Alcohol and concealed carry
- Thread starter Ryker
- Start date
Edsworld
New member
You mean like this guy?
:biggrin: Typing to fast. :biggrin:
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Here we ago again.......
Since the Constitution makes no mention of age limits then you obviously have no problem with 1st-graders carrying loaded weapons to school, right?
Since the Constitution makes no mention of mental competency, you obviously have no problem with insane people walking around with loaded guns, right?
Since the Constitution makes no mention of violent criminals, you have no problem with people carrying who use their firearms to commit crimes, right?
Since the Constitution makes no mention of alcohol consumption, you'd have no problem if the drunk accross the bar from you decides to practice his quick-draw technique, right??
Since 2A uses the word "arms" (and not "guns" as you did), you have no problem with your next door neighbor having a stockpile of poison gas, high explosives, or maybe a nuke??
Geez Ed.....do you really need a piece of paper to tell you what's right and wrong?? Is common sense innate or do you have to be told what to think....what's right and what's wrong?? Was slavery OK until the the 13A in 1865?? Did we really need the Constitution to tell us that??
Your reckless and irresponsible (spiteful??) views on weapons possession are just as ludicrous as Diane Feinstein's or Howard Metzenbaum's.
Midnight
New member
That's some Brady campaign verbiage you're using there.
The Constitution addresses the rights of citizens. Minors are not citizens; they are wards of their parents until they reach the age of majority. And convicted criminals are not citizens. They are wards of the state. I would have no problem with my neighbor stockpiling weapons, since he's just another ordinary guy.
And nuclear weapons aren't "arms." Those are weapons of mass destruction and have no purpose than to commit horrible acts of genocide. "Arms" fall into just about any other category of weapon.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
F our lawmakers they are no better than the criminals they support and protect.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Minors are citizens.
Convicted criminals are still citizens.
Insane people are citizens.
Habitual drunks and drug abusers are citizens.
A nuke is as much an "arm" as a rock or knife or pistol or RPG.
I see you're practicing the time-honored tradition of just making stuff up as you go along when your feeble argument gets trashed. Just saying something our of desperation doesn't make it true. You're doing nothing but grasping at straws. You should just go back to SHOUTING in all-caps. At least then you were somewhat amusing.
Beau
I was never here.
Minors: Yes they are citizens. But they are under the control of their parents. It should be the parent who decides when their child is ready for firearms.
Criminals: Yes criminals, violent or not, should have their rights restored after probation. They've served their time. If they can't be trusted in society, with all their rights then they shouldn't be in society. Repeat violent or sexual offenders should get the chair.
Insane People: See Criminals.
Habitual Drunks and Drug Users: This kind of falls under criminals. The difference being I don't think drugs should be illegal. Being a habitual drunk or drug user is no reason to deny firearm ownership. I've know a couple full time drunks and they have never committed a crime with a firearm. Yes they owned guns.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
1. So if a parent thinks it's OK for their 1st-grader to take a loaded gun to school, you're OK with that??
2. After probation?? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. So you're saying that a convicted criminal that's out on the street (but on probation) shouldn't have the right to carry a gun?? Sounds like a gun restriction to me! Welcome to the club!
3. Sounds like another restriction!
4. And you don't think cocaine, herion, meth, etc should be illegal?? That tells me all I need to know about you.
Beau
I was never here.
...
Edit to add: By stip people of their money I mean the tax payer that funds this war and lines the pockets of the well conected.
doublebarr
New member
Here is the bottom line:
You CAN NOT legislate good behavior folks. It isn't going to happen. Think gun bans: then only criminals will have guns right? Exactly.
You can punish bad behavior, but you can not make anyone behave because of a law. That comes from inside, and too many folks have nothing inside that sets those moral boundaries. No matter how "well written" a law is, it is not the law that makes a difference. It is only enforcement that handles the "after the fact" issues. Not control all the people BEFORE the fact. So, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gun, etc... you name it laws, do not legislate good behavior. Fact.
You CAN NOT legislate good behavior folks. It isn't going to happen. Think gun bans: then only criminals will have guns right? Exactly.
