Alcohol and concealed carry - Page 19
Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 226

Thread: Alcohol and concealed carry

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Possession of a weapon in a public place is not presently protected by the second amendment. It is a privilege if allowed by the state in which in live. Just like driving a car.
    I will have to disagree on that. The second specifically refers to a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, not a privilege. And it even goes so far as to deliberately mention that this RIGHT shall not be INFRINGED on. As in not outright denied but otherwise curtailed. Frankly I am surprised that any gun regulations could ever be passed with an amendment like that.

    And I am not trying to start a food fight, I don't believe in drinking and packing, but I also think that we are all capable enough to make that call ourselves and don't really need another law telling us what we can or can't do.

  2.   
  3. #182
    The SCOTUS decides what is meant by "keep and near arms."

    It does not mean "any weapon, in any place, by any person."

    Presently, the SCOTUS has said it means the right to own a firearm of common usage for purposes of self defense in the home. Nothing more.

    a state that prohibits carry in a bar isn't infringing on the right to own a firearm of common usage for purposes of self defense in the home.

  4. #183
    It's sad SCOTUS even had to look at that in the first place, the second is not that complicated IMHO. I actually agree with you, right now owning a gun or carrying is definetly handled as if it WAS a privilege. Despite the fact that the second specifies it explicitly as a RIGHT. Which, ironically isn't right again IMHO.

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Hey NavyLT: Check me if I am wrong but you are for an after-the-fact crackdown and arrest on 2A or CC or OC, meaning that after you have either shot someone or are walking down the street waving your firearm, totally wasted or seemingly above 08, someone or society should do something about it---I guess we should also close the barn door after all the cows are gone---it makes no sense. You do not believe that anyone should limit your 2A, CC or OC because you are a responsible person and can be trusted to take care of yourself. I understand where you are going in a perfect world but when you witness or have been intimately involved in a car accident(this could be a firearm) with deaths because someone believes that they can be trusted to take care of themselves and not be intoxicated when they drive (or carry), it tends to change their minds about your argument. If you can really tell me what in the world is so darn difficult to understand or agree to about having society impose a limit on alcohol or any drug ingestion as it relates to dangerous activities that can injure, maim, or even kill someone, I would like to know what it is. If your answer is about personal responsibility and 2A et al, I would suggest that you may understand your responsibilities but, just based on statistics alone, there are many out there who do not. Yes, this is mostly about driving but it easily follows that it is about firearms. I absolutely agree with your premise but this is not a perfect world and, in this instance, asking you to basically not drink if you drive or CC is not asking a whole lot. It sure as heck is a lot less than Brady etal are asking about, which is a red herring, IMO, in this whole argument.
    First off, I have lost my parents, a wife and a child.

    We need to stop passing laws and legislation the prevents people from dieing. Over population is the biggest threat to this world and we keep trying to protect everyone from harm. " My poor son died because of this, we need to make a law against this." NOT! I understand grieving but it happens. People are suppose to die. I don't care how many laws you pass you are not going to stop people from dieing. All that is happening is we are living our lives more restricted. Before long we wont be able to do anything because it might kill someone. Now we have no freedom.

    These are laws that say, if you do this this MIGHT happen, so we shouldn't let them do it. NOT!

    Yes, there should be penalties( Very Stiff Penalties) for hurting someone or killing them if your drunk and at fault, but not a law against being drunk and carrying or driving or anything else you do drunk.

    They just tried to pass a law against junk food. Now they are trying to ban toys in "Happy Meals".

    Your freedoms are dwindling, so keep putting out more laws and restriction to prevent what "Might happen" to someone.

    We are free to do what ever we want as long as someone says we can.
    Ed
    "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

  6. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsworld View Post
    Yes, there should be penalties( Very Stiff Penalties) for hurting someone or killing them if your drunk and at fault, but not a law against being drunk and carrying or driving or anything else you do drunk.
    You don't think there should be DWI laws?

  7. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    You don't think there should be DWI laws?
    No. It is a law against what MIGHT HAPPEN. Just because you drink and drive does not mean you are going to wreck or kill someone. The ratio of how many drink and drive and how many drink and drive and wreck is 10,00 to 1.

    California for example has a population of 36 mil. people and there were only 1509 deaths related to drunk driving in 2006. Out of 36 mil. people how many do you think drove while drunk? I don't think their were only 1509.

    In 1982 2799 fatal accidents related to alcohol in California. I put this in so you can't say the low number is because of the laws.

    It never was a high number.

    "That's 1509 people that should have lived." NOT! People have to die. We have no natural predators except our selves. If nobody ever died what would this world be like?

    All laws like this do is restrict our feedom.
    Ed
    "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

  8. #187
    I don't think there has ever been a commercial passenger airline crash attributable to a drunk pilot - Do you think laws prohibiting pilots from flying drunk is a limitation on their freedom?

  9. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I don't think there has ever been a commercial passenger airline crash attributable to a drunk pilot - Do you think laws prohibiting pilots from flying drunk is a limitation on their freedom?
    That should fall under company policy. Not law. If it is your own plane you should be able to drink and fly.
    Ed
    "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

  10. #189
    How many people have been shot by a drunk(Accidental or not) compared to a non-drunk(accidental)?

    You should look that up.
    Ed
    "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

  11. #190
    That's as inane as a Brady buncher saying "how many people have been shot without a gun? Answer: none of them."

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast