Guns in Bars, I for one don't like it!

[hammAR]

Since when is drinking a right?

..neither is being a sheep, but I see and hear a lot of baaaaaing. To justify a position by the use statistical research and the scientific method is an easy cop out and most reasonable, thinking persons know that either can be skewed to support any position that one is willing to pay for. Similarly, to use as a basis that someone feels that another is potentially a risk to safety because of an arbitrary level, is again following a false prophet. There is no logical reason that someone should loose their rights and freedoms for having crossed a arbitrary threshold due to an alleged, perceived, or possible behavior, despite the fact that there is not any actual behavior, it is just a feel good position and such individuals should not claim to want to live in in a free society..................

.......statistical research or the scientific method is almost as bad a saying military intelligence.......oxyMORON.......

[infidel]

Holland&Holland wrote: Since when is drinking a right?

I never said drinking was a right. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, and shall not be infringed. A natural right exists to defend yourself, along with the pursuit of happiness. Until I un-holster my weapon for any reason, I should not be judged.

It seems some here would argue that if you are over an arbitrary blood alcohol content, you relinquish your constitutional rights, and the right to self-preservation. That is not what the constitution intended.

[Pat]

You've got a good point. The RKBA is an inalienable right.

But we live in the real world. The Minnesota carry law was written with language that specifically allows us to carry and drink, unlike the laws in many other states, which either prohibit it completely or do not allow guns in establishments serving alcohol. Coming from the beverage alcohol business, I think that this is a good compromise. Entertaining any thought of opening the law up for new debate, based on this issue, would be foolhardy.

[jgalt]

Where is your statistical research and scientific studies which show conclusively that I cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun on my hip while having a beer with friends? Or that I'll jump in a car and hurt someone immediately after having said drink?

This question doesn't apply to the subject at hand. Having a beer, unless a very, very large beer, wouldn't make you legally intoxicated.

The question is precisely on point. Statistical research or scientific studies using data sets of which I am not a part cannot possibly be used to justify the government placing restrictions on me. Well, obviously that can be used that way, just not legitimately so. And besides that, how do I know what my particular bac is after one or two beers or mixed drinks? There are plenty of charts which will give approximations based on various factors, but I haven't the foggiest notion when I will actually hit the arbitrary 0.04 bac level which the mob had declared will make me a criminal and unfit to carry tools to defend myself. You are arguing for a system which will make me a criminal at some point which I cannot determine prior to reaching it, because of an unfounded, unsupportable fear that I will do something bad once that point has been reached. That cannot be tolerated in any society which claims to be based upon individual rights (such as ours).

#2 - Sober people with guns kill. Sober drivers kill. We have plenty of research to put this out of the realm of the hypothetical as well. So? I guess the logical conclusion is that no one who is sober should be allowed to handle a weapon or drive a car, right?

Not a very logical conclusion to me. Sort of like saying "I have to leash my Rottweiler in the park. My goldfish is a pet, do I have to leash it too?"

It is the logical conclusion that you must draw if you are to use the line of reasoning I was responding to... You said:

Drunks with guns kill. Drunks with cars kill.

Well, the same statements are true in regards to sober folks, are they not? This is what makes it a right & proper comparison, while your 'rottweiler vs goldfish' is not. If you can't see the difference then there isn't much I can do to help you on this point via an internet forum...

[jgalt]

You've got a good point. The RKBA is an inalienable right.

But we live in the real world. The Minnesota carry law was written with language that specifically allows us to carry and drink, unlike the laws in many other states, which either prohibit it completely or do not allow guns in establishments serving alcohol. Coming from the beverage alcohol business, I think that this is a good compromise. Entertaining any thought of opening the law up for new debate, based on this issue, would be foolhardy.

Hey, I haven't suggested we open up the law at this point! While I am 110% confident that I am right on principle on this topic, I have no illusions that the idiots who thought they had the power to criminalize an action which does not have a necessary consequence, would be convinced or persuaded by actual logic & reason on this topic. I'm quite content to stick with the law as written until we can vote in people with brains who have the capability & desire to actually use them.

