They have the right? No! No they don't

[JiminTexas]

Does MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have the right to effectively add to the fines and punishments metted out to those convicted of DWI? No, I think not, but they do. I am very sorry that people are killed in drunk driving accidents. I don't do it and I do not condone it. But, in California if you are convicted of DWI you must attend a seminar put on by MADD where they tell you what a bad person you are. The talk/lecture/berating is supposedly free, but if you don't give them the "suggested $10.00 donation", the police officer taking down the names of the participants "forgets" to write in your name. I saw on the Lawrence O'Donnel Show last night where a Congresswoman, whose name I cannot remember was railing against "high capacity" magazines. She was, of course, talking about the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford in Tucson over the weekend. She is an "advocate" of gun control. It seems that her husband was killed in a shooting incident on the Long Island Railway. I'm sorry for that too, but does it give her the right to abrogate my Second Ammendment rights? I think not. She had the nerve to say that banning high capacity magazines is NOT gun control because the magazine is only a part of the gun. Who is she trying to kid? She also went on to sensationalise the story in Tucson by saying that the shooter had "many more magazines in his pocket". Just how many 30 round Glock magazines can you fit in a jeans pocket? As usual with these ople she had her facts wrong. The shooter did have one more magazine, but not "many more". I'm not trying to limit her First ammendment rights to free speech, I'm just saying that just because she or Mrs. Brady or anyone else that has suffered a tradgedy should limit their grief to themselves and their family and not try to extend it to the rest of the world. On another note, I am totally disapointed with Lawrence O'Donnel. He congradulated the Congresswoman on taking "the only stand that is the correct response to the terrible tradgedy of the Tucson shooting". It is a terrible tradgedy, but let's not overreact. Here are a few "facts" that the news media in general have gotten wrong.
1. The derranged man that did the shooting bought his gun legally. NO HE DIDN'T. He lied on his NICS form that he was not a drug user. He had only a month or so before been rejected from military saervice because he failed a drug test. It is FELONY to lie on the NICS form and why didn't the military report him to NICS?
2. He was thrown out of his school for disruptive and dangerous behavior and told that he could not return until he had had a psyciatric review. Why wasn't this referred to authorities. He was known to be unstable and potentially dangerous.

What is the purpose of this post? It is to ask, "Why are we controlling the guns and not the gunmen?" We don't need any more gun control. We need gunman control.

[atlctyslkr]

Maybe every doctor should be able to report people to NICS.

[aarondhgraham]

Maybe every doctor should be able to report people to NICS.

So, you want to give the power to control your ability to purchase a firearm to a doctor?

That's a very very very bad idea!

Aarond

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by JiminTexas

What is the purpose of this post? It is to ask, "Why are we controlling the guns and not the gunmen?" We don't need any more gun control. We need gunman control.

No. No we don't need more control.

We need to realize that we live in a society with access to the most deadly weapons in the history of mankind.

We need to realize that, in spite of the above, we live in the safest society in the history of mankind.

We need to realize that in a free society people can not be fully protected.

We need to realize that no set of rules, no measure of restrictions, no number of laws can ever make us completely safe.

We need to realize that any level of immediate protection can only be provided by us, as individuals.

We need to take at least some of the steps necessary to reasonably provide that protection for us and ours.

We need to help others realize that they are responsible for the same and that no one else is responsible for them.

This is called "Living in Reality" and we need to get our politicians and their mouthpieces to live in the same reality.

[youngunz4life]

only responding to the MADD thing here. PS- I am not a member of MADD and I have no tangible reasons to be for or against MADD. The class that people have to go to after being convicted of a DUI is worthwhile in my opinion and should be required. A talk with an old lady who lost her son due to a drunk driver might just help some sorry s%^ of a ^&*%$. If he/she can't handle that until they get their prcious paperwork signed than thats their own problem. just my 2 cents.

[DogoDon]

What peetzakilla said. 'Nuff said.

[44 AMP]

Does MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have the right to effectively add to the fines and punishments metted out to those convicted of DWI?

No, they don't have the right. But they are not the ones "adding to the fines and punishment", the court is setting the fines and punishment. It is the court that is ordering you to attend their program. And if it costs, you are required to pay.

If you are court ordered to attend counciling, you are responsible for paying for that counciling. Drunk driving, drug use, anger management, what ever it is, and what ever it costs, it is your responsibility to attend, and to pay, in order to comply with the court order. It doesn't matter if it is a one time lecture for $10, or months/years of meeting costing thousands of dollars.

It is not MADD (or any other group) that is adding to your punishment, it is the court setting attendance as part of your punishment. You are barking up the wrong tree, blaming MADD (or whomever).

[brickeyee]

No, they don't have the right. But they are not the ones "adding to the fines and punishment", the court is setting the fines and punishment. It is the court that is ordering you to attend their program. And if it costs, you are required to pay.

MADD lobbies state legislatures to achieve the fines and punishments they want.

MADD was behind the change in DWI levels to 0.08 by getting the feds to withhold interstate highway funds from any state that did not comply.

They also played a part in the federal change to 21 years for drinking.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[CowTowner]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

And the wheel with the most lobbyists

[johnbt]

"Maybe every doctor should be able to report people to NICS."

They already are. Read the last paragraph.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ion/nics-index

[brickeyee]

Lobbyists make a LOT of noise.

The NRA has a lot of influence through both the lobby arm (Institute for Legislative Action) and the 'noise' from all the members contacting there congress critters.

[Frank Ettin]

We need to remember that we live in a political society.

