Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.

[rbernie]

This topic comes up every three months or so, and each side NEVER convinces the other. Frankly, I dunno why y'all even bother.

 

[Sam1911]

Hence the reason every other alcohol related thread in the past has been locked. IBTL! folks.

No. A few other recent threads have been locked due to wandering off topic.

Several in my memory have gone on for quite a while, with great result!

As long as this stays on topic and is argued respectfully, there should be no legitimate reason to lock it.

We are honorable, passionate people. We should be allowed to air our differences and debate heartily to reach further understanding, if not consensus.

Do not fear the lock -- or hide behind it!

-Sam

 

[Eric F]

Sam If you had come out with that post first most of the second page would have never been posted. I'm done..............*sigh* I'm going to get a beer at a bar

 

[unloved]

I bet he smokes 2 packs a day and drinks starbucks at least 5 times a day........lol!

Who? Me? 1/2 a pack a day, and I've never bought anything from Starbucks in my life. I like coffee, not a bunch of sugar, cream, and flavorings with a little bit of coffee added.

I'm seeing an awful lot of projection. I go to bars to hang out with people I enjoy talking to, and have a few beers. I enjoy 2-3 beers or glasses of wine with meals.

 

[unloved]

When do your rights to be armed and drink compromise my safety?

Right around the same time that your rights to be armed at all compromise the safety of the antis who wish to strip you of that right.

 

[Eric F]

unloved I was just kidding a little with you. Ok now heading for the beer...........

 

[Sam1911]

Thanks for avoiding the answer to the question sam.

Oh, I may not have gotten around to it yet, but I'm surely not AVOIDING anything. I may, however, have temporarily lost it in the flurry of posts.. which one was it agian?

I guess some folks just dont get it.

Don't get personal! This thing will get locked if we start throwing insults.

ok and so when is your safety compromised because of some one elses drinking? When they get loud? When they lose their balance and bump into you? When they have a diffrence in opinion than you? When?

That's an absurd argument. MY safety is compromised when some bloke waves a broken bottle at me or swings a pool cue at me or tries to bean me with a bar stool. When one carries a gun, one MUST forgive ANY AND ALL minor offenses and insults. A dude could spill a beer on me while peeing on my shoes and calling me names -- but I'm not going to draw a gun on him for it! (I think I'd file a police report...those were nice shoes!)

Bottom line. I agree we all have a right to be armed. I also dont like the fact that some folks are armed sober let alone when they are drunk or getting there. You cant fix stupid! And drinking makes inteligent folks STUPID!

Nope. Drinking makes people with problems LESS likely to hold back. It does NOT make me more likely to harm anyone. It MAY make someone else more likely to harm ME. Thus, I'll keep my sidearm with me, thanks.

-Sam

 

[rbernie]

As long as this stays on topic and is argued respectfully, there should be no legitimate reason to lock it.

Don't get personal! This thing will get locked if we start throwing insults

Absolutely so.

 

[Sam1911]

I've said something like this before, but here's the summation:

As I've pointed out here before, in my state it is perfectly legal for me to enter any bar with a loaded gun on my hip, sit down and drink. It is legal for any of the 650,000+ other PA citizens who hold a License To Carry Firearms to do the same. So, where are the corpses? Where are the hundreds of arrests of "piss drunk" folks who surely must be being incarcerated for violent altercations because they were armed and intoxicated? They just aren't there. They just don't happen.

Or, rather, they happen a lot LESS frequently among the legally armed citizens than they do among the illegally armed (repeat criminals, etc.) and the rest of the "general population."

So, really, what we see is that a LOT of folks go out to enjoy a drink. Some of those folks go armed. A very few of those folks (armed or not, no real way to know) get noticeably intoxicated while out for the evening. A very, VERY few of those folks (almost none of the legally armed ones) act violently. And those that act violently will do so with whatever weapon they have at hand -- and, if they are inclined to carry a gun, will do so whether the law allows it or not. After all, they're already violating FAR more serious mores than that!

Now, from my point of view, I do accept that it is possible that some folks, sometimes, do get incoherently intoxicated, and violent, when out drinking in public. And let's say that I'd make a bad enough choice about the establishment I'm visiting, or just have the dumb luck to stumble into such a situation. The fact that the law could prohibit ME from being armed will be COLD comfort as some drunk tough guy is swinging a broken bottle (or pointing HIS GUN) at me and my family! No matter where I am nor what I've had to drink, the responsibility and the right to effectively defend myself and my loved ones belongs to me alone.


-Sam

 

[Eric F]

nothing personal about it.

 

[Demitrios]

First off SAM1911 my first post on this thread was not specifically directed at you but generally directed at all gun owners.

SAM1911 writes: If you drink to excess and assault or kill someone else, you are responsible for your actions. If you shot them to death, you are responsible for that act.