[jaysong]

Since when is drinking a right?

..neither is being a sheep, but I see and hear a lot of baaaaaing. To justify a position by the use statistical research and the scientific method is an easy cop out and most reasonable, thinking persons know that either can be skewed to support any position that one is willing to pay for. Similarly, to use as a basis that someone feels that another is potentially a risk to safety because of an arbitrary level, is again following a false prophet. There is no logical reason that someone should loose their rights and freedoms for having crossed a arbitrary threshold due to an alleged, perceived, or possible behavior, despite the fact that there is not any actual behavior, it is just a feel good position and such individuals should not claim to want to live in in a free society..................

.......statistical research or the scientific method is almost as bad a saying military intelligence.......oxyMORON.......

Here here, I'll drink to that.

[Squib Joe]

It is the logical conclusion that you must draw if you are to use the line of reasoning I was responding to... You said:

Drunks with guns kill. Drunks with cars kill.

Well, the same statements are true in regards to sober folks, are they not? This is what makes it a right & proper comparison, while your 'rottweiler vs goldfish' is not. If you can't see the difference then there isn't much I can do to help you on this point via an internet forum...

You're right in one regard. A sober man can choose to get *******, while a goldfish can't exactly choose to be a Rottweiler.

I stand by my statement. If you're going to deliberately drink, to the point where your mental and physical abilities have been dangerously degraded, you shouldn't be driving, flying jets, performing a spleen transplant, teaching algebra... or frankly doing ANYTHING in public areas with a gun.

I'm not in favor of banning carry in bars, however, because I like to have a beer or two (but not 22!) without leaving my gun in the car.

[jac714]

It seems to me that anyone who considers themself responsible enough to carry a gun should be able to moderate his alcohol input. I see no problem with having a drink or a beer while carrying, getting drunk is out and any level of consumption that would be considered anything but light should also be out.

Interesting discussion but hopefully a moot point, a friend jokes about being the designated carrier when he goes out (he does not drink.)

[Pat]

There are a couple of companies which make a pocket size bac meter. They work pretty well.

[princewally]

There are a couple of companies which make a pocket size bac meter. They work pretty well.

They need to be calibrated too often to be used for long. BAC meters are all touchy machines.

[jgalt]

It is the logical conclusion that you must draw if you are to use the line of reasoning I was responding to... You said:

Drunks with guns kill. Drunks with cars kill.

Well, the same statements are true in regards to sober folks, are they not? This is what makes it a right & proper comparison, while your 'rottweiler vs goldfish' is not. If you can't see the difference then there isn't much I can do to help you on this point via an internet forum...

You're right in one regard. A sober man can choose to get *******, while a goldfish can't exactly choose to be a Rottweiler.

I stand by my statement. If you're going to deliberately drink, to the point where your mental and physical abilities have been dangerously degraded, you shouldn't be driving, flying jets, performing a spleen transplant, teaching algebra... or frankly doing ANYTHING in public areas with a gun.

I'm not in favor of banning carry in bars, however, because I like to have a beer or two (but not 22!) without leaving my gun in the car.

Man, nobody said anything about getting intoxicated beyond the point of losing control, and we can all agree that none of us wants to be around anyone who is, even less so when they are driving or carrying. This has always been about whether or not it is appropriate for the government to arbitrarily limit a private citizen's legal right to carry tools for self defense, prior to that citizen's having done anything wrong. What you and I think or feel about idiot drunks has no bearing on that topic...

