Deanimator
Member
Via court order, if the authorities believe that you are intoxicated and that that was a factor in the shooting.Moreover, how is anyone going to know your BAC after a shooting?
Via court order, if the authorities believe that you are intoxicated and that that was a factor in the shooting.Moreover, how is anyone going to know your BAC after a shooting?
Your carrying a loaded firearm in public while intentionally ingesting substances with a documented propensity for impairing mental function unreasonably exposes me to harm.
Via court order, if the authorities believe that you are intoxicated and that that was a factor in the shooting.
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
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.
Going back to the original post reveals that the topic is/was "is it irresponsible to drink while armed?"
unloved said:Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night, so my heart just isn't in this today. I'm looking forward to continuing later.
Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night
So then someone who is sick and certainly not at 100% say under cancer treatment or treatment for cronic pain should be restricted from carry? Maybe they have a physical impairment like loss of vision or injured hands.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.
Well, they're prohibitions unless the pre-conditions are met. And they exist because of a perceived risk of harm, and require certain forbearance even though no harm as occurred.rbernie said:Not to quibble, but the examples provided are largely pre-conditions and not prohibitions. ...
You're mixing apples and oranges here. On one hand, you refer to morality, but "protected right" and "infraction" are legal concepts. In any case, I see no reason to conclude that prohibition in advance of actual harm ("infraction" is the wrong term here -- since it's prohibited doing the thing is the infraction) is necessarily and universally immoral; and it's certainly can be legal.rbernie said:...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)...
see no reason to conclude that prohibition in advance of actual harm ... is necessarily and universally immoral
Simply awful -- my condolences.unloved said:...Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night,...
Perhaps, but certainly the responsible thing would be for that person to not carry, especially if he has had a significant vision loss or can't safely manipulate a gun because of a hand injury.X-Rap said:So then someone who is sick and certainly not at 100% say under cancer treatment or treatment for cronic pain should be restricted from carry? Maybe they have a physical impairment like loss of vision or injured hands.
fiddletown said: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.
None at all, I am only pointing out that in real life positions change. I may not shoot with people drinking but in reality if the SHTF drunk or not I want the ability to defend myself much less if I am out for the evening and only have a few.Any speculation as to how many times these events happened as a result of getting into a car driven by a drunk? How about the driver wasn't drunk when you got into the car but was before you could get out?
__________________
Just choose not to drink.Sam1911 said:As I said, 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...
Then at least you agree that it should be a personal decision? And if that person decides otherwise then I believe they should be responsible for their actions against another, not simply their exercising of a right.Perhaps, but certainly the responsible thing would be for that person to not carry, especially if he has had a significant vision loss or can't safely manipulate a gun because of a hand injury.
And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.tmpick said:Sounds an awful lot like old age, too.
It really sounds as though you are a promoter of the nanny state and would wish to delve into peoples day to day lives and decide what is best for them and society.And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.
But will they have the financial capacity to be responsible for their actions (see post 248). It's fine to say that one would be responsible for his actions, but if the potential harm he could cause exceeds his capacity to offer compensation, isn't the only thing left to do everything possible to avoid a situation in which he could cause that harm?X-Rap said:...if that person decides otherwise then I believe they should be responsible for their actions against another,...
Just choose not to drink.
We're not talking about stripping you of the right to defend yourself. We're talking about you having to make the choice between going about in public armed and having an alcoholic beverage when out and about. Forgo the sauce and nothing prevents you from having your gun.
Hey people, you can pick on the drinking, but leave the old folks alone. Congress is already sticking it to us real good without any help needed in here!!!!And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.