Letter in the paper

[Deer Slayer!!!]

Simply Awesome!!!

 

[F8L_Funnel]

+1

 

[ROBAR35]

Hats off to the author, that was spot on.

 

[Curl16]

Wow, that was a great article. Thanks for posting!

 

[730dc]

When you really think about it, why aren't the ignition interlocks factory requirements yet? Hundreds are killed each year due to the recklessness of those who drive impaired. Wouldn't the interlock device almost completely deter and PREVENT almost all DUI related crashes and deaths? Just forward thinking and it seems like a proactive approach, until people figure out how to bypass or disable them. ( obviously I'm only playing devils advocate because I can bet that a majority of drivers in the US would be completely against it, even if it saves just one person. Hmmm I'd be all for it because I don't drink and drive. This must be how it feels to be anti-gun. "I'm all for a gun ban because it doesn't bother me I don't own any, and if they will save just one person)

DONT WILLINGLY GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY . we really dont have any left as it is anything electronic can be looked at drones in the sky cameras every where you look... we have been conditioned to accept being spyed on and it truly scary . after that verizon story broke a few weeks ago i asked a few friend and coworks and almost all said they dont care they have nothing to hide. its not a mater of having something to hide . you should beable to live your life with some sort of privacy, before you know it in this nanny state we will all be assigned a person cop to follow us all around and make sure we follow all the laws to a T....

 

[enjoi1968]

When you really think about it, why aren't the ignition interlocks factory requirements yet? Hundreds are killed each year due to the recklessness of those who drive impaired. Wouldn't the interlock device almost completely deter and PREVENT almost all DUI related crashes and deaths? Just forward thinking and it seems like a proactive approach, until people figure out how to bypass or disable them. ( obviously I'm only playing devils advocate because I can bet that a majority of drivers in the US would be completely against it, even if it saves just one person. Hmmm I'd be all for it because I don't drink and drive. This must be how it feels to be anti-gun. "I'm all for a gun ban because it doesn't bother me I don't own any, and if they will save just one person)

From someone who has installed this technology for those that were required to use it. 3 of 10 out of the box were 'fail to operate' units. Along with the fact that I had my 10 yr old nephew blow into a brand new unit only to have it come back fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail... apparently he had been drinking heavily! :O

The technology is not ready yet. Therefore it would be possibly the worse decision by an automaker ever. You would have people stranded left and right because the unit decided to STB at 6am on Wednesday heading into work, at a gas station.

 

[sbmike]

Great article! It's a shame we couldn't pool enough financial resources to use this as a periodic reminder through print and TV media how asinine and misguided this logic is as it pertains to guns. I'm at least keeping it in my files for future reference and use (2014 elections!).

 

[Corporal Doug]

DONT WILLINGLY GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY . we really dont have any left as it is anything electronic can be looked at drones in the sky cameras every where you look... we have been conditioned to accept being spyed on and it truly scary . after that verizon story broke a few weeks ago i asked a few friend and coworks and almost all said they dont care they have nothing to hide. its not a mater of having something to hide . you should beable to live your life with some sort of privacy, before you know it in this nanny state we will all be assigned a person cop to follow us all around and make sure we follow all the laws to a T....

Again, I'm not saying that we actually do this. But why haven't the liberals cried for this sort of thing? Auto collisions are responsible for more deaths than guns do. Add the factor of the impaired driver and the odds are even higher. So why not take this small piece of privacy away if it will save just one life? People obviously cannot be trusted to act with good judgement, so this is just a proactive approach to completely preventing someone from driving while under the influence, provided that they work more accurately than what has been mentioned.

 

[smkranz]

Thanks to all for the nice feedback on the letter.

Sometimes I wonder what the point is, because newspapers are losing readership all the time. But IMHO any venue that is there to get the message out to the public (for free), we should access.

 

[Benanov]

From someone who has installed this technology for those that were required to use it. 3 of 10 out of the box were 'fail to operate' units. Along with the fact that I had my 10 yr old nephew blow into a brand new unit only to have it come back fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail... apparently he had been drinking heavily! :O

The technology is not ready yet. Therefore it would be possibly the worse decision by an automaker ever. You would have people stranded left and right because the unit decided to STB at 6am on Wednesday heading into work, at a gas station.

