Online MSNBC Poll on Restaurant Carry

[AZSATT]

You're right. I don't drink nor go into bars. But I respect the armed citizen's right to defend themself wherever they go.

You seem to be a bit on the confrontational side for a relative newb. Why is that? I don't think usacarry served you with a draft notice. What gives? Are you really an upset Hillary supporter looking to vent or just ornery in general?

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

Just ornery in general. Look, as surfcc so succincly stated, guns and booze don't mix. Any fool knows that. Not to minimize surfcc's contribution or suggest he's a fool, on the contrary. So it follows quite simply and logically, that a law intended to prevent people having guns in bars cannot be all bad. Smart people carrying concealed don't go into bars, maybe don't even drink at all (like yourself), and certainly don't carry into bars and proceed to drink. I hope these are self asserting facts. But never forget the one simple fact that PEOPLE ARE STUPID, generally speaking. Not all, probably not even a majority, but enough to cause problems.

So what do you do about that? You tell me.

 

[JJFlash]

Ummm...whack 'em? Nah...can't do that. Sterilize 'em? Probably won't fly. Ship 'em off to...nope, won't work either. I know...let's decrease my rights and freedom because of the stupid people! Yeah, that's it!

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

No JJ. What's needed is the right balance. Don't ask me what it is, I don't know. One thing is for sure. Certain specific circumstances or situations dictate more clearly. I am not challenging your right to carry, strictly speaking. But in this particular situation, it is my opinion (being a gun totin' troglodyte myself, as I like to opine) that it is clear to me that your individual right to carry a firearm into a drinking establishment, regardless of whether or not you drink, is less important than the general public's right not to have to worry about strays and ricochets at the gas station across the street late Saturday night. The specific factors of alcohol, guns and stupid people all potentially being together in the same place makes this clear to me.

 

[JJFlash]

But the problem is that this argument can be applied to any circumstance. E.G., Why should stupid people be allowed to drive cars? The best we can do is stay focused on freedom as the underlying principle, and then prosecute the stupid when it's proven they can't handle it.

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

...Why should stupid people be allowed to drive cars?

But they are not. Enough speeding tickets and they lose their license or can't get insurance. Do people have to die to prove allowing guns in bars is a bad idea?

And if you add the alcohol factor once again, I believe a DUI will pretty much stop your driving experience at least temporarily, and it turns into vehicular manslaughter at some point so, JJ, you were saying? Stupid people ARE NOT allowed to drive, ESPECIALLY after they kill someone.

Using the driving analogy doesn't work here - false analogy. People have got to drive. Almost everyone. It's a basic requirement to get along in this society of ours. Concealed carry in bars? No so much.

 

[JJFlash]

But there ya go...you prosecuted that stupid (perhaps drunk) driver and now he can't drive. Hopefully, he hadn't already killed someone. Same argument for carry - you abuse it, you lose it.

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

The majority of comments there concern me greatly. Why do people feel its OK to interprut the constitution in ways that benefit them? It is illegal to consume alcohol and possess a firearm (in my state anyway). If my friends go to a bar and I tag along even though I don't drink I lose my RKBA because other people around me are drinking? Other people around me drinking sounds like a very good reason TO be armed.

"I stongly agree with the 2nd amendment BUT not in a place that serves alcohol"....seriously??

 

[Glockster20]

You're right. I don't drink nor go into bars. But I respect the armed citizen's right to defend themself wherever they go.

You seem to be a bit on the confrontational side for a relative newb. Why is that? I don't think usacarry served you with a draft notice. What gives? Are you really an upset Hillary supporter looking to vent or just ornery in general?

I believe the word you are looking for is "contentious":biggrin: He is a very contentious person. The type that likes to stir things up. This is usually due to boredom. I know his type... though they are not very common here in the south.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

I do have a question for you 'Cocked & Locked'. I am being respectful, but would like your insight.

The argument of the public right of "not have to worry about" strays and ricochets is more important than the 2nd amendment.

What about my right "not to worry about" some drunk attacking me with a tire iron in the parking lot, or someone inside the bar attacking me with a knife because I "looked at his woman"? The right "not to worry" is not a protected right but rather civil matters should this ever occur NOT criminal matters.

