Are these real names and places, if so, why is someone called Johnboy in the middle of all this.

The problem with this is that the punishment for vehicular manslaughter is far too light. For a conviction of first degree vehicular manslaughter in GA the sentence range is 2-15 years, however only if the person is considered a habitual violator is jail time even mandatory. If the offender shows contrition for their actions, they usually get the extreme low end of the range for a sentence. As far as I am concerned, if you kill someone while driving drunk it should be a murder charge. You made a conscious decision to go out and get drunk knowing full well that you would likely end up behind the wheel later. This is not some accident, it is caused by deliberate acts on the part of the offender and we need to start treating it that way. Maybe of people were facing a sentence of 25 to life instead of a few years they would think about it a little more before they drove somewhere to get plastered.

@Ji(G) - I hope you are trying to be funny and not making a serious comment. The "Johnboy's" in the article is the name of a restaurant, not a person.

Now there's a drunk driver that takes his job seriously.

Any bets that this ain't his first rodeo??????

I just have to point out that "Johnboy" wasn't someone's name as it was used in the article. It's "Johnboy's Home Cooking," the name of the restaurant that the drunk dude crashed in to

That just shows Ford Superdutys kill people not drunks. If he was in a smart car no one would have died

@TXHorseman

I wouldn't take that bet for nothing.

Care to wager that Michael Owen Snider would have died in the first crash? I'd wager no one would have died in any subsequent accidents, either.

Well....when ya hungry...it's time to eat. & Big John was hungry.

Maybe now the restaurant will install a take out window.

Even if your drunk, youd have to realize after the first crash that you should probably just pull over somewhere and sleep. Even it you hit and run, why keep on driving? This guy obviously didnt care that he was crashing into people, so I think they should make him do each sentence individually. Hopefully he dies in prison.

Why don't these internet articles have the DATE and TIME of day of what they are reporting?

This one tells locations, but most internet articles do not even say what city and/or state the incident happened.

If you are going to report a story, PLEASE give basic facts!!!!

That's some serious crashes.....Am sorry for family of person who died...Could've been alot worse...Still a very serious problem in America.....Wished the courts would take it VERY SERIOUS and keep these jerks off the street.

Snellville, Atlanta..........Speaks volumes!!!

And why is this any different than a person with guns walking down the street shooting away at other people and vehicles ? If anything this is worse, because this guy can dish out massive injuries while being protected by his vehicle

Yup, time to do something about those evil vehicles, they are far too dangerous for anyone to have, what do they need them for anyway?

No law abiding person needs a vehicle!

JS in SD,

"If the offender shows contrition for their actions, they usually get the extreme low end of the range for a sentence. As far as I am concerned, if you kill someone while driving drunk it should be a murder charge."

That's true, and I know from personal experience. I was out riding my bicycle well off the side of the road when a drunk driver swerved off the road and hit me from behind at 60 MPH. I flew off the bicycle, and my head went through his windshield before I rolled off into a mud puddle. I was almost killed. Some kids in a diner across the street saw it and called the police and an ambulance. I got to spend the next two weeks in the hospital recovering. The police had a car in a shopping center just down the road from where I was hit, and they caught the guy. At his trial, it was revealed that his blood alcohol level was .25, and they said that at .26 he would have been unconscious. He played real repentant at his trial and assured the judge that he would pay for my bicycle, which had been completely destroyed under his car, and that he would pay for all my medical expenses, so the judge, who was known as the "hanging judge" only sentenced him to 3 years in prison. Needless to say, he never made good on any of his promises to pay for my bicycle or for my medical care.

Marmaduke49:And why is this any different than a person with guns walking down the street shooting away at other people and vehicles ? ...

Maybe not much... so, we should require licenses to have a gun, insurance, and renew the license every few years. I not so sure about smog checks.

Drunk drivers get off way too light, there's really no deterrent to make them stop drinking and driving. Most realize that they'll just be jailed for a bit, then put on probation. There's tons of ways to get around the probation. I watched my father do it for years and years. Thankfully he never killed anybody.

Maybe not much... so, we should require licenses to have a gun, insurance, and renew the license every few years. I not so sure about smog checks.

Gee, Dale, I'm leaning more toward an outright ban on "assault" sports cars and high-capacity gas tanks.

steveo- how 'bout "Drive thru" oh wait a minute, he already did that. my bad

I guess it is time to put a ban on pick-up trucks and booze now to many killings.

well let's ban vehicals to, they kill people; I got a good one; let's ban people-people kill people. go to oregon they are banning cigaretts

I think the answer is more trucks. To stop a bad guy with a Ford Super Duty, you need a good guy with a Ford Super Duty.

I think the answer is more trucks. To stop a bad guy with a Ford Super Duty, you need a good guy with a Ford Super Duty

Actually, you may end up seeing just that, only the government will probably mandate that people buy TeamUSA Chevy trucks.

When neocon trolls use an tragedy like this to promote their views on gun control, it simly reaffirms the fact that they are without value to society.

If we ban Ford Super Duty trucks, then only criminals and politicians will be driving them.

If they would have taken his gun away, this never would have happened!

Dear Sow;

finally; a straight shooter !

Maybe we should just ban old people, after all if it just saves one life isn't it worth it?

Or maybe we should ban gasoline.

How come You never hear this kind of stuff happening from pot smoking????

The fact is that the punishment for drunk driving is not severe enough, heck, drunkeness used to be an excuse for bad driving?

The fact is that we are all human and we don't wan't to overly jeopardize ourselves! Who hasn't driven under the influence?

Then, where do you draw the line, should we keep the punishment lax and call it collateral damage? We already have far too many people in jail!

He wanted Moe MoOnShine ! Rope the Dope

We need to adopt harsher penalties; 2 years in jail mandatory for first offense, no pleas, no deals, no probation. I'll bet it would greatly reduce drunk driving.

What makes no sense to me are bars, people, lots of people go to bars to drink and they usually drive there. Then they have, usually more then one drink, sometimes a lot more, then go get in there cars and off they go, driving drunk, (this happens all of the time all across the USA everyday) when you are drunk you are not in control of yourself, or what you are doing. Then when something like this happens, everyone acts all shocked and like kill him. We should not serve alcohol to anyone that drove to a bar and are going to drive after leaving and drinking. It's just irresponsible to serve alcohol that way.

fasttime (1.6)

You are totally ignorant and stupid. THE GUY WAS DRUNK. Doesn't matter WHAT kind of car he was driving. Go back and read the article again and TRY to understand it. I'm sure someone can help you do that if you're too illiterate to do so.

