Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.
- Thread starter unloved
- Start date
- Status
There are many examples of accepted peremptory legal actions. Laws prohibiting driving under the influence, for example. And see my post 271. And injunctions are peremptory legal actions. Calling them "unjust" may be your value judgment, but those sorts of peremptory legal actions are firmly rooted in, and accepted by, our legal tradition.Sam1911 said:
rbernie
Contributing Member
Not to quibble, but the examples provided are largely pre-conditions and not prohibitions.
I understand your comments that prior restraint only has legal standing in a narrow definition, because there is a singular case in which it was determined/defined. I get that.
My point is that prior restraint suggests a basic and fundamental MORAL argument (e.g. prohibition of a protected right in advance of a potential infraction is unacceptable) that you are ignoring by retreating to the dogma of the case itself. Moreover, the fact that we can find examples of that doesn't make it any more correct - it simply makes it legal..
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
No kings, no masters. WE ARE our local lawmakers, by proxy.
-Sam
jimmyraythomason
Member
Not upset at all Sam1911. NO ONE goes shooting or hunting with me while drinking(not because they are drinkers) during said shooting or hunting outing. The subject that I am discussing is not the legality of but the wisdom behind carrying while imbibing. Why do you insist on dragging me into the legal discussion? "WE ARE our local lawmakers, by proxy." then you must not be doing your job if there are laws you don't agree with.
Deanimator
Member
I've always been struck by the DEMONSTRATED inability of a LOT of DRINKERS to "differentiate between responsible, social drinking, and alcoholism".
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Sam you have carried this argument well and you have my respect. To those who can't understand our side of the debate I have a few questions.
Do you not support the ability to carry unfettered by decent law abiding citizens of this country without permits and restrictions?
Do you not understand the principle of responsibility for ones actions and that the need to defend oneself doesn't end with the consumtion of alcohol any more than cough and flu medication?
Do you not support the ability to carry unfettered by decent law abiding citizens of this country without permits and restrictions?
Do you not understand the principle of responsibility for ones actions and that the need to defend oneself doesn't end with the consumtion of alcohol any more than cough and flu medication?
Deanimator
Member
+10,000
I find that the best way to avoid trouble is to avoid those who bring it upon themselves and others.
Tacbandit
Member
Quote by Deanimator:
"I've always been struck by the DEMONSTRATED inability of a LOT of DRINKERS to "differentiate between responsible, social drinking, and alcoholism".
__________________
wow...well put...+1 and amen....
"I've always been struck by the DEMONSTRATED inability of a LOT of DRINKERS to "differentiate between responsible, social drinking, and alcoholism".
__________________
wow...well put...+1 and amen....
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We are "supposed" to be situationally aware at all times. I would judge myself to be pretty decently observant when out in public. Personally, I do not drink to excess in public (if ever), and trust my reactions and observations under the conditions that I willingly place myself in.
However, the right to bear arms in defense of one's self is not incumbant on one's skill/ability at either defensive shooting nor mastery of situational awareness. In fact, you don't even have to have HEARD of the concept of "S.A." to maintain the right to be armed, nor (in most states) do you even have to prove that you know which end of a gun makes the noise.
--Sam
jimmyraythomason
Member
X-Rap do you not understand (to use your tactics)that carrying a weapon comes with a great responsibility? The responsiblity to have that weapon under your control at ALL times. To be at your best at all times while armed. Anything that deminishes that ability should be avoided for your sake as well as those around you.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Uhhh....so...what? Maybe not being allowed to pracitce the Shinto religion is not an "unreasonable" restriction to me. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that I would accept the restriction -- even if it does not personally affect me.
-Sam
oneounceload
member
Responsible, social drinkers are some of the worst alcoholic there are - you seem to equate an alcoholic with someone lying face on the bar every night - not the case
And there are MANY folks, who for whatever reason, don't seem to know or have the ability to stop.
oneounceload
member
"An alcoholic is someone you don't like who drinks as much as you do".....Dylan Thomas....
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh! Well, then we'll get along famously. I don't do that, either!
Well, I apologize. We were discussing the laws in certain states, and I guess I got overly focused on the legal issues -- generally because they carry more weight than public opinion.
Ha! That's where you're wrong! My state does not have a BAC limit on carrying, nor any prohibitions on bar/restaurant/alcohol carry -- and hasn't for (at least) 20 years.
That's a piece of why I get so interested in this. So many want to accept or even embrace the conventional wisdom of "guns and booze don't mix" and are even willing to inflict a legal penalty on others who don't agree. Even when we can show conclusively that the issue is a spectre that really has no substance!
-Sam
Deanimator
Member
Maybe... or not.
As I said, every drunk I've known didn't think he or she was a drunk.
I'm not saying you're a drunk... or not a drunk. I don't know you.
All I know is that you want to be able to carry a firearm while drinking. You say that alcohol is not a problem for you. Lots of people say that. For some of them it's true. For some of them it's not. Some of them believe it and it's true. Some of them believe it and it's not true. Some of them don't believe it and it's not true.
If you ARE a drunk carrying a gun, sooner or later, you're going to be trouble, both for yourself and more importantly for others.
The fundamental truth which so many are trying to sidestep is that guns and alcohol are inherently and fundamentally different man made constructs. Carry one gun or carry ten, carrying a firearm is not EVER going to impair your mental functions. Inherent in the nature of alcohol is the capacity to impair mental functions, sometimes unexpectedly.
RevolvingGarbage
Member
Firearms can be dangerous if mishandled. Why anyone in their right mind would want to be handling one with anything less than 100% of their mental faculties is beyond me.
Some people (even some very intelligent and careful people) have made deadly mistakes handling firearms when totally sober. Why do you feel the need to make the risk any higher?
Some people (even some very intelligent and careful people) have made deadly mistakes handling firearms when totally sober. Why do you feel the need to make the risk any higher?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
These discussions of the definition of alcoholism or how many drunks you've known that didn't know they were drunks should be taken to PMs or off forum. They are not pertinent to the discussion and could get it locked.
Thanks.
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Similar to my sentiment that I would not shoot a gun in a public place, whether drunk or sober, unless I HAD to for fear of my very life. Extreme situations often do call for waiving certain social norms.
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Because I'm not at 100% of my faculties at every moment of the day. No one is. But, simply because I'm resting, dozing, having a beer or a glass of wine, spending time on the "throne" or whatever other activity has me operating at something less than PEAK performance is NOT a reason to give up my right to self-defense.
-Sam
Cosmoline
Member
There's a huge difference. In the situation where you're shooting an armed attacker, you are using deadly force on him. You intend to use deadly force. So if you kill him, that's not a problem. It's justified. In the case of the car or the doctor they are not intending to use deadly force and aren't justified in doing so.
Moreover, how is anyone going to know your BAC after a shooting?
Do you disarm yourself at home?
Deanimator
Member
Not being allowed to practice the STATE Shinto religion by flying planes into ships is NOT an "unreasonable" restriction, just as is not being allowed to drink and carry a loaded firearm in public.
Your committing seppuku in your living room doesn't unreasonably expose me to harm.
Your drinking a fifth of gin every night in your living room, with a loaded handgun by your side doesn't unreasonably expose me to harm.
Your flying a plane into a ship that I happen to be on unreasonably exposes me to harm.
Your carrying a loaded firearm in public while intentionally ingesting substances with a documented propensity for impairing mental function unreasonably exposes me to harm.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You are right. There are. I can and do consider them to be generally unjust.
However, there is a special level of "injustice hell" for a law that would preemptively strip me of my right to defend my own life merely because of the risk of what I might do.
-Sam
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
