Alcohol and concealed carry - Page 5
Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 226

Thread: Alcohol and concealed carry

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    As somebody said before: "That's why I always ask to see their balance sheet when I walk in the door!". That law is well meant but in actuality not very practical.
    But who is to say that they are not cooking the books, no pun intended?

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    And how is the average person supposed to be able to determine that?
    Ask the manager. It's the responsibility of the CCer to know. Most are pretty obvious. A bar that serves food and has a separate dining room (fairly common because of the smoking laws in Fla) is OK for CCing as long as you stay in that area.

    My boss(es) owns a number of places, all of which serve both food and alcohol. Only one of his places is considered a restaurant. The others are considered bars. The only time it's ever come up is occasionally when somebody shows a CC permit as proof of age (and presumably as a non-verbal way of asking if it's OK to carry). At that point we'll go ahead and inform them one way or the other. We don't stop people from carrying in the place that's legal to do so.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    Wow! The self-appointed Supreme Overlord of the 2nd Amendment is swinging his sceptre with gusto!
    My apologies Your Highness! I didn't realize the Supreme Emperor of the Forums was in the house! A thousand pardons, majesty...please don't hit me as you swing your ****.

    This thread is about a restriction to the 2nd amendment. My examples of restrictions to other parts of the constitution (and to the 2A) are entirely valid in this thread.
    There exists no restrictions to the Second Amendment. It looks as though you missed the gist of the entire thread - alcohol and guns. Your dubious statements prompted several of us to (rightfully) question the validity of your claims.

    Yes, people legally own machine guns but they need permits to do so. You would have no such restrictions.
    And those 'restrictions' are illegal. BTW, they need to pay the $200 Federal Excise Tax fee - NO PERMIT. Yes, I'd like, as the Second Amendment suggests, free Americans to posses machine guns without governments 'approval.'

    Artillery? Outside of an antique please tell me what private citizen residing in the US has a functioning, weaponized peice artillery that they can use to fire explosive rounds. Jet fighters? Not with guns on them. Ditto for tanks.
    Americans own working tanks that fire live ammo. And how long does it take to install weapons to jets? You're an brainless idiot (since the moderators seem not to care).

    I see you dodged the primary point of my post - that you believe anybody should be able to carry (or drive, or fly, etc.) any weapon any time.
    I've subscribe to that notion, yes: everybody should be allowed to posses a firearm, excluding kids and violent criminals, even if drunk. What is your point? (Ask an idiot a question is asinine itself.)

    Do you teach that in your self-defense class - dodging valid points folowed by a tactical change of subject?? LMAO!
    You don't know anything about me, except the information I've chosen to divulge. You are so desperate that you need to even attack then fact that I teach the gun - have been for over 30 years in the military and as a civilian.

    It must really get you PO'd knowing that millions and millions of people in this country (private property owners) can, under certain circumstances, completely deny you your 2A rights. I love it!
    I'm not surprised at all that you represent one of the nuts in the Brady Bunch - totally an anti-liberty extremist. Only an idiot would miss the fact that the original intent of the 2nd was to keep the .gov in check. When the time comes, it's piss-pants like you who'll run.

    I'd say you're hilarious if your POV wasn't so reckless and alarming.
    As I mentioned in my prior post, it's people like you who have ruined this great nation - freaking traitor.

    LOL! There are a handful of people on these boards who rely on nitpicking, hair-splitting, and petty semantics in an effort to make a point.

    Now, take a spelling class or something.

    ======= ===========

    To the USACarry, how did you let this forum to degenerate to this point. This 2smallhead, for example, has been spewing his idiotic rants for a year and you have done nothing.

    I'm sorry, but this forum is not worth an intelligent dialogue.

    Flipping a finger like a viking.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Trolljegeren View Post
    My apologies Your Highness! I didn't realize the Supreme Emperor of the Forums was in the house! A thousand pardons, majesty...please don't hit me as you swing your ****.



    There exists no restrictions to the Second Amendment. It looks as though you missed the gist of the entire thread - alcohol and guns. Your dubious statements prompted several of us to (rightfully) question the validity of your claims.



    And those 'restrictions' are illegal. BTW, they need to pay the $200 Federal Excise Tax fee - NO PERMIT. Yes, I'd like, as the Second Amendment suggests, free Americans to posses machine guns without governments 'approval.'



    Americans own working tanks that fire live ammo. And how long does it take to install weapons to jets? You're an brainless idiot (since the moderators seem not to care).



    I've subscribe to that notion, yes: everybody should be allowed to posses a firearm, excluding kids and violent criminals, even if drunk. What is your point? (Ask an idiot a question is asinine itself.)



    You don't know anything about me, except the information I've chosen to divulge. You are so desperate that you need to even attack then fact that I teach the gun - have been for over 30 years in the military and as a civilian.



    I'm not surprised at all that you represent one of the nuts in the Brady Bunch - totally an anti-liberty extremist. Only an idiot would miss the fact that the original intent of the 2nd was to keep the .gov in check. When the time comes, it's piss-pants like you who'll run.



    As I mentioned in my prior post, it's people like you who have ruined this great nation - freaking traitor.

    LOL! There are a handful of people on these boards who rely on nitpicking, hair-splitting, and petty semantics in an effort to make a point.