We can do better than this. We need an immediate ban on these assault pickup trucks and high cap gas tanks.

Why do we scream bloody murder about drunk drivers when sober people everyday crash into and kill someone or some animal?

If you say this crash could have been prevented if he was only sober then why do sober people crash?

I know a Republican who'd tell you, it was meant to happen....

@armed wombat...do you know what the prefix "neo" means?...there's nothing more annoying than people who spout out other people's thoughts while using prefixes they have no clue to the meaning of, incorrectly...you're the troll wombat...and before you condemn me for being "neo-convervative" know this...I'm slightly left of Trotsky....

So, is it time to ban vehicles, too?

Rebecca,

"What makes no sense to me are bars, people, lots of people go to bars to drink and they usually drive there. Then they have, usually more then one drink, sometimes a lot more, then go get in there cars and off they go, driving drunk, (this happens all of the time all across the USA everyday) when you are drunk you are not in control of yourself, or what you are doing."

I think you make a good point there. The problem, as I see it, is that there are too few bars within walking distance of anyone's house, so people have to drive to get to them. Maybe in the old days they had neighborhood taverns that people could walk to, but I don't think zoning laws allow for bars to be located in residential neighborhoods anymore. So most of the bars are located in shopping centers or malls that people have to drive to because they are too far away to walk. I don't know what the solution to that problem is, though. You could try to change the zoning laws, but then you would have to put up with the complaints of those who don't want a bar in their neighborhood. So what do you do?

ArmedWombat

When neocon trolls use an tragedy like this to promote their views on gun control, it simly reaffirms the fact that they are without value to society.

But it's okay to use a tragedy like Newtown, CT to promote liberal views on gun control?

If this were equal to guns, they would arrest the guy and then set out to screw over every person who never drove a Ford Super Duty truck while intoxicated.

Anyone who uses the words "neocon troll" should be stripped down, punched in the throat and tied to a tree so he can be publicly pelted with rotten vegetables...

Get out of your mom's basement..."neocon troll" is so 2005

Christy13 #1.11

The link to the Gwinnett Daily shows that the article is from today, January 24th.

Instead of politicizing this, real solutions need to be looked at. A great solution would be to have every registered vehicle installed with an alcohol breathalyzer. If you're too drunk, the car won't start. Yes, there are ways around the breathalyzer, and, yes, it is slightly inconvenient, but it is a slight inconveninece that I am willing to put up with even if it saves just one life. After all, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you would create alot of jobs for this industry.

NoFlyFLowTheRayDar,

"A great solution would be to have every registered vehicle installed with an alcohol breathalyzer. If you're too drunk, the car won't start."

Yes. That's one possible solution to the problem. I've heard of that on the news. Don't some new cars have such a system in them now? I'm not sure if it's just an idea or if it has already been implemented in some cases. Wouldn't that add to the expense of the car, though?

Don't you have to love the morons who equate cars with guns? I once thought they were trying to be funny but now I think they actually are stupid enough to think that things that MAY cause death or injury are equal to guns whose sole purpose is to kill and injure. You can't fix stupid and you can't take their metal manhood away. How else would they maintain their status as Coward Emeritus?

NoFly you're thinking like a Republican...trying to create jobs, et al.

What we need is an oversight committee setup straight away. This new agency can compare their findings of breathalyzer installation with the loss of jobs in the medical industry from a lack of car crash victims from drunk drivers only. After this data is compiled by an outside source would we be able to gain the full job creation prospectous from a Democratic perspective.

Mr. Toad can't even compete with this guy's wild ride!

Mickey-1983943

"Wouldn't that add to the expense of the car, though?"

Good point. I think that once these devices can become mass-produced, the expense will go down, and the expense will be trivial compared to a life lost. I'm not sure about newer vehicles being implemented with such devices, however.

Let me say this again, so that perhaps it will penetrate your thick skull, We have the highest percentage of people in jail, than any other country on earth!

Yep, fact, we are worse than any third world country, we are worse than any country, can you understand that we are the worst in the world?? Nah, probably not. :(

Phinster66

LMFAO! That's the kind of bipartisanship we need! :-)

Mickey, The drunk will get someone else to do the breathalyzer, There's folks who'll make a good tip doing so at the establishment's parking areas. Especially at closing times. Seen it many times, and when I do I call the cops! I testified three times against these Free-breathers as we call them down here. Two were on lot video. All were found guilty of aiding the commission of a felony and fined heavily. One, a teen, had his parents pay the fine and the kid was caught again by a cop a week later. If a drunk wants to drive they will. At that time the drunk cares nothing outside of themselves. Same goes for the jackasses who do drugs and drive. I have no problem paying for more jail cells. Don't want them back on the street. Why is it that a drunk pulls the trigger on someone and takes a ride for murder and a drunk kills someone with a vehicle gets a menial sentence? A sad picture all the way around.

@ schoolyard- You let the name fool you! Snellville, GA happens to be a very elite area, very sought-after schools, very monied, and very white.

@ Jean 321- Don't be so snarky. The point was that the vehicle this fool was driving is as big and sturdy as a tank, and the smart car is exactly the opposite! A smart car is no better than a shoe box in a wreck. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said!

The jumbo vehicle he was driving also would account for at least some of the crashes. I'm sure that several of them were not serious. (Damage-wise..) Between being drunk, and the size of the vehicle, he probably didn't realise he was hitting other vehicles!

It took a BUILDING to stop him!

Vehicular homicide, especially While driving drunk needs to be treated as 1st degree Murder. Its YOUR fault you were Drinking, YOUR fault you were driving.

@Christian Farrow - UHH, gun control was raised in discussions about Newtown because a young man with mental issues went to a school an shot a bunch of children and some adults. This story is about drunk-driving, there's no connection to guns but, obviously, gun advocates who don't want any kind of gun control are trying desperately to make one. One even ended up making a point for testing and licensing gun owners as he likened it to driving a car. This isn't even about a man who was sober and drove around trying to kill people with his car(like a weapon), NOPE! So there's just no link, just desperate anti-gun control people trying to get their message out there.

