And if it's legal, you can choose to have an alcoholic beverage while armed. But I still think it's a lousy and irresponsible choice, and nothing I've read in this thread convinces me otherwise.Sam1911 said:
Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.
- Thread starter unloved
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
I'm struck by the apparent intense NEED of some people to drink in public, to the point where it rivals their need to be able to defend themselves.
Pretty much every falling down drunk I've ever seen "knew his limit".
Deanimator
Member
So then are you against drunk driving laws?
If you should be able to carry a firearm regardless of your BAC, why should you be prohibited from driving under the same circumstances?
Given enough alcohol...
JohnBT
Member
But drunk driving laws DO NOT prohibit driving under the influence, do they?
There is an arbitary limit set - .08 most places. That's why I am allowed, at my weight, to drink 4 beers in 2 hours and still be under the legal limit.
So can we have the same limit set for carrying and shooting guns? Hmmm?
What is the fascination with the falling down drunks? Most, the majority of, drinkers aren't falling down drunks. Most people who drink have a glass of wine or two with a meal or a drink or two after work before dinner.
John
There is an arbitary limit set - .08 most places. That's why I am allowed, at my weight, to drink 4 beers in 2 hours and still be under the legal limit.
So can we have the same limit set for carrying and shooting guns? Hmmm?
What is the fascination with the falling down drunks? Most, the majority of, drinkers aren't falling down drunks. Most people who drink have a glass of wine or two with a meal or a drink or two after work before dinner.
John
jimmyraythomason
Member
Just like the WD-40 threads and ethics of hunting over bait threads, rhetoric from both sides, good thoughts from both sides but ,in the end, nobody ever changes sides.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There are 225 posts in this thread (oops 226), a great many of them disagree with your point. If you want your views to be considered seriously you probably should explain them, point-by-point and show at least some response to the valid concerns of the opposing view. I'm not sure what "problem" you think that I have, but you haven't convinced me that you've even read the thread, let alone seriously considered the deep implications of both points of view.
Yes, that's right. Not everyone is mentally healthy and stable. That could make them attack me while I'm enjoying a quiet dinner and a glass of wine or beer. I demand the right to meet their threat as best as I'm able at the moment of attack. I do not accept that a law should strip ME of my right to defend myself while I was going about my life. (Which includes that beer!)
O.K. Let's just say that you are moralizing at me and telling me what I should NOT do, then. Is that "retarded?"
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
LOL!
Well, shucks, in my opinion, your judgement becomes suspect if you admit to liking NASCAR or country music, but I wouldn't want to see a law about it!
Same validity in the concern, I think.
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, that's settled, then! I respect your view, and laud your decision not to do so if that's what helps you to remain in control and stay out of trouble.
Just so we're not passing laws that will brand me a criminal if I don't agree with a teetoatal restriction.
-Sam
Why do you drink? That's the question that needs answering. Taste? There are non alcoholic beverages that taste the same as those with. I maintain that it's for the varying levels of the "buzz". One or two drinks doesn't affect you? I call B.S.
It is a right to own and carry a weapon. No where i have seen is it a right to drink.
It is a right to own and carry a weapon. No where i have seen is it a right to drink.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm struck by the folks who would REQUIRE me to alter my life for no demonstrable social benefit. What about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" What about "my freedoms end at the tip of your nose?" If I'm not swinging for your nose (and with my holstered gun and glass of beer...I'm NOT), what business is it of yours WHAT I'm doing?
And what does that have to do with me? If a "falling down drunk" brandishes or discharges a firearm, he gets the same treatment/sentence that a stone sober person would. If a "falling down drunk" has a holstered weapon that stays in it's place, I couldn't care less.
"Prior restraint," remember?
-Sam
jimmyraythomason
Member
I never said anything about a law banning it although in Alabama your CCL is void if you are drinking or under the influence. I didn't appreciate the cut BTW. Just because I live in the South doesn't make me a Nascar fan (in truth I can't stand it)by default.
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
Deanimator said:
I am. I'm against any of the victimless crime laws. Of course, I also disapprove of drunk drivers who kill people while driving and end up with 30 days in the county jail because it was an "accident". You take another person's life with your stupidity and you should have the book thrown at you. Of course, our current legal system is not set up that way, mens rea and all that. In my mind if you drink and cause another person harm you've made the decision that results in said harm, and should be punished accordingly, because you've certainly committed the actus reus. That's one of the reasons I can't stand the lack of personal accountability that our country keeps sliding towards, especially with regard to gun rights. I have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether anyone approves of anything I do. I have the responsibility to my family, friends, and community to act responsibly. Should I not do so, the responsibility for my actions should fall directly upon my shoulders and not upon alcohol and firearms.
