RobertNashville

If you are referring to DUI checkpoints (which has not even been the point of the discussion for at least the past two pages of this thread) then frankly, I don't care if people object or not.   We have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, its' because people refuse to be responsible and do the right thing and not drive if they've been drinking.   Everyone who has ever driven under the influence is part of the problem as is anyone who has ever let a friend do the same...those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve none and will receive no sympathy from me. As I said much earlier in this thread, those who do so are just as much a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

No doubt if I gave my children's book of "Little Black Sambo" to my child I'd be brought up on charges of a hate crime. :shake:

It doesn't matter if they have or haven't, I'm not and never have nor am I currently saying that freedom of movement/travel isn't a "right".   There still is no "right" to "drive a car" and courts, including the Supreme Court even as far back as the turn of the last century have upheld the government's right to regulate who can operate devices like motor vehicles (and planes and other dangerous equipment) and under what conditions they can operate them.

  Whether it's the "same logic" or not is immaterial; just because the logic is flawed in the case of the second amendment  doesn't mean it cant' be sound logic in another matter.   In the case of arms it's perfectly incorrect logic for reasons I'm sure everyone here knows and I won't bore people with by recounting it.  In the case of mode of travel, I think that logic is moot because there is no natural (and certainly no enumerated) right right to a specific method/mode of travel - arguing about which method is "good enough" is a non-issue.   However, let's assume, for the sake of discussion that "driving a motor vehicle" is a "right". So what if it is? ANY right can be taken away from a person, even up to and including the right to live at all. So, once someone has shown themselves to be an incompetent driver or has shown such a total lack of personal responsibility that they would drive under the influence, whether it's a "right" or a mere privileged, that person's freedom to drive a motor vehicle should be stripped from him/her.

Yes you did, I was responding to your statement about "mechanism of travel"; not the right to travel/movement.   Frankly, if I have a right to travel by motor vehicle then it obviously follows, then, that the government has a responsibility to provide me with a motor vehicle and not just any old motor vehicle but certainly at least something the equivalent of a Cadillac (which seems fitting since the fed owns GM anyway). ;)  

I never once said that freedom of movement/of travel isn't a right; in fact I've said exactly the opposite more than once in this thread which leads me to wonder why you would insinuate otherwise.   And I like the 9th amendment just fine.   Believe whatever you want; the Constitution I read tells me that the government has the right and the obligation to regulate certain acts, in this case, who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Any government that did not do so it would be shirking one of its most basic obligations to the public

I remember Sambos...if we are thinking of the same chain then the one I was familiar with was in Waukegan Illinois - I was stationed at Great Lakes and there was a Sambos we went to often (mostly because I think it was open 24/7...had tiles on the wall depicting the story of little black Sambo turning the tiger into butter (I had and might still have the children's story book)...yuup...TOTALLY politically incorrect today!

I don't believe the two issues are the same at all - regulating an activity that is not a right is wholly different than regulating an activity that is not only a right but one that is enumerated in the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions.   Correct, the founders didn't define any mechanism of travel...they didn't mention aircraft, for example (but I doubt there are many people who would want people who know nothing about how to fly a plane to be flying around overhead)...the founders didn't define a lot of things but were they alive today, I suspect that they too would agree (based on many factors not the least of which are our population numbers, how/where they live, urbanization, etc.) that government has both the right and the obligation to regulate the operation of certain modes of travel such as flying a plane (including having an aircraft control system in place), rules of the road and who can operate a motor vehicle and under what conditions they may do so.   While I wasn't around at the time, according to a N.Y. Times article from Ausust 1907, it was the public outcry for better laws regarding motorized vehicles that was the beginnings of licensing, etc.; which isn't surprising since a large city like New York would naturally be the an area where the problems/dangers of incompetent drivers or a lack of rules of the road would be felt first and most often. Actually, that "public outcry" is not all that dissimilar to the public outcry that finally made government agencies get at least a little more serious about drunk driving - for decades, drunk driving was mostly given a pass by law enforcement and the courts (likely because many cops and judges and juries engaged in that "crime" themselves)...it's still treated far to cavalierly even today IMAHO but it's better than it used to be.   I'm sure a good argument could be made that we have "too many" driving/licensing laws now (what they morphed into); but I can't nor do I want to imagine what traveling on the public roadways would be like without some basic testing of competency and rules of the road.

The kind that live inside most of the time with access to a well fenced-in yard!   Dogs are animals with a mind of their own...without some sort of restraint there is simply no way to keep them on a particular piece of property.   I can tell you the worst is any kind of hound or hunting dog...a hound, especially, because a hound will catch an interesting sent and follow it so far that they won't even be able to find their way home.

There was so much wrong with what happened both leading up to and during Ruby Ridge that it's too much for a forum post but the whole thing started over Randy Weaver's neighbor being pissed about losing a civil lawsuit and rather than paying the judgment, making completely untrue accusations against Weaver.   Moreover, both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional. Let's not also forget that the surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit. To avoid trial and a possibly higher settlement, the federal government awarded Randy Weaver a $100,000 settlement and his three daughters $1 million each in August 1995. In the out-of-court settlement, the government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.   To put it bluntly, Randy Weaver is not to blame for what happened before or during the siege of Ruby Ridge and anyone who tries in any way to say Randy Weaver was responsible for any of it and/or support the thugs with badges that were there is simply refusing to let the facts get in the way of opinion and wishful thinking - the only people that should be in jail are the thugs with the badges.

