped, kicked,knifes pulled, guns in my face, all manor of things. All this by both sober emotional people and drunks. No matter my personel feels, I must keep my head and do what is right.I see the pain and hurt of needless death of all sorts, some from revenge.
You missed my point about rage, and no, no one needs a gun to protect themselves. Be it a fist, which can do alot of damage, knife which can be ugly and painful. Any way you go in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd, that would show the inablity to control ones self. Take the law into ones own hands, any form of violance could be used to show a propensity for violance and or revenge. Thus justifying the taking of your guns. Can you not see how it all ties togather there.
Point # what ever, they like you and DUI, want to take your guns not because you have hurt, killed, harmed anyone, but because you could, might, it is possible at some furture date you could shoot, harm, kill somone., not because you have, but because you could. Those are my points, punish anyone who harms anyone to the fullest extent that can be done, useing their past/history. But not until., your own DUI arguements, justify/vaidates the anti-gunners arguments.