False equivalency.
There really is no reasonable need to drink and drive. On the other hand, there is a legit need for 2nd amendment rights.
False equivalency.
There really is no reasonable need to drink and drive. On the other hand, there is a legit need for 2nd amendment rights.
A "reasonable need" test for laws banning actions of others could be used in numerous deleterious ways.
I.E. Nobody reasonably needs to be fat, therefore ban ice cream (&etc.).
A "reasonable need" test for laws banning actions of others could be used in numerous deleterious ways.
I.E. Nobody reasonably needs to be fat, therefore ban ice cream (&etc.).
How about I end this argument with: There will be no questions asked, or argument had, if I happen to encounter a drunk driver; just an ass kicking. Especially if he so much as scratches my vehicle. He can sit there on the floor with lumps and spout off reasons why he should drink and drive. I'm not hearing it.
How about I end this argument with: There will be no questions asked, or argument had, if I happen to encounter a drunk driver; just an ass kicking. Especially if he so much as scratches my vehicle. He can sit there on the floor with lumps and spout off reasons why he should drink and drive. I'm not hearing it.
(post is archived)