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

[Stradawhovious]

So what some of you are defending here is the notion that one loses the right to self defense when they are intoxicated? So if... er, I mean, when I get drunk, I can no longer defend my life, regardless of the circumstances?

Now I agree that if I start waving my gun around in a drunken haze, and end up shooting someone for no reason as a result, I should be arrested, tried, and get the chair. No question there. But if I'm walking home from the bar (after having enough drinks to make me "legally intoxicated" .04BAC which = 2 in an hour based on my height and staggering weight), and some guy sticks a gun in my face and threatens to shoot me, I deserve to die without defense simply because I had a few drinks?

I don't buy it.

[Holland&Holland]

So which right are we talking about? Is there a law that takes away your right to carry? Not the way I see it. There is a law that says if you are a person who does carry you no longer have the right to drink more than a BAC of .04. You can still go in a bar, you can still drink in moderation, you can still defend yourself and 'nother thing if you really wanted to be prepared to defend yourself should you not be in a state where you are aware of your surroundings? If you are impared and I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that alcohol does impare ones senses, then you are not at the top of your game. So we really are talking about the right to drink then...

[Stradawhovious]

Not at all. :sigh: The "right to drink" isn't in question here. The "right to drink" also isn't guaranteed as "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution. I am simply stating that we all, as individuals have the right to self defense regardless of the circumstances. We also have a constitutional right to bear arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. We need to be judged based on our actions as individuals, not preemptively treated like criminals. Let's look at it from your perspective. Let's say that you are right (which you aren't) and this is about the "right to drink" (which it isn't). I see a car as being a far more convenient and effective weapon than a handgun any day of the week. Why is it that people that carry handguns are limited to .04BAC and people who drive are able to get to .08? Either way, this you can't do this if you have been doing the other rationale rides on a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. People need to accept responsibility for their own actions, not be forced to accept responsibility for things they haven't done.

[jgalt]

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.

Oops - you're right. But I was clearly not advocating that anyone do so, and my point remains valid...

[Holland&Holland]

We need to be judged based on our actions as individuals, not preemptively treated like criminals.

I see a car as being a far more convenient and effective weapon than a handgun any day of the week. Why is it that people that carry handguns are limited to .04BAC and people who drive are able to get to .08? Either way, this you can't do this if you have been doing the other rationale rides on a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. People need to accept responsibility for their own actions, not be forced to accept responsibility for things they haven't done.

These I can agree with, I just do not have a probelm for myself being held to .04 if I am carring, in fact unless I am in my own home or have someone designated to make sure I get home ok, I am probably never even over .02. Just not my thing I guess, call me a light weight. So to make it fair I say we change the drunk driving law to .04 as well.

[Stradawhovious]

So to make it fair I say we change the drunk driving law to .04 as well.

Cool! I'm all for it! and while we're at it, let's pass a law that says we can't drive over 4 miles an hour. At 4 miles an hour people just kind of bounce off the car, and no damage can be done.... but then we have to make it illegal for people to walk within a 100 yard radius of any car.... that way it's fair..... Then we can pass a law that people can no longer wear shorts and tshirts outdoors, as some people die from cancer every year. Then we can pass a law that says women have to wear baggy clothes that covers their face. Many women get raped every year, and if they don't entice the men, it will never happen right? Oh, oh!!!! I know, then we can pass a law that says that anyone thinking of commiting a crime can be sentenced to death. Yeah! and then we can outlaw sex outside of a legally sanctioned couple, and then........ then we can limit the number of children every family has to 1 per family...... that will reduce our carbon footprint as a society.... Woo Hoo! we're on a roll! No more fishing boating or swimming, that will stop people from drowning, no more garage door openers, kids will be safe from them. we can outlaw toasters and haridryers, Lord knows how many people use those improperly resulting in injury or death each year! Read the tags! it could happen! Yep...... It should be illegal to drink McDonalds coffee.... that stull if hot!Yeah!! This will be great!!!!!

:sigh:


I've got a better Idea. Let's just outlaw alcohol all together! That will work swimmingly!

[Holland&Holland]

So to make it fair I say we change the drunk driving law to .04 as well.