Now that is a very true and proper statement. It's also not realistic. I seem to remember John Hinkley Jr. shooting our 40th president because Jodie Foster wanted him to, or so he believed. Now who's fault was that? Jodie Foster's? Nahhh, although she was good in Silence of the Lambs. Robert Di Nero's? Come on, he was a bad man in Taxi Driver but not that bad. Reagan's for not ducking? He was an old man, not really all that nimble. Ahhhh, that's right, it was the gun's fault. It wasn't the gun's fault, it was Hinkley's fault, but the guy was a nut job who really didn't know any better and now we have another nut job on our hands by the name of James Brady as a result.

The moral here is that right or wrong you need to be aware of what can and will happen. I can walk around VA with my pistol exposed, even though it's legal, I run the risk of getting fined for disturbing the peace. Just like you carrying in a bar, with all the best intentions of exercising your rights, run the risk of something bad happening by putting yourself in an environment with booze. And if you're that comfortable that nothing is going to happen in a bar involving your pistol then leave your sidearm at home.

 

[rbernie]

Telling me that I'm likely to be a danger because I have a drink is like telling me that I'm likely to shoot up a kindergarten because I have a gun. We, of all folk, should be above that sort of logical fallacy.

Punishing me, via restriction on my activities, for something that I MIGHT do but have not yet done is an example of prior restraint. You've adjudicated me to be guilty - impaired - before the act itself, and have consequently restricted my actions.

I cannot think of a concept that flies more in the face of the US Constitution and the values of the USA than that one.

 

[Demitrios]

And rbernie, for the record, we bother to discuss this every few months because we feel the need to jawbone relentlessly online rather than putting our time on this forum to use and contacting our state officials. Why? Because we're. . . . overzealous. You know. . . that actually brings up a good point. I think we should start a thread that allows us to learn all 50 states firearm laws, all categorized state to state, while at the same time helping us contact our state officials. If anyone wants to help me do this E-mail me. We can post something in a PDF regarding long guns, pistols, transporting, ammunition, sales/purchases, etc. Instead of arguing on here incessantly let's put these fingers of ours to some good use.

 

[unloved]

unloved I was just kidding a little with you.

Same here man. Forgot to add a smiley.

 

[unloved]

You may think you're a reasonable drinker, and that may be true, but frankly I'll never trust you nor anyone else to drink and carry at the same time.

You do realize Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy feel exactly that way about all of us 'gun nuts' right? Are their feelings a valid argument for stripping us of our RKBA?

 

[RS14]

Punishing me, via restriction on my activities, for something that I MIGHT do but have not yet done is an example of prior restraint. You've adjudicated me to be guilty - impaired - before the act itself, and have consequently restricted my actions.

I cannot think of a concept that flies more in the face of the US Constitution and the values of the USA than that one.

I'll actually agree with you on this. But recognize just because something should be legal, doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

 

[Sam1911]

Dimitrios, I can't really answer your point about Hinkley because I think you're being facetious and we're in agreement that the GUN was not at all to blame for his actions. So are you saying that we shouldn't carry in a bar because of larger public perception issues surrounding bad things that might happen, whether justified or not?

Personally, I may be very disappointed that a justified self-defense shooting might be lumped into "bar/gun violence" statistics in the media or in society's view, but I'm not willing to "take one for the team" just to make sure that doesn't happen. Me getting killed won't help our cause.

Unfortunately, I'm not really sure if I'm even close to answering what you were intending to say.

The moral here is that right or wrong you need to be aware of what can and will happen. I can walk around VA with my pistol exposed, even though it's legal, I run the risk of getting fined for disturbing the peace. Just like you carrying in a bar, with all the best intentions of exercising your rights, run the risk of something bad happening by putting yourself in an environment with booze.

But, to steal some of ArmedBear's sentiment, an "environment with booze" doesn't necessarily connote unreasonable danger. Any more than does an "environment with cars" or an "environment with other human beings." ANY place that attracts violence should be avoided as a matter of course. But that doesn't mean we have to avoid all aspects of a good life and hide in our homes, and it doesn't in any way mean that we should agree to be unable to defend ourselves -- ESPECIALLY in such "environments!"

And if you're that comfortable that nothing is going to happen in a bar involving your pistol then leave your sidearm at home.

I'm NEVER "comfortable that nothing's going to happen." If I thought something bad was going to happen, I'd stay the heck HOME. I carry a gun because of what COULD happen when I DON'T expect it.

Some of those things I DON'T expect to happen could happen while I'm enjoying a beer, in a restaurant or bar.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

I can walk around VA with my pistol exposed, even though it's legal, I run the risk of getting fined for disturbing the peace.

Be aware that the VCDL stands ready to assist you if such an injustice happens! Don't EVER take that lying down. Comply with any legal request and then sue their pants off! The law is the law. Don't accept unjust censure from some authority figure's over-ambitious power trip.

-Sam

 

[RS14]

You do realize Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy feel exactly that way about all of us 'gun nuts' right? Are their feelings a valid argument for stripping us of our RKBA?

That is a very good point.

It is also a point that we often contest by arguing both that we have a natural right to defend ourselves, and that the lawful possession of firearms has the effect of reducing violent crime.