The calibration requirements for ignition interlocks when they ARE working are quite heavy, too - once every 30 days.

To the person who presented that idea - you're welcome to install one on your car and use it for a month. Let us know how it works out for you. Personally if there's any feature on a device that causes it to render itself inoperable, it's Defective By Design.

And that is correct, I'm not fond of car alarms or anti-theft devices. Years back I did not enjoy the $600 ignition cylinder replacement for my 2001 Chevy Malibu when the Passlock system started failing - and stranded me.

The Dealer told me the "security systems could not be bypassed." I rolled my eyes and had a DEI-555L module in my hands a couple weeks (Passlock II has no replay protection). Never installed it (didn't end up going with remote start, I decided to stop dropping cash into that car.)

I'm not keen on safeties on carry guns. Target guns? All for it.

 

[sfchoffman]

I've been using that argument for a long time, and the Libtards just don't get it, and say thats stupid ! They get wrapped around the axle on one thing, and thats all there brain can handle...

 

[trickg]

I think that the letter would have been better if the author had left off the last bit stating, "just like guns," but otherwise it was very well written and really drove home the point.

 

[Maverick0313]

OK...I like this...

 

[SoMD_Gen4]

I saw a movie once where only law enforcement and military had guns....It was called Schindler's List

 

[smkranz]

I think that the letter would have been better if the author had left off the last bit stating, "just like guns," but otherwise it was very well written and really drove home the point.

Yep, and thanks. Everyone here reading the letter would get it without the "just like guns" ending. But for the average non-2A fan/reader who is not sensitized to all those things like we are, I think we have to explicitly connect all of the dots for them in order to turn them, or at least get them to see why this sh!t is so bad.

 

[Bohlieve410]

Thinking about posting to Facebook.

 

[spclopr8tr]

To the person who presented that idea - you're welcome to install one on your car and use it for a month. Let us know how it works out for you. Personally if there's any feature on a device that causes it to render itself inoperable, it's Defective By Design.

Do you not recognize satire when you see it?

Satire definition: wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

The poster was merely pointing out the preposterousness of MD gun laws and how they would apply by extension to other "machines that kill". (At least I hope that was the intent.)

 

[webb297]

Again, I'm not saying that we actually do this. But why haven't the liberals cried for this sort of thing? Auto collisions are responsible for more deaths than guns do. Add the factor of the impaired driver and the odds are even higher. So why not take this small piece of privacy away if it will save just one life? People obviously cannot be trusted to act with good judgement, so this is just a proactive approach to completely preventing someone from driving while under the influence, provided that they work more accurately than what has been mentioned.

Liberals only want to ban things they dont like..... and they like to drink. Thats why you haven't seen liberals out there pushing that technology, it would inconvenience them personally.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Years ago, maybe 20 years ago, the Washington Post did a story about how dangerous guns were. I replaced "guns" with "cars" and made some other minor changes to make it read right, and sent it back to the author. No response. I wish I had it.

 

[Corporal Doug]

The calibration requirements for ignition interlocks when they ARE working are quite heavy, too - once every 30 days.

To the person who presented that idea - you're welcome to install one on your car and use it for a month. Let us know how it works out for you. Personally if there's any feature on a device that causes it to render itself inoperable, it's Defective By Design.

And that is correct, I'm not fond of car alarms or anti-theft devices. Years back I did not enjoy the $600 ignition cylinder replacement for my 2001 Chevy Malibu when the Passlock system started failing - and stranded me.

The Dealer told me the "security systems could not be bypassed." I rolled my eyes and had a DEI-555L module in my hands a couple weeks (Passlock II has no replay protection). Never installed it (didn't end up going with remote start, I decided to stop dropping cash into that car.)

I'm not keen on safeties on carry guns. Target guns? All for it.

Yes, I was being satirical. My post was merely a "devils advocate" saying how people want to ban an item that is a hobby for millions of people but its not THEIR hobby, so they don't care. I was simply being facetious about the idea, not advocating that we actually do this.