Cool! I'm all for it! and while we're at it, let's pass a law that says we can't drive over 4 miles an hour. At 4 miles an hour people just kind of bounce off the car, and no damage can be done.... but then we have to make it illegal for people to walk within a 100 yard radius of any car.... that way it's fair..... Then we can pass a law that people can no longer wear shorts and tshirts outdoors, as some people die from cancer every year. Then we can pass a law that says women have to wear baggy clothes that covers their face. Many women get raped every year, and if they don't entice the men, it will never happen right? Oh, oh!!!! I know, then we can pass a law that says that anyone thinking of commiting a crime can be sentenced to death. Yeah! and then we can outlaw sex outside of a legally sanctioned couple, and then........ then we can limit the number of children every family has to 1 per family...... that will reduce our carbon footprint as a society.... Woo Hoo! we're on a roll! No more fishing boating or swimming, that will stop people from drowning, no more garage door openers, kids will be safe from them. we can outlaw toasters and haridryers, Lord knows how many people use those improperly resulting in injury or death each year! Read the tags! it could happen! Yep...... It should be illegal to drink McDonalds coffee.... that stull if hot!Yeah!! This will be great!!!!!

:sigh:


I've got a better Idea. Let's just outlaw alcohol all together! That will work swimmingly!

Fine no BAC limit on driving then. While we are at it no laws at all. Two can play this game.

[Paul]

Fine no BAC limit on driving then. While we are at it no laws at all. Two can play this game.

[plblark]

you know, in all this hullabaloo, I think we're missing something ...
We KNOW how permit holders behave because the BCA has a report. For example, permit holders are

[...]31 times less likely to get a DWI, 20 times less likely to commit assault, and 22 times less likely to commit drug crimes then the average citizen.
(Statistics based on the 2006 Uniform Crime Report, and the 2006 Permit to Carry Report, both prepared by the Minnesota BCA.)

Source: Minnesota Permit to Carry a Firearm Fundamentals

That's right, Permit holders are WAY more responsible and INCREDIBLY less likely to commit crimes than the average person. Also note the comparative figures don't indicate if the permit holder was carrying at the time.

[nyffman]

For me it's .04 all the time.

How's that? The only law I'm aware of is for commercial drivers driving commercially.

Or for someone carrying all the time.

This is getting to sound like a Mars vs Venus debate. On one side, we have those who want to feel safe and will allow various limits on their human rights in order to have the feeling of safety. That seems to be where most of society sits. On the other side we have those who think a right is a right and that it also includes a responsibility. Jgalt is 100% right though. He's not advocating any change in laws. He's only suggesting that you consider the definition of a "right". Children do not have all the rights of adults. Once adutlhood is reached, it is the responsibility of the individual to exercise those rights without infringing on any rights of others. Could it be that consequences for breaking this trust are too mild? Maybe that's why we have an increasing number of additional laws attempting to limit behavior by infringing on rights?

[Stradawhovious]

Two can play this game.

You said it.

You're right. Every time someone does something stupid, we, as a nation, or a state, or a municipality, should impose a law restricting or eliminating that activity. That way people no longer need to be accountable for their actions they simply won't be allowed to do anything. I would rather be judged base on my actions, rather than damned for partaking in an activity that led someone else to do something stupid.

And the whole .04 driving thing? Are you serious? Because you feel that you personally are not comfortable, or capable of operating a vehicle at a .05 BAC, you believe that everyone else whould be held to that standard?

Wow. Just Wow.

[Holland&Holland]

Two can play this game.

You said it.

You're right. Every time someone does something stupid, we, as a nation, or a state, or a municipality, should impose a law restricting or eliminating that activity. That way people no longer need to be accountable for their actions they simply won't be allowed to do anything. I would rather be judged base on my actions, rather than damned for partaking in an activity that led someone else to do something stupid.

And the whole .04 driving thing? Are you serious? Because you feel that you personally are not comfortable, or capable of operating a vehicle at a .05 BAC, you believe that everyone else whould be held to that standard?

Wow. Just Wow.

No, I am not saying that. What I am asking is what are you impying? That there should not be any laws in regards to BAC level for drivers? If that is the case I am saying I am not for that. I am also saying I do not have a problem, personally with the law as it pertains to carry and .04. That is my point. If you disagree fine, however it is the law and I am not supportive of changing it. I think it is a fine law. I have no issues with it personaly and I think we do need some laws otherwise what do we have?

[justaguy]

I have no issues with it personaly and I think we do need some laws otherwise what do we have?

Freedom.

[1911fan]

I have no issues with it personaly and I think we do need some laws otherwise what do we have?

Freedom.

Ding. We have a winner. The blind monkey finally typed shakespear.

[Holland&Holland]

I have no issues with it personaly and I think we do need some laws otherwise what do we have?

Freedom.

So you are advocating for no laws, no legal system, no rules?