I absolutely agree....a LOT of people should have gone to jail and still be there for both Ruby Ridge and Waco including lot's of "higher-ups" than just those who were on site.  Murder is murder regardless of whether one is wearing a badge or "just following orders".

The right to travel does not equal the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle. There are any number of ways to travel that do not and never have required someone drive a motor vehicle - unless you are under arrest you are free to travel from anywhere to anywhere. However, the overall public interests and safety demand that the government regulate certain acts, in this case under what conditions a person can legally operate a motor vehicle and it's a more than proper role of government to do so.   Article 1 Section 1 of the Tennessee constitution states that "...all power is inherent in the people, and that all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness..."   I would argue that one of the most basic responsibilities of our Tennessee government is to provide for the safety of the people. As such, they both have the power and the responsibility to regulate certain acts such as regulating who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle in Tennessee on the public roads. If a person wants to be able to operate a motor vehicle in any way he/she wants then they should buy the land needed and expend the funds to build their own private highway system; then they can do anything they want...drive 230MPH, drive drunk, let their 8 year old drive their Porsche Turbo...whatever. However, when a person enters a public roadway with a motor vehicle then the PUBLIC, through their elected representatives have the final say on what you can and can't do and who can and can't drive and under what conditions.

Well; you can want driving to be a right...you can think driving is a right but wanting and thinking doesn't make it so. I don't believe there is anyting in the Constitution or in English common law or any other U.S. or State code that would support the contention that driving is a right. Further, there is SCOTUS decisions dating bake to the early 1900s; when motorized vehicles were just coming onto the scene in a significant way and quite a lot of case law that would that support that driving is a privledge. I think a compelling case can be made for a right to "travel' but not a right to any specific mode to transport.

Generally, walking down the street and/or breathing doesn't put other people's lives at risk. Driving a 3 or 4 of 5,000 vehicle with upwards of 500HP while under the influence of...well, of anything DOES put others at risk. Certainly, governments like their fees but the reasons we have rules of the road, driver's licenses, mandatory liability insurance, etc. is because there are too damn many people out there who want their "freedom" but are unwilling to take the personal responsibility that is necessary for freedom to work. That's really all it is...personal responsibility...we wouldn't need mandatory blood tests for DUI or DUI checkpoints if people simply chose to not drive drunk.

I don't love them...I don't even like them all that much but...   They are inexpensive. They work (about 9,999 times out of 1,000 when I've seen much "better" gund choke) They are ridiculously easy to disassemble and clean (even though you could let them go for a long time without doing so).   I ove my 1911s; but I carry Glocks.

I may be old and senile but I'll never be as old and senile as you you old fart.  ;)

No offense meant; really...and I truly wasn't thinking of you or any specific person; just poking some fun at the general  "I would never do that" assertion that always seems to come out in situations like this one...it doesn't even apply to just firearms!  ;)

Oh I think it's an excellent comparison! ;)   There are are number of folks on here...let's call them..."presumptuous elitists" (I've heard that label somewhere before and seems appropriate here  :whistle: ) who, when something like this happens, are quick to say "it could never happen to me" (the insinuation being that they somehow are above such mistakes- I just don't buy the infallible act.   I know that not everyone here would/will do something like this but no one will convince me that there is anyone here who is incapable of it...the last and only perfect person was on earth a LONG time ago; everyone else is more than capable of making a mistake; whether it's a forgotten gun in a piece of luggage (while wrestling with who knows what other details, late arrivals, etc) or forgetting to check the TP status before sitting down. :)

I'm amazed how this stupid prank by a stupid kid is still causing discussion on TGO.  :shake:

Fathom it or not, it happens frequently; call it carelessness or whatever, there is a difference between a mistake and an conscious decision to flaunt the law.   And yes, while not everyone here would  or ever will make such a mistake everyone her could whether they think so or not. Anyone who thinks they can't make such a stupid mistake I'd like to see a show of hands of all who have ever sat down on the toilet to do their business and only then realized that there was no toilet paper.

From the Story: "Tennessee's "no refusal" law allows officers to seek search warrants for blood samples when they suspect a driver to be impaired.  The special enforcement includes saturation patrols, bar and tavern checks and sobriety checkpoints."   Nothing in the story, short as it is, indicates that "everyone" will be required to do a breath test or anything else; only those the officers have (dare I say reasonable) suspicion of the driver being DUI in which case they get a warrant and force a blood test.  I don't know if the driver choosing to do a breath test negates the blood test or not but I suspect it would.

Ignoring, for the moment, that checkpoints must make their locations public knowledge before they go into operation, and therefore, avoidable, yes it is legit. If you don't think it is legitimate on what Constitutional basis makes you think it isn't?.   If you are driving a vehicle on a public roadway and show signs of being DUI then their getting a warrant and doing a blood test to prove it one way or the other is wholly reasonable and, as I understand the document, also Constitutional.

I hear you.  ;)

Certainly, being able to control the weapon is vitally important but I'm not sure that was a problem for the op's spouse???   I know I eventually stopped carrying a G31 just because I found it harder (for me) to control than a G20 or G21!

Yeah...been hearing that on the news for about an hour or so now.   I feel badly for her and Ted...just one of those stupid mistakes that any of us (and yes, I do mean any of us; all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding) can make...I hope it works out okay for her.