[cmj685]

There is another aspect to this discussion from the carry side that I haven't seen addressed in this conversation yet (though I may have missed it), and shouldn't be completely overlooked. I thought maybe the original poster was headed in this direction. It is the absolute disaster to the carry community which will occur when the first idiot with a permit does get drunk in a bar and starts waving his gun around...or (heaven forbid!) shoots someone. Or (even worse) when two permit holders who have been drinking downtown have a shoot-out with one another. We are so worried about MY rights all through this discussion--me, me, me--that we haven't bothered thinking about US and OUR rights together. Because when that happens--when there really is blood in the streets (and it seems inevitable, knowing what we do about human nature, alcohol, and guns...and the idiocy of many people, some of whom are getting permits even as we debate the issue)--then there will be a ferocious public outcry against the carry community from the sheep and a terrible kick-back. And all of us will suffer. Thus one might make the argument that FOR OUR OWN GOOD (the whole carry community) this kind of law may not be a good one and will likely result in damage to our cause, even if it does seem to discriminate against me, me, me and my "right" to drink anywhere I want anytime I want while carrying a loaded gun on my hip at the same time.

[Jeff Bergquist]

When something bad happens, (which is statistically eventually almost inevitable), the proper way to look at it is to compare the statistics for the whole group versus the public at large. My guess is that as a group we'll still be just about the safest demographic out there.

Re preemptively limiting freedoms to attempt to reduce the number of bad outcomes: I'm usually against it as well, but I can sympathize with the motives of those who try. An analogy that seems apt to me is that they view drinking to be like juggling knives. Drinking while lethal force is easily available, i.e. while driving or carrying, is like juggling knives over someone else's head. you may be the best juggler ever, and consider yourself completely safe, but it still might be considered by the vast majority to be a bad idea, and an unnecessary risk to others.

[jgalt]

There is another aspect to this discussion from the carry side that I haven't seen addressed in this conversation yet (though I may have missed it), and shouldn't be completely overlooked. I thought maybe the original poster was headed in this direction. It is the absolute disaster to the carry community which will occur when the first idiot with a permit does get drunk in a bar and starts waving his gun around...or (heaven forbid!) shoots someone. Or (even worse) when two permit holders who have been drinking downtown have a shoot-out with one another. We are so worried about MY rights all through this discussion--me, me, me--that we haven't bothered thinking about US and OUR rights together. Because when that happens--when there really is blood in the streets (and it seems inevitable, knowing what we do about human nature, alcohol, and guns...and the idiocy of many people, some of whom are getting permits even as we debate the issue)--then there will be a ferocious public outcry against the carry community from the sheep and a terrible kick-back. And all of us will suffer. Thus one might make the argument that FOR OUR OWN GOOD (the whole carry community) this kind of law may not be a good one and will likely result in damage to our cause, even if it does seem to discriminate against me, me, me and my "right" to drink anywhere I want anytime I want while carrying a loaded gun on my hip at the same time.

Oh for goodness sake. Individual rights are just that - individual. There is no such thing as a 'group' right, so I don't attempt to defend the 'rights' of any given group. If someone gets drunk and shoot his gun, then that individual is to be held responsible for his actions - not me. I understand that some legislators & the idiots who vote for them do in fact try to use individual actions as a justification to limit the rights & liberties of us all, but they have no moral justification for doing so. Any law passed on this basis goes against the principle of individual rights, and is yet another example of the mob rule I mentioned earlier.

The more people accept the logical, rational line of thinking which I am advocating, and reject the collectivist one you seem to be advocating, the less likely the outcome you fear will be. Stop lumping individuals together into arbitrary groups, and help me persuade those who aren't yet rational thinkers to see the light. The protection of individual rights is the only morally legitimate function of any government. And remember "our rights" is nothing more than an abbreviation or short hand way of saying "our individual rights". Hence the focus on "me, me, me" and "MY rights" as you so disdainfully put it. When I demand recognition of and protection for "MY rights", I am at the same time fighting for the rights of every other individual, i.e. your rights. Are you getting the point I'm making here? It's a serious question - I've met you, you are clearly a nice guy, and I know you are sincere in your concerns. But you seem to have bought into the whole notion of collectivized rights, which is one of the fundamental problems we face in society today. Reject the collectivists, and fight - as an individual, free, rational person - the immorality of collectivism.

[Squib Joe]

Man, nobody said anything about getting intoxicated beyond the point of losing control

Well um.. yes you did.

How about when I am fall-down drunk - have I lost my right to defend myself then? The answer, for any society which claims to believe in individual rights must be NO.