Most likely, once he's sober, he will deeply regret what happened. The person who died was a passenger but the driver is in critical condition so he may eventually have 2 charges for vehicular homicide.

x

i live in atlanta, about 15 minutes from where this happen...it happened lastnight, im so shocked that man. picked this up....but what is more crazy is the guy was on 78 thats a 6 lane rd how in the hell did he hit 15 cars its nothing but space on 78 i mean its a really wide road...im surprised someone didnt blow his head off how do you go from DEKALB COUNTY to GWINNETT COUNTY smashing cars all the way to Johnnyboys in SNELLVILLE thats like a 5-6 mile ride...then they say he hoped out the truck and told everyone do you know who i am, like what the @!$%#...who cares who you are dude you just killed a person...ive gotten drunk before and had to drive that @!$%# isnt easy im glad i didnt kill anyone...IM NEVER DOING THAT @!$%# AGAIN I PROMISE...ill just get a hotel room or something, its so hard because atlanta is a party city with all the clubs and bars every where and people just want to have a good time but we just have to make better choices...

like last year 5 people died driving the wrong way up 400, that crazy because its almost impossiable to get on that freeway the wrong way they had to be toasted...he could have just pulled over to one of the 50 hotels on 78 and slept it off in the parking lot for a while...im sorry the lady lost her life...im sure he feels so bad sitting in GWINNETT COUNTY JAIL right now...

Drunks should be banned from Ford Super Duty pick up's and downsized to electric golf carts painted day glow pink so you know they are a convicted drunk or a day glow pink bike. Since we are civilized and have no more tar and fathering or town square public floggings this is the next humantarian thing to do for the rest of us being around these POS. My Aunt was killed by a Illegal Alien laughing at the scene of the accident. In Malaysia the drunk driver has his back whipped and the cuts run 3/8th's Inch deep. Yes Scaring is very noticeable and drunk driving goes way down. Google it

And some people think guns are dangerous........................

He was taken to the hospital? Why not throw him in the morgue for an hour or so with the woman he killed. That might sober him up.

-usa1967-

And some people think guns are dangerous........................

Yes, some people do think that. They are known by various names... liberals, progressives, sane conservatives and most with an IQ above 10.

I worked with a woman who said her father had a history of drunk driving and he hadn't stopped. I had never met him, but he killed 2 people and one was pushing the other in a wheelchair. After he killed two people she said her poor old daddy shouldn't go to prison-he is a good guy. A good guy who KILLED 2 people. What an enabler. He was exactly where he should be-LOCKED UP

What a enabler! Wow, he is a murderer and a drunkard and will be put in the lake of fire on Judgement Day if he doesn't repent and asks for forgiveness.

To a person who is 70 years old 15 years is pretty much a life sentence.

More people are killed by alcohol, than guns, so why aren't those of you for a gun ban, getting all up in arms about a real killer, "ALCOHOL"? What, thats going against something YOU like, and can't do without? NOBODY NEEDS ALCOHOL!

Ji- Yes these are all real names of cities and counties in the Atlanta Metro Area.

Christy13- I guess "8 hours ago" was not something you could get a time and date of the article from.

gun analogy is incomplete for those trying to use it.. you'd have to point out that most of those who did the mass shootings were on anti-depressants to link the drunkenness.

But let me try this: It's not a LEGITIMATE crash because anyone who saw the crash coming would have been able to PREVENT the crash because the body's adrenaline shuts down the likelihood of a real crash.

but hey, that's just an analogy.

Let me try some logic here: the guy is 70. was drunk and driving. I'm fairly sure (it's possible but not likely) the guy has been drunk before. Probably a lot, it's not that usual for non-drinking 70 year olds to suddenly get the urge to go drinking and then driving. It'd be my guess from there, that the guy has a HISTORY of drunk driving, probably a LONG list.. and the state of Georgia seems to be okay with this. Plenty of states have laws now where a license is yanked after a certain number of times this has happened. So who's REALLY at fault? Who gave this guy yet ANOTHER driving license?

And I got to include those elderly who can't see, yet SOMEHOW manage to get a doctor's written note okaying the driving. My MOM IS A DANGEROUS DRIVER IN IOWA! She should NOT BE DRIVING and it doesn't matter how many times I try to call and tell them this. But hey, I won't ride with her anymore because I kinda prefer living.

I'm kind of leaning on the family who lost a loved one suing the state of Georgia for failing to get this guy off the road. Or at least the city of Atlanta. AND the guy, holy CRAP at 70 you should frigging LEARN already!

JI, it's the name of the RESTURAUNT LOL. not the person.

And to the person who mentioned a ban on cars, NO, a ban on stupidity and maybe alcohol. drugs and alcohol are for losers.

His miserable, bloated face with it's alcoholic complextion says it all. I'm so sorry for the woman who died and her family. The man is a menace.

What's needed is some common sense truck control. As long as people have easy access to trucks these trucks will keep on killing.

Definitely a menace. Give him his day in court then take him out back and shoot him. He'll never hurt anyone again.

My husband was killed by a drunken nineteen year old who was dragracing down an eight lane divided highway here in MI.My husband was walking across with the green light, having the right of way. The driver went through the red light, hitting him and throwing him across four lanes. The driver drove another block or so before he was stopped. He caused myself and our four children much heartache! My daughter did not have her father to see her graduate, to walk her down the aisle at her wedding, never to see his grandchildren or for them to know him,never to meet his daughter-in-law or three sons-in-law, or myself to have the companionship of my husband, my best friend to grow old with. Even though the driver had been put on probation before, the judge allowed him to plead guilty as a juvenile and gave him one year of probation, no jail sentence, and when he turned 21, it was even eraced from his driving record. I hold no bitterness or anger in my heart as the Lord has taken that from me and given me peace. The driver will have to stand before his maker one day and answer for his actions as I will have to also, and I don't want to for that. I pray that he has given up drinking and has straightened out his life. I know I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

actually, its pretty simple- just put a breath tester device like they require for some drunks on all vehicles. or even better, put a reaction testing device you have to key in fast enough. that would also catch people on street drugs, prescription drugs, too tired, hypoglycemic, etc. course, the present laws arent about saving lives, theyre about making money for cops, lawyers, prison guards, courts, etc. the death toll just helps sell the product. yeah, i know some would have their friends do it, sabotage the device, etc, but that doesnt mean it wouldnt help, just like locking your doors doesnt mean youll never get robbed, but i dont leave mine open. and lets face it, having some limits on guns isnt going to stop all gun violence, but it will help. what we need is a national gun registry. you dont have to be a used car dealer to record selling your car to someone privately. when they find a car used in a hit and run, theyre going to the registered owner first, and he better have a good alibi. yeah, yeah, the government could come and take your guns away, but they could do that anyway without a list if it ever got that bad which it never will. admit it, you have to be kind of paranoid, and kind of a gutless little b*tch to think you need a gun to defend yourself. and thats your right to be gutless, but its not your right to be so paranoid or mental that you gun down someone else. so you dont need a machine gun or a 30 round magazine to defend yourself. and if youre a violent criminal or a violent mental patient you shouldnt have a gun. and if you sell your gun to someone who uses it in a crime, you better have a good alibi.