Do you care to defend drinking in such a manner? Do you have a natural right to consume alcohol? Does consuming alcohol reduce violent crime?

Edit: Personally I'm inclined to agree with the former justification of alcohol, for essentially the same "Prior Restraint" argument as was put forth by rbernie. But that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.

 

[Eric F]

Why can't I just walk away from this thread?

Punishing me, via restriction on my activities, for something that I MIGHT do but have not yet done is an example of prior restraint. You've adjudicated me to be guilty - impaired - before the act itself, and have consequently restricted my actions.

Perhaps I'm wrong but under this thinking I supose you think speed limits are a bad idea too?

Known facts the more you drink the more your decision making becomes impaired.
I agree for almost all folks one drink wont hurt. The problem is when one turns into 10-15-20 or more. Drunk driving laws came about because it was a good idea how can we sit here and say my ability to be armed and be responsible is good when one can barely call a cab? After all if I am drunk I can still drive and I might make it home but please dont restrict my ability because I am drunk and I havnt hit anything yet...........I just do not understand.

Its some how ok to say if you want to drive dont drink but its not ok to say if you want to cary dont drink.

Please some one that is pro drinking and carrying explain to me why it is a good thing and why it is ok.

And yes I understand the nomenclature here gets confused. Drinking for some is s**t faced and drinking for others means sipping on 1 beer.

Again 1 drink is ok to me. But the more you drink the mor problems you invite.

 

[Sam1911]

And rbernie, for the record, we bother to discuss this every few months because we feel the need to jawbone relentlessly online rather than putting our time on this forum to use and contacting our state officials.

Actually, some of us feel a nagging suspicion that there are serious gaps in our consensus on some topics. This is a great example. This should be a clear case for Constitutional rights (and the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" as some famous dude or another once said...) but few, even HERE, are willing to step beyond that comfortable place where they decided "guns and booze don't mix" and take the issue to it's logical conclusion.

And, until such issues are thoroughly hashed out and some consensus is established, I'm not sure what message those elected officials will hear!

"No carry in bars!" "Semi-autos are ok, but no 'assault rifles!'" "Carry should be ok in bars, but not while drinking!" "Concealed carry is ok, but not in schools, churches, banks, bars, public assemblies, etc." "No one needs a SILENCER!" "I've no need for .50 BMG rifles -- they're too dangerous!"

I think we should start a thread that allows us to learn all 50 states firearm laws, all categorized state to state, while at the same time helping us contact our state officials.

If you want to do this, great. But you should look into www.nra-ila.org, www.handgunlaw.us, and www.opencarry.org. Those sites are what most of us use to get that kind of info.

-Sam

 

[unloved]

Do you care to defend drinking in such a manner? Do you have a natural right to consume alcohol?

I have a natural right to do anything I darn well please, so long as I don't infringe upon the natural rights of others. I have a natural right to be free of restrictions on my rights based on what others might do.

 

[RS14]

I have a natural right to do anything I darn well please, so long as I don't infringe upon the natural rights of others. I have a natural right to be free of restrictions on my rights based on what others might do.

Yes, you do. But if you're only justification for this right is because "I darn well please," I'm not inclined to respect the exercise of that right quite as much as the more reasonable exercise of the right to bear arms.

 

[unloved]

But if you're only justification for this right is because "I darn well please," I'm not inclined to respect the exercise of that right quite as much as the more reasonable exercise of the right to bear arms.

I'm not required to have justification for my natural rights. The idea that I am, is kinda in direct contravention to the whole concept of natural rights.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps I'm wrong but under this thinking I supose you think speed limits are a bad idea too?

Speed limits do not infringe on an enumerated right, nor do they imperil your ability to defend your own life. In moments where they might (e.g.: you need to use excessive speed) they can be broken with justification. You could say that, if you had to shoot to defend your life, the law against carrying in a bar would be waived (and there are jurisdictions where carry is illegal -- UNLESS you DO have to shoot to defend your life!) but it's a tough sell if the law made you leave your gun outside. Hard to respond in the moment of need in that case.

Its some how ok to say if you want to drive dont drink but its not ok to say if you want to cary dont drink.

Again, an enumerated right and a protection of a "natural" right to self defense. It would be pretty hard to come up with a reason you HAD to drive drunk to save your life. But if you did, you could.

Please some one that is pro drinking and carrying explain to me why it is a good thing and why it is ok.

I won't argue that it is a GOOD idea for someone to drink and carry. I'm not ADVOCATING that action. The way I do it, it works for me, but I wouldn't tell another they SHOULD. Having a beer happens to be a normal, if somewhat rarefied, part of my life. Like enjoying a movie or anything else. I don't disarm for any of it (where legal).

Again 1 drink is ok to me. But the more you drink the more problems you invite.

Hey, no argument there, if it leads to excess. But legislating that becomes impossible without treating everyone like a "lowest common denominator" which is irrational.

-Sam