Slashdot Mirror
An Ignition Interlock In Every Car?
ryeguy-nm writes "Monday the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that would require every car sold in the state to have an ignition interlock. This device is essentially a breath analyzer that prevents the car from being started if the driver is drunk. The bill would require that every new car sold be equipped with an ignition interlock by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off. The bill's lead proponent is Dem. Ken Martinez who believes the bill is a quick fix for New Mexico's drunk driving problems. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes car dealerships and law abiding citizens who have never driven drunk. The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars. It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."
Even I laughed at that moderation.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
I guess I'm on crack. I havent had mod points in forever...
I'm at the karma cap..and I can still metamod..but no mod. Wonder why.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
The 2nd amendment is not about guns. It is about sovereignty, and the protection thereof. In the United States, the people are the sovereigns, seriously. Every little scrap of power a government here has, the people gave to it, because they had it first. It may seem odd, or extreme, to harp on it, but it is very important to understand it. The 2nd amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. It merely states that the government may not infringe that right. Whether the 2nd amendment existed or not, the right would exist. Without that right, the government would be unable to have an army. One follows from the other.
The core concept of rights and powers are also quite important when reading of our constitution: people have rights. Governments have powers. Repeat: only people have rights. And people have rights because they have them (our constitutional form of government is a product of natural law), not because a government grants them. The people and their 'self-evident' rights and powers exist before government. In the entire body of the unamended constitution, the word 'right' appears once: securing (not granting) the rights of authors and inventors. Those who argue that the 2nd amendment merely protects the power of the state to have a militia are apparently disingenuous, illiterate, or both. It mentions a right of the people, not a power of the state. The language is clear, as was the intent.
Whether a court in the 21st century would find that governmental interest (the police power in this case) in restricting the right to bear arms over-rides the people's interest in exercising that right is something entirely different from whether that right exists. I am perfectly comfortable with courts finding that the governmental interest in protecting a populace in an urban area justifies restriction on the rights of the citizens. I am not comfortable whatsoever with a blanket, nation-wide determination of that to the point of total extermination of a fundamental human right to defend one's self.
If a court, however, fails to identify a right to arms at all, then that court is failing to protect the sovereign powers of the people of this nation, and is making a big mistake in the overall scheme of things. It is very important for the people to understand and protect the concept that *all* rights and *all* power rests with them, and they merely grant *limited* portions of that power to governments to exercise on their behalf.
Sure, today, in the 21st century, with over two centuries of republican representative government and peaceful transfers of power (except of course the civil war) behind us, this seems arcane and impractical to apply to our immediate social needs. But underlying our entire legal system is the concept of the utter and absolute primacy of the rights and powers of the sovereign people. It is a precious thing, and we need to understand it in its full meaning.
Larry
Your attempted answer misses the point that the original presentation doesn't say there are 10. I don't know when they were first referred to as 10, but the fact that your division into 10 isn't the standard one is evidence that it's arbitrary to claim there are 10.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahah
Sorry, that's about all I can think of. If you mean funding for people who want to send their kids to private school, maybe you are right. What publications are you getting this from, exactly? Jeez, they really have you fooled.