Hmmm... The real simple soliution is: DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE.

If this had happened in China, more likely than not, he would already have had a trial, been found guilty, and executed by one bullet in the back of his head.

They refer to these as accidents... wrong! He purposely got drunk! Just as people load a gun!

Thank God he didn't have a gun!

Yeah...and it's also a good thing that drunk driving is illegal...

Typical liberal answer:

"I'm outraged that nobody has banned this obvious assault truck yet! There's no need for anyone to have an assault truck and my masters at CNN and MSNBC told me to think that anyone that owns these assault trucks is not only a racist but most likely is a pedophile as well. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go change my sheets because I wet the bed AGAIN last night, and it's all the republicans', and Bush's, and the tea party's fault! I'm super extra tolerant and respectful of other people's opinions and if you question me or any of my insane beliefs I will hate you and call you names on the internet!"

Am I right, liberals? Or am I right?

<sarcasm>Naw I'm just joking around.....you...you're decent people. LMAO!</sarcasm>

that's some story livingvictim, there is no justice in this world. Other countries have less tolerance for drinking & driving, the US is such a car-centered society that even judges don't want to hold people accountable for their acts behind the wheel. It's a fine line between accident and murder and people don't want to make the call. As a bike rider your story Mickey is hard to take. It has to be hard not thinking of revenge on that guy. All the references to gun control on this page are idiotic, but I expect nothing else at "newsvine"

michael,

"As a bike rider your story Mickey is hard to take. It has to be hard not thinking of revenge on that guy."

I'm not the vengeful sort of person, michael. So I wasn't out for revenge. But I would greatly have appreciated it if he had paid for my bike and medical expenses. I was only 22 at the time, in college and working a part time job. Fortunately, I had student insurance that paid 75% of the medical expenses, but I was stuck with paying the rest, which wasn't easy since I only made about $30 a week on my part time job.

Mintiwab Woldeyhans? That has got to be the weirdest name I've ever heard. It almost seems like a joke or a misspelling. Some sort of cross between a Native American tribe and Dutch? Condolences to her family of course. Sad that she would be killed by a drunk old geezer with a truck too big for his brain/age.

I do love the anti-gun-control posts trying to liken this situation to theirs. What they don't realize is that they're actually A) advocating for mandatory licensing, liability insurance and periodic retesting; and B) comparing themselves as gun owners to drunk drivers.

"Please proceed, Governor..."

Hmmm:

The desperation is palpable to those of us that aren't infected. Some of us have learned how to think - some of us have learned what to think. The desperation has reached the point where it has become some sort of tragic burlesque - which, of course, is unrecognizable to its authors.

Unfortunately in this part of the South; TN, AL, MS, GA, KY, there are an abundance of people who are multiple offenders for DWI and driving on suspended or revoked licenses. Case in point, a pregnant woman in Nashville was on the sidewalk and hit by a DWI who when arrested at the scene was driving on a revoked license with 7 previous DWI convictions.

The woman and unborn child died as a result. Obviously the penalties were not sufficient to deter recidivism for this person, and this not an isolated instance.

Its not just in the South. Impaired drivers are everywhere.

Darthdon...The point in this case was not in regard to impaired drivers, but the lack of stiff penalties for repeat offenders. The jagoff in Nashville had never received any more than 30 days or time served while waiting bond, and the accumulation of the DWIs had taken place in less than 3 years. I've lived in other areas of the country where repeat offenders could expect and receive up to 11 months and 29 days on their 3rd offense.

darth:

Google 'kneejerk', followed by 'methinks he/she doth protest too much.'

And those who are texting! Public menaces, both. I refuse to let anything distract me while driving.

Amused, you are 100% right, the 1000's that are playing with a cell phone are just as dangerous on the road.

Hell martay you flying around in tights and a cape distracts more drivers than cell phones

You uneducated fop, that's George Reeve, the original television Superman.

I'll say this real quiet I think he is going by an alias so no one will recognize him so keep it down

True, Amused. The texting pinheads are the worst. The drunks are terrible, but the texting gits can't even blame being intoxicated. Not to mention the inexperienced, teenage driver-texter.

Let's let everyone know--" Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound! "Look up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superman!" "Yes, it's Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands; and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way."

Acording to what I've been reading, this man could say that he was texting during all this, he would spend about 5 days in jail, and then he would go home.

I am all for the drunk that kills himself first before hurting other people!

Texting while driving is currently illegal in 39 states. Try calling 911 when you see someone doing it, depending on where you live the dispatchers are ignorant of the law.

@Bubby's Grampa - Using a cell phone while driving is illegal in many areas as well, so you better pull over first!

if you drink don't drive...obey the law...do the water mellon crawl...

Bubby ... it is not just the dispatchers are ignorant of the law. I was re-ended by a 16 year old who just got his license who was texting six months after the law went into effect in Michigan. This focused texting was witnessed by several other drivers, and he ran a red light to hit me and another car. The local police officer on the scene got huffy with me and two other witnesses when we asked if the texting driver got a ticket for it; the police officer didn't want to mess up the kid's driving record. The 16 year totaled grandpa's car that day, but fortunately there were no injuries. Three evenings later he ran another red light and T-boned a limo and totaling his mother's SUV. He sent several people to local hospitals in his second incident and yeah, his passengers admitted he was texting again.

Darthdon...I go for hands free while driving as it's allowable, the Bluetooth stays in my truck for that purpose.

IAMPGA...Sorry to hear about your difficulties with the Police in the situation with the 16 yo, I'd think the parents need to jerk his driving and phone privileges. Hmmm...do people still that to their children?

bubby:

Every study has shown that 'hands free' conversations are as dangerous as 'hand-held'.

"www.kurzweilai.net/texting-or-some-hands-free-talking-behind-the-wheel-is-as-dangerous-as-being-over-the-limit"- among many others. "Yeah, but's" don't count.

No, ban the trucks! It's the trucks fault because it's too big and powerful! Same logic people are using in the ban the guns rhetoric.

Sure, if you ban the gun-toting boneheads first.

It's the evil huge pickup trucks fault. The only use for a 5000 lb 450 hp 17 mpg unstopable death machine. Is for drunks to take wreckless joy rides of destruction. There is no legitament reason for anyone to own these huge wastefull killing machines. If everyone drove a small hybrid the world would be a better safer place. The police would have no trouble stopping a electric car. But giant trucks are next to imposable to stop. Trucks are so massive police cars just bounce off when they try to spin them out. And if the popos do finally manage to spin a truck. Heck, it can smash through a brick wall and just keep going. Yes, there is no ligitament use for "work" trucks. They must be banned and conficeted now. Before another sinceless tragedy like this happens. If we can save one life it will be worth it.

He was caught with a 12 beer magazine. We need to restrict beer magazines to 5 beers or less.

J D Skull - You need to invest in a spell checker (preferably water-cooled).

Yes,it is true. I couldn't spell sith if I had a hand full.

hold on Stan, that truck only has a 5 person capacity, that's all you need to hunt. We need to outlaw the vehicles of mass destruction, I say anything that holds over seven passengers...

It's ok JD..I"m the same way.I can spell great, I just cant type.

rbjk0174s

Sure, if you ban the gun-toting boneheads first.

In the beginning it was those gun-toting boneheads that sacrificed their life so you could spout off whatever you want. Yes i took offense to that comment because i do believe in the Second amendment and am active duty that has spent numerous deployments defending your right to freedom. Dont think that makes me a bonehead. Maybe you should get out of your basement and go overseas to maybe Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria and tell me how it goes when you decide to exercise your first amendment right. Wait...there is no gun toting boneheads there to preserve that right cause the government will tell you what to do. There are evil people everywhere and what anti-gun people dont realize is that even if you did take all the guns away there will still be as many murders. What is the deterrent for these people. A warm jail cell, cable, a college education, 3 squares a day, gym, rec room and all paid for by the taxpayer.

We need to reduce the amount of alcohol a person can purchase at once, and prevent people from being able to get drunk at all. Maybe limit the amount available in these "high capacity bottles," limit purchases to 1 bottle per week, and have background checks -- make it illegal for anyone to purchase if they have a history of alcoholism or alcohol-related criminal offenses (e.g. disorderly conduct, DUI, etc.) We also need breathalyzers in every vehicle, and keep these beverages of mass intoxication out of the hands of citizens. Only our celebrities and politicians should be able to drink in excess. Alcohol control now!

...and to quote dwayne stomp, if you must drink and drive, please don't do drugs.

sorry, couldn't help myself, given the environment

stan:

I take a more global view of our myriad problems. Banning 'stupid', and its virulent adherents, would make the world 99.78 percent safer for everyone - including the stupid.

dave:

The obviousness is horrifying, is it not? What is this, Pride in Idiocy Week?

matt:

I was reading your post and thinking what a ridiculous proposition you're making. Taking away rights, limiting people in so many ways.

Then it occurred to me that all those driving drunk, texting, yakking, eating, drinking, reading etc etc are taking away more than a few rights of those of us that actually drive when we're sitting in the drivers seat. I concluded that my, and anyone else's right to life, trumps any and all other claims. Others have no right, at any time, whatever the lame-ass rationale, to shoot me, run over me, or otherwise infringe on my right to remain living.

No, we need to limit car ownership. Who really needs most of these cars anyway?

Those sounds like a good idea. Of course the training program and such is silly and is simply you trying to change this to a gun thing because, I dunno, you're for 'em or something. Whatever. Rest of it is sound though.

"Just a good 'ole boy, never meanin' no harm............. " How does that song go?

No, we need to limit car ownership. Who really needs most of these cars anyway?

HNL

That's right. Let's take away the freedom of people to buy/own whatever they want/can afford. How funny that idiot people in a free society either want to take/give away rights/freedoms of others/themselves. The founding fathers didn't really mean to start a free nation. They were just joking, right? What an insulting thing to say to the veterans who have fought to preserve our freedoms.

Prokhor Zakharov:

My point is that the politicians, especially and including Obama, pushing for new laws and bans on firearms really don't give a damn about saving lives. If they did, they would be just as concerned about the issue of drunk driving as they are murders by firearms. It's all about an AGENDA. The question everyone should be asking is WHY????????????????? As I have pointed out, it sure as hell has nothing to do with saving lives.

And this is why alcohol is legal but marijuana is not?

Mr Steady, we have laws about drunk driving. You are making a case against yourself you idiot. Your argument (like your gun argument) would be "why have laws, people will break the law and drink anyway". Don't be so stupid.

We also need to ban cars with large gas tanks. Let's limit them to 16 oz. like they do with sodas in NYC. If we have to stop to fill up every mile and a half we won't be able to kill as many people as we will spend all our time at gas stations.

All cars should be limited to lawnmower engines. No one NEEDS to have a car with a lot of power.

omg @ Mr Steady. sounds like you have the answer to lifes sharps objects

When I hear about incidents like this, I can't understand how all of the pro-vehicle people can believe that motor vehicles don't kill people. Sayin' People Kill People is a real cop out! Until we get a rational policy to limit vehicle ownership, the carnage will go on!

Here is where the epic fallacy in your argument lies.

Alcohol was not the weapon used here. It was the vehicle. So we should outlaw driving vehicles while drunk right? Done. Sorta kinda like how it's illegal to operate a firearm while drunk.

Alcohol and vehicles have many uses. Firearms have one.

I personally believe that it's not a horrible idea to verify somebody doesn't have a bunch of drunk driving convictions before they are allowed to purchase alcohol, and i would support that bill were it introduced into my local legislature. I think it's sad that politicians used the recent tragedies as tools to further their agendas, but not as sad as people like you who refuse to accept the fact that dangerous items like firearms shouldn't require common sense restrictions like background checks and the ban of high capacity ammo clips. Get your head out of the sand and accept the fact that you are wrong on the subject. I have a feeling that if it was you burying your child you might feel differently on this whole gun control thing.

And one more thing, if you feel the need to complain about gun control, the least you could do is go to one of the many articles concerning it. I'm sick of reading the "dem dere gon take away err guns!" redneck dribble on every. single. article.

Mr. Steady--nope, we need to ban ALL alcohol, and cell phones, mascara, screaming babies, and CARS. Because it could NOT be that it is PEOPLE who are responsible for the vehicular deaths/injuries, right?

I mean, the libs want to ban GUNS because of what a tiny few bad people did with a gun, so it seems much more likely that the bans ABOVE should be put into place, right?

Yeeeeeha!

In Diane Feinstein's assault weapon ban it was stated that 350 people have been killed by assault weapons since the old ban was lifted. So tell me, how many people have been killed by drunk drivers during that same time period? Answer: at least 10,000 EACH YEAR. If we really are concerned about the safety of our children we need to spend more time getting drunks off the road than expensive semi-autos off the streets.

Before you know it people living in cities will believe no one needs a car. Why do we need high capacity gas tanks? In the city everything is close. never mind that people in rural areas have to drive long distances.