Organizations like MADD and various anti-gun groups have the right to lobby for legislation that furthers their interests. They have the right to pursue litigation in court that furthers their interests. Many of those groups (especially MADD) have used those rights very effectively.

We have the same rights to lobby and to litigate. We must understand those rights and know how to use them effectively. And we need to join and support those organization that have effectively protected and furthered our interests in the legislatures and in courts.

[BlueTrain]

Of course they have the right to try. And when have we not lived in a political society. I might even go so far as to say that the political climate we are living in may not be the worst that the country has lived through. At one time people thought that freedom of speech meant you could say anything you wanted. Along with a lot of libel, it probably also resulted in a lot of duels, not to mention fistfights.

I think we should also remember that a lot of the things we are living with right now in the way of crime and punishment is a result of the "get tough on crime" trend of the last 30 years. In fact it really started with Nixon. That's what got him elected. And every elected politician (as well as those who didn't get elected) was going to be tougher than the next one. And no politician or radio talk radio host (who never run for any office) ever changes their mind or admits they were wrong.

Some offenses now seem to have permanent punishment even when they get out of prison. Some offenses, like so-called sex offenders, never escape. Terms have gotten longer and the prison population larger than ever. It is a growth industry, literally. More things are illegal, an ironic consequence of crime control laws. Naturally some parts of the population, usually lower income people, seem to bear the brunt of this rigid enforcement of the law but we all know poor people are much more criminally inclined than nice people like us. You can tell from the shape of their heads.

[orangello]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The squeaky & Politically Correct wheel gets the oil/grease. How much success would an organization of scientists/doctors have if they lobbied for changes to DUI laws that raised the .08 limit to .12? I doubt they would have very much success, not because they would be wrong, but because the MADDers would make them look like monsters wanting to kill babies and wanting people to drive with a keg in the trunk and a tap in hand.

Logic doesn't supersede PC Lobbying, IMO.

[silvercorvette]

I happen to agree with this site Mothers insisting on licensed tools

Remember it feels good to give up a little freedom for a lot of safety.

[Kleinzeit]

Mothers insisting on licensed tools

That's hilarious.

I do feel compelled to point out, however, that people "give up a little freedom for a lot of safety" all the time.

It's called "civilization."

If I were truly free, I could drive on the left side of the road or down the middle or weave about and get up on the sidewalk. But I willingly give up that freedom because, when I or anyone else chooses to exercise that freedom, people die. I am very happy to have my government tell me which side of the road to drive on. In fact, I feel more free, on balance, knowing that that control is there.

There are thousands and thousands of examples. We don't tend to notice them, because in most cases, it's just how it's always been. It just seems normal and natural. We only tend to notice the things that change. And so we imagine that we are fierce defenders of freedom who are big and brave and would never give up a bit of our precious freedom, no matter how much safety it brings, because we truly take responsibility for ourselves and don't need anyone to make us feel safe.

The reality, though, is that society is made up of a complex set of compromises that do make us (relatively) safe, and that this relative safety gives us the freedom to go about our lives without having to constantly worry that cars are going to jump the curbs and run our kids down, or that our neighbors are going to annexe our houses while we're at the store, or that the police are going to arrest us just because they are bored.

[Ramman911]

Mothers insisting on licensed tools

OMG that is the dumbest thing I have seen/read/heard of in a LONG LONG time. They even have a link devoted to berating Tim Allen and Tool Time :barf: Perfectly good waste of an IP address.

But I digress back to the topic at hand. MADD uses their resources extremely well. But I do not think they have any "valid" control over the classes. Like already pointed out in this thread the judges impose the classes not MADD.

[youngunz4life]

and/but remember nixon defined drug addiction and/or alcoholism as a disease.

[BlueTrain]

No, Nixon believed that people drank alcohol to have fun and did drugs to get high. That's what you call double-think.

[SwampYankee]

OMG that is the dumbest thing I have seen/read/heard of in a LONG LONG time. They even have a link devoted to berating Tim Allen and Tool Time Perfectly good waste of an IP address.

Ummm.... You do know that website was a joke, right? intended to mock gun-control arguments and activists?

[kraigwy]

I'm a bit confused here. I may be wrong but it seems to me we are wanting to prohibit one Right to protect another Right.

First of all the Congress Lady pushing for the ban on high cap mags. I thought that was her job, push for laws she thinks (however misguided) that will help us. It's our job to contact our congressman/woman and urge them to fight against this law. It's the Brady Group's job to push for gun regulation. It's our job to create and/or support lobbyist to fight gun control (personally I think our side is winning at this point in history).

Same with MADD, it's their job to lobby for or push for stricter DWI/DUI laws (I'm on MADDs side on this one) but if you are against strict DWI/DUI laws, then it's your job to petition your law makers to fight the change.

Watching the news on this Ariz. shooting, it seems to me that the 1st Amendment is under attack more then the First. Blaming talk shows and Tea Partiers 'n such. We, the 2nd Amendment supporters seem to be agreeing with those who want to limit the 1st, or at least remaining quiet. Condeming MADD, or the Brady Group, or the anti High Cap Mag. lady for their thoughts is no different then condemning the supporters of the 2nd Amen.

I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. I took that oath to mean the 1st as well as the 2nd amendment.

[tet4]

Remember it feels good to give up a little freedom for a lot of safety.

No, no it doesn't. It feels good to be safe while retaining all your freedoms.

[Kleinzeit]

It feels good to be safe while retaining all your freedoms.

Ain't no such thing as retaining all your freedoms.

Some people try. They're called psychopaths.

[Ledbetter]

They have something better than a right. Political power--they own politicians.:barf: