Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

Rebuttals:"it does take a long time to steal a car."-This is a baseless claim. Have you ever stolen a car? If not, then you don't know whether it takes a long time to steal a car or not. As a matter of fact, stealing a car can be very fast. I can say this with more credibility than you because I myself have stolen a car. Once, my buddy and I noticed an unlocked car with the key still inside. I stole it and drove it around the block before returning it back. This all took 5 minutes."I haven't received very many arguments from the con side. The only clear argument I saw about why we shouldn't ban cars from drunk drivers for 1 year is that not all drunk drivers have killed people."-First of all, as the instigator, the burden of proof is on you. I am not obligated to provide any arguments as long as I negate your resolution.-Furthermore, I have provided 4 points, and even listed them in my previous argument. If that is the only "clear" argument you saw, then "clearly" you don't have good sight, as I pointed them out in bold and listed them from 1 - 4. I will list them again:1. They own the cars. They bought it with their own money that they worked hard for. 2. It is a basic human right to own possession. This is related to the first reason.3. What if they didn't kill anyone? What if they didn't even crash the cars in which they have driven drunk?4. It is legal in some nations to drink and drive. Therefore, they've done nothing legally wrong and their government cannot legally take their cars away.-You have not addressed these points. "Of course I know that, but eventually they might and suspending their cars will lower the chances because it takes a long time to steal a car so the police will have more time to get to this person and arrest them. They will then be in bigger trouble, and they probably will have not had enough time to access the interior of the car and drive away, making it safer because it isn't possible for them to kill someone while driving if they don't have a car to use."-Pro is basing his sole argument off of assumptions and predictions of the future. He is saying people should be punished for something they didn't do yet, even if it is uncertain whether or not they will do it. -Pro is claiming that because there is a chance someone who has driven drunk one night can kill someone another night, their cars should be taken away. Well then by that logic, everyone should have their cars taken away because regardless of whether or not you have driven drunk, there is always a chance you will kill someone while driving. By that logic, Pro is implying that we should have our kitchen stoves taken away so that we can't cook because there's a chance we'll get burned and we should have knives banned because there's a chance we'll cut someone. -Again, let me remind Pro that the government does not have the right to punish anyone for something they didn't do, even if they suspect they will do it. "This website for the organization MADD shows that it is possible in some places for a person to have killed someone and to still be allowed to stay at home with their car. They may have their license suspended, but not their car, making it still possible to kill someone, or even if they just went out drunk driving and didn't kill someone, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to get drunk and drive again but to kill someone this time."-I fail to see how that website supports your argument. The website shows that people can keep their cars if they killed someone, but their license is taken away. -This supports my 2nd point. If someone was driving and killed someone, he can have his right to drive taken away (license), but he cannot be derived of his basic human right to own possessions. -In a public library, you are derived of your right to speak freely as to not disturb anyone, but no one has the right to cut out your tongue so that you can't speak at all. *You have not met your burden of proof.