Wait! Is it possible people that live in sparsely populated areas have different needs?

JB from metro NY

Mr Steady, we have laws about drunk driving. You are making a case against yourself you idiot. Your argument (like your gun argument) would be "why have laws, people will break the law and drink anyway". Don't be so stupid.

We also have laws against murder and laws concerning legal possession of firearms too.

Laws don't get followed, does that burst your little unicorn and rainbow bubble?

Squeal like a pig, JohnBoy !! I bet that restaurant has some damn good grubb.

Ford Super Duty. Yeeuup. Git'er done.

Don't drink and drive. Read a book instead.

Mr Steady we arent interested in have a '1984' society. I am not an alcohol drinker anymore, I drink once every month or two (7 years ago though when I worked in a bar I would drink once every other day or sooner). Point is stricter alcohol laws wontwork and DIDNT work, prohibition in 20s....think again...plus your just making a fool of yourself

-------independant-2850861

------I'm sick of reading the "dem dere gon take away err guns!" redneck dribble on every. single. article.

You actually sounded like you had something worthwhile to say until you had to add in the stereotypical name calling to try to prove a point. Then any educated thought process that you think you used to come up with your argument has no merit.....

I also would like to disagree with you on this statement.

Alcohol and vehicles have many uses. Firearms have one.

There is only one use for an alcoholic beverage. You don't just drink them because they taste good. You want the effects that alcohol has on the body.

Vehicles do have only one use, transportation, be it people or goods.

I used to think that guns have only one use also, that was to shoot a projectile at a target. But the anti-gunnist have now proved to the world that they are also very scary looking, which makes them a deterrent.

Independent 2850861:

The only epic fallacy is your argument. The analogy made by many posters here to the gun control issue is spot on. A legal device was used by an impaired individual to cause mayhem and death. The fact that alcohol was the source of the impairment is irrelevant. The instrument of destruction was a common item owned by millions of people and used for many legitimate, productive activities.

Also, your assertion that alchohol has many uses but firearms have only one is absurd on its face. Alcohol has only one purpose, to alter the consumer's mental state (which, by the way, is purely recreational and never productive). Guns have legitimate uses in addition to recreational target shooting - hunting for food, pest elimination to protect crops (e.g. feral hogs) and self defense.

Careful there, Jeff2000. You're post makes a lot of sense. TOO much sense. You might find yourself accused of being a commie anti-American or something.

Or a "Dumbocrat."

Or a "Rethuglican."

Careful, careful...

Big Chief DrinkAlot say : "hmmm... FIREwater !"

Don't drink and drive.

Thanks for putting a lot of thought into something that America proved generations ago would never work. Limiting sizes, setting a max ABV, waiting period for hard liquor (are you kidding); none of this solves anything it would just make people have to drive a lot more, place to place, to get the alcohol they want so it would actually increase the problem... And training? Are you out of your mind. No one has ever learned anything in government required training; you sit in a room for four hours with a group of people that don't want to be there so you can take some BS test, get your certificate and get the hell out of the room. There is a time and a place to learn about drinking and elicit drugs, and it's called college. Some people grow out of it and get on with a normal life, others continue to do it until they F-up major; somehow or another this guy made it to be 70.

You see it is trucks and cars that kill people, not people. We have to ban cars. Oh wait, Thats why they want to ban guns, because guns kill people not people. Lets hold the inanimate object responsible, not the person at the other end. That is easier than putting a 70 year old drunk behind bars or a mentally ill person behind bars for killing people with a gun.

They need to charge this man with each and every count like each one is a separate crime. 15 Hit and runs, 1 vehicular murder and a host of other crimes. try the others first and get those convictions. Then he is a habitual offender and the muder gets a whole lot more serious.

JB from metro NY

JB

there are plenty of gun laws as well as vehicular laws. But none of them protect the victims. They tell you if convicted you can not own a gun or drive a car. They do it anyway. They catch you and do nothing until you finally kill someone. Then notheing is still done. If you drive a car or posess a gun after told not to and someone dies, you die. People think that is harsh, but I say you were told and the only way to protect the victims is to make it harder on the criminals. It does not say it here, but I wonder if this guy even had a license to drive. If not, he knew it and is now a criminal. He should forfeit his life. A lot of people will disagree but I say if the legislature wants to protect the law abiding citizens, then make it tougher on the criminals. Make it hurt them more than than they hurt their victims.

Why 16 and 30? The drunk in this story was 70. And they've used the breathalizers in some instances, as part of probation and the person gets a friend to start the car for them. Plus, is it fair to me that I have to pay for an extremely expensive piece of equipment because other people are morons, even though I don't drive drunk? Are you willing to pay a couple of thousand dollars, each car (in my family that would be 3) even though you haven't done anything wrong. My elderly in laws couldn't afford to have one installed, would that mean they couldn't drive anymore?

JohnBoy is the name of the restaurant. DUHHHHHHHH

Ah a one ton dully and a 1/2 gallon of Captain Morgan. Death on the highway.

Why drive a big SUV or pickumup truck? Isn't it obvious? If there's an accident, "someone else" will die. Why do you take your dog for a walk? So he/she'll crap in someone else's yard.

What you get when you take 'civility' out of 'civilization'. And some of us still wonder.

A guy who was looking at a billboard warning about not texting and driving, rear-ended me.

Two strikes against this guy: 1. Drunk driving. 2. Old age driving. 3. "Hit and Run", need I say more?

Wait....Johnboy! - 4. strikes against this guy....he is OUT!

Right you are. After all no one really NEEDS a car. When the founders wrote the constitution they had no idea cars would exist. we should just walk everywhere and eliminate all these deaths. Even sober people crash cars. let's get rid of all of them.

Love the satire, but actually, if I was Ruler of the World, I WOULD ban motor vehicles. They're a plague on the Earth: they constantly emit poison gas, they're noisy, they leak toxic fluids all over everything, and they kill people by the 1000's; and to support 'em, we've covered a good portion of Mother Earth with stinkin' asphalt and concrete. And millions have died in wars fought over access to their propellant. People need to start walking anyhow. Modern man is a weak ass bitch compared to our forefathers who lived before the motor vehicle plague.

I never trusted those dang horseless carriages anyhow. Work of the devil I tell ya!

Everyone...Get a horse.

I'm thinking you wouldn't be ruler of the world for very long without cars, kind of hard to go massacre dissidents without some kind of transportation.

Well, if I'm going to have to walk to work, I'll need a gun to chase off the coyotes on the way there.