I choose to not drink, ever, due to my convictions. I do not presume to make that choice for others.
jimmyraythomason
Member
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230. A lot on here are trying very hard to justify themselves to people they don't even know. Says a lot.
Yes it is an arbitrary limit. Because at 0.08 people still experience some impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. One's judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired.JohnBT said:
Actually, generally they do. Usually one can still be convicted of DUI if he manifests signs of impairment even if his BAC is below the legal limit.JohnBT said:
Deanimator
Member
Actually [at least in Ohio] they prohibit driving under an OBJECTIVELY QUANTIFIABLE degree of influence, inferred from you BAC.
Is BAC a 100% accurate predictor of impairment? No. Is it the safe way to bet? Yep.
Or we can forbid driving after ANY alcohol consumption.
Because having gone to college and been an Army officer, I've seen more than my share.
EVERY drunk I've met "had it under control" or "knew his limit". And what's the justification here for carrying while drinking? "I know my limit", etc., etc., etc. If you DON'T know your limit, the odds are you don't know (or won't admit) that you don't know your limit.
jcwit
member
But he sure gives the media something to blow clear out of proportion, and makes an excellent name for all the rest of us gun owners. We're having a hard enough time as it is.
Deanimator
Member
Drunk driving is no more "victimless" than my setting up a target in the middle of the sidewalk in front of my home and shooting at it with my Savage 112BVSS without concern for who or what lies beyond it.
In both cases, you are involuntarily imposing avoidable risk on unknown third parties without their consent.
If you get blind drunk in your home with a loaded gun close at hand, or drive drunk in your farm pasture, you are [mostly] endangering yourself.
qajaq59
Member
It's hard enough to defend your actions in a shooting if you are cold sober and respectable as all get out. I'd hate to try it when the leo reports the smell of beer on you, and some hot shot DA looking for a name gets your case. But it's your choice so hopefully that situation will never arise. And remember the criminal case is only half of the problem. The bad guy's family is going to sue you. That's a lot of attorney fees. Me? I'll drink at home and save the expense.
Bad guys don't follow laws. Bad guys will have their guns in bars. Bad guys will kick down your door no matter what your level of intoxication. Will you be prepared? This is the question we all have to answer for ourselves.
Judged by 12 or carried by 6?
Judged by 12 or carried by 6?
Deanimator
Member
And I won't be there when they do.
oneounceload
member
Somewhat correct - it is a right to OWN a weapon, PROVIDED you meet certain criteria
It is a privilege to carry a weapon, providing you meet certain criteria
It is a privilege to drink, provided you meet certain criteria
Whether an individual chooses to imbibe, allowing they meet the criteria, and carry a weapon, providing they meet the criteria is THEIR choice to make. If doing both at the same time results in a situation that would not have ocurred without both, then there should be stiff penalties
Laudable, and I agree. But let's also consider how well, or even if, you can actually shoulder that responsibility.tmpick said:
Let's say you have a mishap with your gun. Can you be responsible for and remedy, or cover, the damage caused? What if your negligently discharged bullet strikes someone paralyzing him? Can you pay his medical and rehabilitation bill? Can you pay for the lifetime care he will need? Can you make up his lifetime loss of income? And aside from the several million dollars in monetary damages, how can you make up the non-monetary losses to him and his family?
The point is that we are limited in our abilities to make up for some types of harm our improvident actions may cause. Even if the harm could be remedied by monetary compensation, the just amount may well be beyond our means.
You'll be better prepared if you hadn't been drinking.youngda9 said:
LiquidTension
Member
When I'm sitting at home with my roommates enjoying some adult beverages, I have no problem if we're all armed. Same goes for trusted friends that may be there. Last time that happened was...Saturday night, as a matter of fact. You know what else happened Saturday night? A home invasion across the street from my house. If they'd chosen one on the left instead of the right, and I'd gotten killed because "oh I'm drinking, I shouldn't be armed" - well, I'd feel right silly explaining that one at the pearly gates. No sense being dead right.
That said, I don't carry when drinking in public. CWP is no good in bars, and LE creds aren't worth the material they're printed on after that first sip goes down. It doesn't really matter how I feel about those laws - unless they're changed that's what I have to abide by.
That said, I don't carry when drinking in public. CWP is no good in bars, and LE creds aren't worth the material they're printed on after that first sip goes down. It doesn't really matter how I feel about those laws - unless they're changed that's what I have to abide by.
Deanimator
Member
A laudable and not common enough attitude in law enforcement.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