You can punish bad behavior, but you can not make anyone behave because of a law. That comes from inside, and too many folks have nothing inside that sets those moral boundaries. No matter how "well written" a law is, it is not the law that makes a difference. It is only enforcement that handles the "after the fact" issues. Not control all the people BEFORE the fact. So, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gun, etc... you name it laws, do not legislate good behavior. Fact.
Second amendment also doesn't have the words "everybody can own a firearm." You may wish that is what "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" meant, but the Court has held otherwise.
The second amendment, like all other provisions of the constitution, has no inherent meaning. It has to be given meaning by interpretation.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" has no universal meaning, no indisputable concept. You may want it to mean a particular thing, but you are not the ultimate authority.
In our societal agreement, the Supreme Court, not you, makes that interpretation.
The Supreme Court has interpreted that phrase twice in the last 3 years, and both times it made it clear that the phrase does not include firearm possession by certain people, or in certain places, or of certain firearms.
When a felon is prohibited from owning a firearm, his or her "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" has not been infringed because his or her possession of a firearm isn't included in the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Yes, I know you don't like that. But that doesn't change the existing status of the matter.
doublebarr
New member
My FIL carried a gun to school as he walked there and back every day beginning the day he started school. He was in charge of brining home rabbit, squirrel or any other furry critter that was fit for eating for a meal as he wandered his way to school or home. What made him "more able" to handle a gun at that age then kids today? How did he manage not to shoot someone at that tender age with a LOADED WEAPON CARRIED TO SCHOOL!!!!?
I was shooting from the point I could hold a gun and comprehend the safety rules and NOT forget to implement them, about the age of 4 on up. I was closely supervised, but I was the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger.
Honestly, I would LOVE for my kids to be able to carry to school once again. I like fresh squirrel or rabbit. And the quail have come back big time here. Wouldn't mind them being able to flush a covey on the way home and have the shotgun handy. Not to mention that schools are often the place where when there is gun violence, the numbers of those taken from us are too large. I am raising my kids the same way I was raised, to know and understand and be able to USE a gun properly. I have 4 and my oldest is 21 and the youngest is now 10. No gunshot wounds or deaths by gun here.
I think too many folks don't have the real understanding of proper handling and TRAINING of the use of firearms. If you did, then they wouldn't be NEARLY as scary as everyone prattles on.
And by the way, my kids are not unusual, rather they are the norm amongst their peers. But that may be because we support and encourage Shooting sports from NRA and 4-H and bring all the families we can "to the dark side", LOL.
Edsworld
New member
People is the key word.
Just because the court says so does not make it right. 200 yrs ago the Kings court Banned weapons here, look what happened. They keep messing with our rights and people are going to quit backing down. It has already started, Alaska, Arizona etc..
Nothing wrong with the citizens of a state making those decisions through their political processes.
States can grant more rights than those embodied in the bill of rights. it is up to the citizens of each state to make that decision.
Edsworld
New member
Sorry, had a few drinks before I wrote this. :biggrin:
Am I missing something? I reviewed recent replies and find myself in the middle of 2A, not an alcohol binge. Hey Ed: You mention something about drinking in your last reply. I surely hope your drinking did not coincide with driving or CC. IMO, anyone over 08 and either drinking or CC should be willing to face the consequences---a considerable fine the first time and jailtime the second time; a third time and I hope I never see them again. If something should happen while they are over 08 and it causes a death, either by car or firearm--goodbye, good luck, have a nice time in jail--hope the manslaugher/2nd degree murder charges bode well on them. Just sayin.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Unfortunately, when the "Any Weapon, Any Time, Anywhere" crew can no longer defend their POV they resort to the time-honored copout of screaming that those of us with a bit of common sense are violating 2A.
"THERE'S NOTHING IN 2A ABOUT ______________ !!" [fill in the blank] has become their rallying cry. I see it as a white flag.
Edsworld
New member
I believe this where the 2nd Amendment was brought into the discussion.
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Why? Nothing wrong with westerns and not drinking.