While I am fully supportive of breathalyzers, especially for anyone who has been STOPPED for DUI/DWI, how about considering holding people actually accountable for their actions? If this guy has been drinking in a tavern, sanction the bar. If he was at someone else's home, fine them. If he was home, all alone and then got into the car to drive, pull his license forever. Sorry if it's inconvenient but this guy's driving is clearly inconvenient for all of the hit and runs and the person that lost their life.

Drink and drive and better be prepared for severe consequences. Same with using any other weapon (gun, knife, fist) to harm any one else.

Definitely right that the founding fathers didn't have to deal with cars. The thought wasn't around and people didn't live as far apart as we do now. How about charging more for the car of gas guzzlers? I'd be up for that. Might get people to chose a car based on responsibility, safety, carbon foot print and ecology instead of driving enormous monstrosities such as HUMMERS...compensating much?

emits gas..but we still have burn days with our fireplaces? guitar amps are noisy, drums, and movie theatres. leak toxic fluids all over EVERYTHING? like my living room carpet and my grilled cheese sandwhich? You got me worried I thought it might of only been paved roads but now im aware of EVERYTHING. Modern man is much more smarter compared to our earth is center of universe..land is flat forefathers.

Let's just ban people from leaving their homes. Let them own all the guns they want. Let them drink until they drop dead from alcohol poisoning. Let them do whatever they want but don't let them ever walk past their front door.

texaslady:

We walk on the golf course, and hike in the mountain preserve, with coyotes all the time. We aren't armed, and we don't have any problems. Beautiful creatures, they. If you put sheep in their kitchen, you will get a predictable (to some) result.

unfortunately that accounts for most of the country including most members of our "ruling elite" ..... breeding greedy easily addicted morons is practically the national sport!!

case in point most of the "BAN the" idiots on this comment section ....

but they were a couple of liters

Umm, no.

against:

Which government would that be? That one has long since been round-filed. But then, maybe that's where you found it. Your ".223"? I wonder why that reference was included? I'll make a guess.

You can take away my gum when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

I will chew this gum all I want. And no one can take away that right. :)

sugar free?

I agree with Obamanot's earlier comments,and would like to add these ideas. I think congress should pass a bill that says no car manufacture can build a car that could cause more than 10 accidents in one day, and still have the capability to drive into a restaurant.

There is no doubt that vehicle was and assault weapon. The public doesn’t need those kinds of vehicles making our streets dangerous.

I think we should also pass a law that raise’s the price of gas so high the people like that drunken man can not afford to buy gas for the vehicles. Heck he would have to choose between buying liquor or gas. I’m sure they would give up the car and driving before the liquor. Also congress should make a bill that says all restaurants must build thicker walls and big steel railing all around and secondary walls inside just for safety, so vehicle's can not get into the restaurants that easy.

Congress should just pass a law that says every one send me their spare change every day, so I could manage it and I could to head up a committee to investigate things like this. There is no reason for people to be driving around our cities and towns with assault vehicles.

Citizen's could ride motor scooters, and air balloons or roller skates, maybe we should all get wheel chairs. The government could create jobs for thousands of people that are out of work. They could push people around town in wheel chairs even wheel barrows to every person who is out of work, who could use the wheel barrows to carry people around like taxi cabs and at the same time that would help stop global warming,lower the pollution, especially in the cities and we would not have to pay so much unemployment and food stamps. Cause every person would have work.( Maybe I could run for office im getting pretty good at solving these kind of problems)

Just think about how many millions of cars are out there that is capable of doing that very same thing. Cars kill people. Cars are assault weapons. Imagine if that restaurant had been school full of children instead a restaurant.

So we need more laws to tell everyone they can not own a car that will cause more than eight accidents a day. The government already makes people register their cars and we know who owns cars.

All we need is to do is just tell them they can not get drunk and drive because it's against the law and the drunken guys would stop drinking and stay home or walk. So that would solve the Problems just like the stupid weapon bill that the idiot’s are trying to pass now. But cars don’t kill people kill people. It really trucks that kill people.

What if the guy would have had an eighteen wheeler can you just
imagine… I wonder why the media did not call the assault car…a SUV to I mean it must have been an SUV and the drunken man could just claim the SUV dit it.

Isn't it SUV's that always cause all the accidents, and then crashed into the restaurant. People don’t need to own assault vehicles like that and that all I have to say about that.

Frank. If he even goes to jail!!

With his DUI conviction he can run for offices like President or Vice-President just like W + Dick Chaney. W is the first President to have a prior criminal record. And don't forget, Paris Hilton spent only 46 minutes in jail for her DUI sentence. How did she get off that easy? First guess doesn't count.

What happened during prohibition? Lots of illegal booze....just some more of the same if some @#%^%^*^(( tries to take away our guns. They will still be available, just cost more!

Prohibition didn't work so well, that is unless you were a bootlegger like Joseph Kennedy Sr. and made a few hundred million dollars illegally.

Watch Alaskan State Troopers and you will see what happens when the government bans alcohol. Rot Gut should really be called Rot Brain. Home made booze can be a dangerous thing.

Lord Dirt you're comparing apples to oranges.

Both issues must be resolved asap. There is no hierarchy of greater or lesser importance. Anyone who believes there is must be out of their mind.

The right to bear arms doesn't infringe on handguns or rifles, hell's bells, you can have all the muskets you like. Assault rifles have no place in the home, they have no real purpose except to kill human beings.

Wow Peridiot - who do you think you are to infringe your views on my God given rights? You are so far past pathetic any attempt at a rational, logical discussion with you is pointless.

Another well reasoned(sarcasm) argument from one of Mr. Sniders not so distant relatives "Joe Dirt." Hey "Joe" just go fetch the shotgun from Uncle Mike's truck so we do not have another reason to try and confiscate your guns.

peridot....look at what big brother and you liberals consider "assault rifles".

Peridot Maybe the only thing you would do is use a gun to kill. There are many others that use them for different reasons.

Answer one question for me. What is the difference between a musket and a muzzle loader?

God given rights

Wrong twice.

1) God didn't give you rights. Humans did.

2) There is no god.

RandogM, so you are ok with people drinking and driving and killing people all the time? I have read about whole families getting wiped out. Mothers and fathers, children, even their grandparents all killed when an idiot thought he was ok to drive home drunk. These people murder others, yes murder as they know what can happen when they get behind the wheel drunk.

My gun and I have never hurt anyone and will never hurt anyone by accident just like these people driving around drunk do. Where does people control stop and end? Please tell me. I bet it has to do with making you and your needs met all the while not caring about others, right? It is easy to say gun control when you yourself dont own one but if I infringe on your rights that I dont care about you would get all bent out of shape. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You the one that is wrong Mr. G. , There is a God

You the one that is wrong Mr. G. , There is a God

Prove it. Until then, all you have is an imaginary friend.

