Okay, it appears that only half the States require ...
What is required by law, and what is required by prudence, differ.
So how is a wedding like a gun club BBQ. I strongly suspect that the budget for a catered wedding is likely to be considerable larger than that for a gun club BBQ. At least it certainly seems like it when I mentally compare the catered weddings I've attended to the gun club BBQs I've been to.
Could be. If the budget doesn't allow alcohol, it doesn't. No skin off my nose. Lack of funds is a real problem that doesn't fuel anti-RKBA arguments.
So on one hand to support the notion that it's not hard to avoid dram shop liability, you look at the businesses in the hospitality business claiming that if it were difficult they wouldn't be able to stay in business.
That's a titch revisionist. The very same post where I introduced the term "dram shop" to this thread, I also introduced host liability. The principle I applied to businesses applies equally to private parties.
There may be some doubt--as evidenced by your continued objections to reason, but there is not a lot of doubt. The vast majority of people are pretty much on board with the idea that mixing potentially dangerous activities with alcohol creates liability. It's really very simple in spite of your creative attempts to obfuscate the situation.
I think you have mistaken my argument with Frank for my point. That is a shame. My point, to repeat myself, is this:
"By arguing that your gun club's members cannot be trusted to act responsibly around guns and alcohol at the same time, you are making the argument that those people (and by extension all people) cannot be trusted to keep firearms at home. Homes generally have alcohol."
In other words, there is a larger issue at hand than the immediate liability of the club. I was specifically addressing the "guns and alcohol can't mix because it isn't safe" (not tort risk, but Hatfield & McCoy risk) posters, when I said, "One of the main pushes in the gun rights movement has been to normalize guns. To foster the perception of handguns as an everyday part of life instead of a rare and threatening enigma. You are directly attacking that by saying that - for you - guns cannot coexist with other normal parts of life. Cars can. There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street. You are saying guns aren't safe in office workplaces because many companies have beer Fridays and the like, allowing coworkers to share a beer or two before ending the work week."
Somewhere after that, Franks bulled in on the attack because he is the anti-mod. You piled on, because....I'm not sure really.
... What you said was that the "...primary cost of implementing a system...is a rubber stamp...". And on top of that was the implication that for the "primary cost" of a "rubber stamp" one could prevent any liability on the part of the club.
It is the primary extra cost. As for me claiming it could prevent any liability, nope, didn't happen.
Maybe that's how it should be--responsible use of alcohol and reasonable oversight prevents liability--but in practice that's not how it is.
Who said otherwise? You are setting up a straw man, and arguing against imagined positions as though they are mine.
I never made any claims about "every type of event that has bartenders", only that there are other reasons for hiring bartenders than the reason you claim is the sole reason.
Fair enough, in a weird sort of way.
I might say " the only reason for getting a licence to operate a motor vehicle is that you intend to drive". You could then point out that there are people who do so because they don't realize that states issue ID cards, or to win bets, or whatever. And yes, there will always be exceptions. If you consider pedantry to be a victory you would at that point likely say you had won a victory against overgeneralization. I won't take that away from you.
I will say that the exceptions aren't meaningful.
If you're admitting that you can't prove your claims with evidence or logic then that explains a lot.
Lol, "admitting"...no loaded words there.
Here's the problem: We aren't making "claims" here. You aren't, and I'm not, Franks isn't. We are expressing opinions. You have your opinion. Frank has his. I have mine.
Do you know what an opinion is? I mean, have you ever looked up the word in a dictionary?
"a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."
--
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
Talk about "proving an opinion" is nonsensical.
It also explains why you keep trying to concentrate on what you claim are Frank's motives instead of just focusing on proving your claims.
I don't think I addressed his motives, did I? Maybe I've forgotten. Anyway, I mostly comment on his methods, because I think they are completely inappropriate to the role of "moderator".
I was actually surprised when Frank didn't acknowledge that his behavior is a deliberate strategy. The, to borrow from Wilde, "A gentleman is never unintentionally rude," thing.
Besides, you're trying to pretend that without a verdict there's no way to understand the basics of the situation or determine a prudent strategy. That's not correct. It's actually not that hard at all--it can be easily worked out without needing to go to court.
Kinda. It can all be worked out, and then a court (or jury) can flip it all on its ear. Working it out in this context just means agreeing to hold the same opinion, but as Frank would be happy to point out if he wasn't on the wrong end of the argument, your opinion doesn't mean anything, only a court's opinion matters.
Anyway, it is all a misdirection. My concern, stated right up front, is for the larger RKBA struggle. It is the question of normalizing guns.
Why?
Look at this thread. A group of people who we presume are all at least nominally pro-RKBA, and a good many people are posting about how scared they would be to attend. They wouldn't show the same fear going to Olive Garden and forcing down a couple glasses of the house jug wine, even though the average Olive Garden in the US has at least one armed patron on any busy night.
I think a lot of you have lost sight of the big picture. Defending the club is great, but unless we can normalize guns in society, we will lose the RKBA fight. Yes, that is an opinion. No, I cannot prove it. But I think normalization is worth more than Aragon's club...which is saying something because as a former Californian I think gun clubs in California are important.