    Now, take a spelling class or something.

    ======= ===========

    To the USACarry, how did you let this forum to degenerate to this point. This 2smallhead, for example, has been spewing his idiotic rants for a year and you have done nothing.

    I'm sorry, but this forum is not worth an intelligent dialogue.

    Flipping a finger like a viking.
    I see your inception date on this board is from this month however I get the feeling I've dealt with you before. Is that you, Ed?? I think it is. Still angry that I caught you in those lies and exposed you for the fraud you are?? Apparently.

    Your short-sightedness has left you completely out of touch with reality. If you really are a "troll hunter" then you would have whacked yourself a long time ago.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  6. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Well I hope you turn in all the police you have in your town cause last I checked they are allowed to carry in bars and drink alcohol whiled armed.

    Now what makes you feel safer with them doing that then your fellow citizens I don't know. But it goes to show that you do not comprehend what the second amendment says.

    For if you make rules for people to follow you yourself should follow the same rules you will be enforcing.
    How about not twisting what I actually SAID, poster?

    Being in the same room as beer DOESNT make one drunk.
    DRINKING makes one drunk.

    Easy enough distinction ?

    And I know EXACTLY what the 2nd says.
    What it DOESNT say is that drunks shouldnt be regulated while in public.
    Can we assume YOU like to drink a few while packing a gun ?

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Trolljegeren View Post
    Those who oppose beer and guns ought to think what the Second Amendment means.
    No, those who dont oppose drunks with guns need to get a psych evaluation.
    They are just one more reason why RATIONAL non gun owners want guns banned.
    They are part of the problem because they CAUSE unnecessary fear rather than being RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

  8. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    Those who support an alcohol/guns mix ought to take the blinders off and think about what the constitution means as a whole.

    A "No Drinking While Carrying" law does not hinder somebody's 2A right in the least. Not even the tiniest bit. It give somebody a choice. You can have one or the other, just not both at the same time. Such laws simply mean that if you choose to drink alcohol you are temporarily surrendering your right to carry. "Choose" being the key word there - it's up to you as an individual. You don't have to if you don't want to. It's no different than if you choose to walk out of the house today w/o a gun. Drinking alcohol is not a right, it's a highly regulated priviledge that has strings attached to it. This is one of those strings.

    It's no different from a law that forbids convicted felons from carrying. It's no different from a law that forbids a person from carrying on a plane or on private property when the owner says "no". Don't like being in those situations?? Then choose not to put yourself in one.
    Exactly.

    A gun owner cant blame anyone else for his CHOICE to be a drunk.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhairwitha357 View Post
    I do beleive we have debated this before. To me it's the same as "gun free zones". The law says we can't carry but doesn't make sence. The law abiding citizen is once again is unable to protect themselves. I said it before a threat is a threat it doesn't matter if I've had a few drinks or not. If I'm at home and had a couple and someone comes in and threatens me or my family am I not able to use my gun to defend us. I'm sure more quoestions will be asked and more problems will arise but my family will be safe. You could always do what I was told about my drivers license, get your pic taken with a hangover, that way if you get pulled over drunk or hungover you look the same as your pic.
    At HOME, friend, you arent a danger to someone else who might be out having a good time.
    I dont want your drunk ass getting into a fight and me, my wife or grandsons being shot because YOU cant aim your gun because of those supposed 'few' drinks youve have.

    Personally I think anyone caught drinking while armed should have their CCW license revoked for a year minimum...and in states where they permits arent required the person should be lawfully restricted from carrying for the same duration.

    The second offense would be permanent removal of CCW rights/privelidges.

    Frankly I dont give a rats rear who disagrees...and I certainly DONT care if some here dont think I understand the Second Amendment or not.

    The Second Amendment simply acknowledges the right to bear arms.
    It does NOT recognize YOUR 'right' to put ME needlessly into danger because you cant keep from drinking when your packing a deadly weapon.

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Hey guys: You are given a drivers license to move something around that can easily cause fatalities and does so at alarming regularity. You are given a CCWP to carry a firearm that can easily cause fatalities but, to my knowledge, at infinitesimal regularity, even if above the established 08 rule. Personally, I see no difference--if anything, based on statistics, I would have greater penalties and stricter enforcement for the drivers than the CC person. At the very least, strict penalties and strict enforcement for both permitees should be consistent. The idea that a CC someone. after belting down a few, is going to go on a rampage, while his counterpart is not going to kill someone in his car does not make sense. Bottom line: same criteria for both, but I would up the ante on penalty--severely. No car, no gun, for some length of time and expensive fine for first time; jail for the second time, really bad jail time for anytime after.
    Its not just about going on some rampage...altho if you dont think alcohol makes one more aggressive in many cases, I say you havent been to very many bars in your lifetime....clearly.

    The more immediate problem is not that the driver is going to mow people down intentionally but may ACCIDENTALLY hurt someone because he is impaired.
    The SAME applies to the CCW.
    He may not be INTENDING to do harm but being IMPAIRED absolutely makes ACCIDENTS more of a possibility.

    Anyone who denies that is deceiving themselves.

  11. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Trolljegeren View Post
    Ah, a personal attack. MODERATORS !!!
    Somehow I think the word 'troll' in your username is fitting...

Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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