Peridot do you actually think meat is created in the grocery store?

Under Feinstein's gun grab almost every weapon known qualifies as an assault weapon, including pistols.

LordJoe. In my state we have pretty severe penalties for drinking and driving as well as vehicular manslaughter. As far as guns, i own several and my wife has a permit to carry and she takes her gun just about everywhere. I felt like pushing your buttons because you were out of line. Some of the ideas being proposed for the safe and effective use of arms does not scare me one bit. Why keep beating the drums when most everyone is not advocating taking your guns or anyone elses? I hunt with my father-in-law and he just loves to get all frothy about the latest NRA conspiracy theory. Waste of time in my opinion.

Actually, Mr G, you are wrong on both points.

First, there are God given rights. You benefit from one. God gives us the right not to believe in him.

Second, there is a God. If you don't believe that, you are just exercising your God given right.

where is this source of ppl letting ppl drive drunk but making sure they have no guns? Id like to read that article

millknee said:

Actually, Mr G, you are wrong on both points.

First, there are God given rights. You benefit from one. God gives us the right not to believe in him.

Second, there is a God. If you don't believe that, you are just exercising your God given right.

Again, prove it.

Your post is a good example of poorly constructed circular logic.

lmfao exercising a god given right to believe in god thats just a stupid statement in itself...but it made my day hahahahaha thank you

Scary to think that the crazy ppl who claim to talk to god on our street corners are the same type of ppl that thought up the Bible in the beginning

Can Mr. G prove God doesn't exist?

Our radios pick up unseen frequencies but does not seeing them mean they do not exist? There are a lot of things that can't be seen but that does mean they do not exist.

If God does not exist and when we die, we will have no conscious knowledge that He didn't exist or that there wasn't an afterlife. Those who do not believe in God will not be able to say "I told you so" because we would all cease to exist.

If there is a God and an afterlife, what would those who do not belive do when they realize those crazy religious nuts were telling you the truth?

I would rather be a believer and cease to exist with no conscious knowledge that I was wrong than to be an unbeliever and have a conscious knowledge that those Bible thumpers were right.

Not a wise thing to say Derek. You know God & you know the Bible. You wrote it in your comments. Which means you know that Jesus said you deny The Father, he'll deny you. Some people have to have scientific proof that God exists & by His finger man wrote the words in the Bible. Lets go with the Bible it is the top selling book Ever. You won't find it in a book store under Fiction. Your words, "believe in God thats just a stupid statement in itself". Have you ever heard of Babe Ruth? I'll take that as a yes since we aren't face to face. Did you ever see him? I'll take that as a No. Can you prove there was a Babe Ruth? I'll take that as a No. Oh there are pictures, film clips, books, etc. But (You) can't positively prove it can you. Oh you can talk to others who may have seen him and claim they talked to him, but they are the "same type of ppl that thought up the Bible in the beginning". You believe Derek that Babe Ruth existed. It only takes faith the size of a mustard seed, to believe in Jesus & the words in the bible. God Bless You

Peridot-1693859

Lord Dirt you're comparing apples to oranges.

Both issues must be resolved asap. There is no hierarchy of greater or lesser importance. Anyone who believes there is must be out of their mind.

The right to bear arms doesn't infringe on handguns or rifles, hell's bells, you can have all the muskets you like. Assault rifles have no place in the home, they have no real purpose except to kill human beings.

Well i will take my musket when you give up your cell phone, car, computer, electricity, cable and everything else that didn't exist back then. I am sure our founding fathers never saw any of this when they wrote the constitution. BTW these things are a right but a luxury. I know some will scream times have changed. Humm....seems they manged just fine back then without all of these luxuries. There is no need for sports cars or sport bikes the go way faster than the speed limit. I could go on and on about there is no place for allot of things but why bother. People like you are against guns and that is fine. Just leave the rest of us who enjoy the sport of shooting and hunting and protecting our families alone. I know I know, the government is not going to come take away my guns and i don't need them against our tyrannical government. See here is what you should really worry about. Muslims want to take over the world if you don't believe it then i am sorry for you. I have fought in wars over there and they want to eliminate the U.S and what it stands for. Furthermore, China has built a military that can go on the offensive versus being strictly defensive. We keep borrowing money from them to pay for all of these government support programs. How long do you think it will be before they say, you know what why don't we just go over there and take over. Almost like a corporate takeover. They keep investing and not really getting any return. We have all of these resources that are prohibited from being mined because of the EPA and the tree huggers and they know this and need all of these resources. So you might want to learn Mandarin if you want the rest of us to give up our guns.

Mr G Prove that there isn't.... Kind of weird how that works, huh?

Can Mr. G prove God doesn't exist?

Mr G Prove that there isn't.... Kind of weird how that works, huh?

It's a logical fallacy to prove something doesn't exist. Apparently critical thinking wasn't taught in your school. You claim god exists. The burden of proof falls on those making the claim, not the one questioning it. Kind a weird how that works, huh?

Back up your claim. Until then, you got nothing.

Mr. G, you need to go back and study our founding fathers. Devout Christian's like George Mason and Patrick Henry used the bible as a guide when drafting the bill of rights. The bill of God given rights. Read Thomas Jefferson's declaration of indepencence where it states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Man is not man's original creator. You can't say man and woman concieved the first man because who conceived the parents? Belief in God is about faith. No one can prove the existence of God just like no one can prove the Big Bang happened or that we got here through evolution. I don't see monkeys still evolving today so I can assume that evolution was a myth. I haven't seen a video or picture of two particles colliding and creating this world we now live in.

You say the burden of proof falls on those making the claim. Well you're claiming God doesn't exists, and I'm the one questioning your claim, so where's your proof?

You say the burden of proof falls on those making the claim. Well you're claiming God doesn't exists, and I'm the one questioning your claim, so where's your proof?

Your failure is represented by your use of circular logic and lack of reading comprehension.

Repeat: It's a logical fallacy to prove something doesn't exist. The initial claim is "god exists" and the burden of proof starts there. Prove it. Until then, you got nothing and I have no reason to reply until you present something to substantiate the claim.

seethroughitall:

I'm an agnostic - that is, I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a 'Supreme Being'. I'm simply left with no other rational option. It's a relatively comfortable position, lacking the vested interests and philosophical challenges in 'mr g's' reply. "..you got nothing.."? Isn't that a 'logical fallacy'?