Slamdance

Although you did not point me out directly, I'm fairly certain you are referring to my "MADD" comment/insult/OPINION. The MADD machine is one of the problems in the U.S. as far as alcohol perception is concerned. And while there is some doubt about the rumor that the former chairman was arrested for D.U.I. after a MADD fundraiser, it think it would be karma if it were true. MADD started out with the right idea, to help the victims and their families who were hurt or killed in accidents caused by drunk drivers. It has become one of the main demonizers of alcohol instead of educators and a profitable non-profit organization. It has also become a requirement in CA to attend one of their "classes" if you are arrested for D.U.I. here. In these "classes" you are lectured to and given heart-rending stories of families victimized by the idiocy of drunk drivers. You are also required to give a "voluntary" donation of $20.00. If you do not give the "voluntary" donation, MADD does not send the court the proof you attended the class. Kinda like extortion, don'tcha think? As the B.A.C. for driving under the influence keeps getting lower and lower (because of pressure from MADD and insurance companies), these classes get bigger and bigger, and the money pours in. I'm sure that in the near future, if you are over .05 BAC, you will be LEGALLY intoxicated. Arrests will go up, and the money for courts, lawyers, MADD, drunk driving classes, rehabs/sober living homes, etc. will be off the charts. That's why I call it a racket. As far as my "hypocrites" comment is concerned, I have attended TOO many functions where I have seen judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, AND MADD members drinking alcohol and then driving. Isn't that the definition of hypocracy (sp?)? If you are referring to the raising of the drinking/voting/military service age, I was not insulting you, I just find it highly unlikely that it will happen.

As has been previously stated, and I agree, if you are old enough to fight and die for your country AND old enough to vote for the idiots who are going to send you to do as such, you should be able to drink. One of the reasons the U.S.A. has such a drinking issue (I refuse to catagoize it as a "problem") is because we as a nation have made it such a rite of passage and make drinking such a big effin' deal. In Europe, drinking milk is over by the time you are out of diapers. The young drink wine (diluted) or weak ales and beers or, mostly, juice and water. Drinking is seen as no big deal and part of the normal way of life. Granted there are exceptions (Oktoberfest comes to mind), but for the most part, they have a more "adult" view of alcohol, whereas we here in the States, have a distinctly "frat boy" take on the alcohol industry, equating booze with boobs, etc. It has the view of the "forbidden fruit" and therefore all the more desirable. We need to get over that and make alcohol less of a big deal, not more. If you want to raise the drinking age (and voting age and the age of military service) to 25 or 35 or try Prohibition again, good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you. And to you MADD members and supporters; You can beso mi culo, you guys are an effin' racket and hypocrites (sp?).

Fair enough. Good luck with that. We shall have to agree to disagree on guns and gun ownership. Have a great Independence Day, one and all!!!

Hey DaveK, These are the questions in question... Enjoy

PINK???!!! Embrace your feminine side.

I don't think he dated her as much as HAD to find out if she had a penis to go with her Adam's apple. As a non-practicing Catholic, I still find more to agree with his and others anger at the Church's covering up for molesters than the Church's explanations (or lackthereof) for it. And I'm still waiting for DaveK to answer my questions... Or is personal responsibility not applicable to legal gun ownership, just owning/going to bars that allow smoking?

Here I go quoting myself again... I guess I'm just waiting for DaveK to answer the effin' questions. And, as Bill Maher said, "I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-assisted suicide, pro-unassisted suicide, hell, I'm for anything that gets the traffic moving..."

The key to pretty much everything is moderation. But, IMO, you are still ducking the question of what is the difference in restricting smoking vs. restricting firearms ownership.

I'll take for granted that smoking/smoking related issues kill more people than guns. I don't care. I do not understand either one of the sides on these issues. Oxbow6, Sioux-cia, et al, are ok with guns and legal gun ownership, but want to remove the right of a business owner to legally allow smoking in his OWN establishment. DaveK and some others whom I'm to lazy to go back and find out who they are, are ok with legally smoking in bars, but want to even further restrict gun ownership to the point of taking guns away from everybody. (IF I'm exaggerating, please correct me.) This is what I'm referring to as a nanny state. All of you need to stop making decisions for me. If I want to own a bar that allows smoking and carry my gun inside said bar, I should be able to. If you don't like smoking or the fact the owner is strapped, don't effin' patronize the place. Personal responsibility, people, is it really that difficult for you to grasp?

I suppose it is kind of egotistical to quote oneself. Mea Culpa. DaveK, IMHO when you don't address the questions directed towards you, you just prove the point of those who disagree with you. You want to state comments made by Bill Hicks (whom I think is effin' insightful and hilarious) and direct people to the Brady website. You don't seem to want to put the effort into giving information as much as getting into a internet argument. (As the "new" saying goes, "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you won, you're still retarded.") I'd apologize to any I've offended, but I direct their angst to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't want to own firearms, cool. That is your choice. Just like you want to be able to smoke in a bar in Fargo. That choice has been taken from you. Don't take my choice to LEGALLY own a gun. As Voltaire said (somewhat), "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Awww DaveK, Here I thought you were a reasonable man. Someone who believed in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm? No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me? I find it incredibly ironic that I am on the same page here as Goon and the Triouxper, being as we have had philosophical differences in the past. Just proves no reasonable person is 100% conservative or liberal.

Actually what I'm against are idiot drivers being distracted by anything while I'm on the road. But hey, I'll take what I can get. As Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) said in "Tombstone" - "My hypocrisy only goes so far..."

However, you are still able to use your phone in your private vehicle. If you want to say that being forced to use a "hands-free" device is an infringement, so be it. Environmental issues: outside in ND in winter is cold, inside, where smoking was previously legal, not so much. I venture to guess that no bar owner in Fargo will change from a public "non-smoking" venue to a private club. I do not know how difficult it is to obtain a liquor license in Fargo, but here it is akin to translating Sanskrit. Going from public to private will more than likely cause the loss of said license. Bottom line, the law passed in Fargo. I disagree with it on the principles I have already stated. C'est la guerre. And it is a "war". "It's a war on personal freedom. Never forget that." -- Bill Hicks

Paying a hundred bucks for what? A hands-free device? I got mine as part of the phone package and it wasn't a hundred extra. An OUTDOOR environment is not INSIDE, which was previously legal. Not to mention environmental issues. Where do we find these private smoking/drinking clubs that aren't regulated by ABC laws? Good luck with that.

I'd love to tell you what I got away with on my plate, but some bluenose would probably dime me off to CA DMV.