Alcohol, and stupid people=? VICTIMS.
Alcohol, Stupid People, CCW=SURVIVORS

Again, not trying to "flame" you. I'm just curious what path of reasoning lead you to your argument.

 

[JJFlash]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Same argument, C&L, can be applied to driving. If I can show you're stupid, then you can't drive because an "ounce of prevention...".

Here's the thing: we can never get risk to equal zero. If occasionally someone gets the shit end of the stick because of someone else's stupidity, that's the price of freedom. I know, I know, if it happens to me and mine, it's gonna be tough. And I'll get my pound of flesh, one way or another (legally or otherwise, because the price has gotta be paid). But, that's all we can do, in my opinion; we can't prevent everything and we can't be totally safe.

Listen, man, gotta go and am gone for the next couple days. Great to debate with you. Have a great weekend.

 

[KimberPB]

But they are not. Enough speeding tickets and they lose their license or can't get insurance. Do people have to die to prove allowing guns in bars is a bad idea?

And if you add the alcohol factor once again, I believe a DUI will pretty much stop your driving experience at least temporarily, and it turns into vehicular manslaughter at some point so, JJ, you were saying? Stupid people ARE NOT allowed to drive, ESPECIALLY after they kill someone.

Using the driving analogy doesn't work here - false analogy. People have got to drive. Almost everyone. It's a basic requirement to get along in this society of ours. Concealed carry in bars? No so much.

Just to chime in here. You are basically saying that driving is almost a most have. That people need their transportation to get to work, school, ect. That even though you have more of a chance to be killed by a drunk driver then you do a licensed concealed permit holder that everyone should be able to drive that legally gets a license. These same people should be able to remain on the road until they either: kill someone, get hooked for DUI, or get so many traffic offenses their license get suspended.

How is this different then a license concealed weapon holder? Should they get punished for what they may do? Or do we honor there God given rights until they prove they are not responsible enough to control themselves?

Last show me anywhere anyone has a God given right to drive? Now can someone show me anywhere we have the God given right to keep and bare arms?

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

Why do people feel its OK to interprut the constitution in ways that benefit them?

Right on point to several discussions I've been involved with here recently.

I believe it is mostly due to a smallish world view. Maybe a "selfish" world view. What's good for me is good, anything else must be bad? I could keep guessing for quite awhile here...

​

I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it. - George H.W. Bush

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

How is this different then a license concealed weapon holder?

It's a cost vs. benefit thing. The cost of strict driving controls or draconian enforcement far outweighs the benefits when it directly affects literally everyone in the country to some extent.

The cost of limiting the right of a very tiny fraction of the population to bring a firearm into a bar is insignificant to the benfit of saving even one life.

 

[KimberPB]

The majority of comments there concern me greatly. Why do people feel its OK to interprut the constitution in ways that benefit them? It is illegal to consume alcohol and possess a firearm (in my state anyway). If my friends go to a bar and I tag along even though I don't drink I lose my RKBA because other people around me are drinking? Other people around me drinking sounds like a very good reason TO be armed.

"I stongly agree with the 2nd amendment BUT not in a place that serves alcohol"....seriously??

I agree that you should not break any laws. In the state of Florida I can not carry into a bar, not that I go to any, but if I did I would have to leave my gun in the car. I think the agreement that is being made here is rights shouldn't be restricted because of what might happen.

Look at it this way. We say you can not carry in a bar because you MIGHT have too much to drink and MIGHT do something stupid and shoot someone. So we are just going to say you can not exercise your right in that location. Now, what if they said we'll drinking and driving over the legal limit is against the law and since you MIGHT get drunk, MIGHT drink drive, and MIGHT kill someone in the process. From now on no one is allowed bring any form of transportation to a bar. Everyone has to take a bus, cab, subway, ect to and from every bar.

What type of reaction do you think that would get?

I’m not trying to twist the constitution, any state, or federal laws. I’m just saying the argument is flawed.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

I agree that you should not break any laws.

I’m not trying to twist the constitution or any start or federal laws. I’m just saying the argument is flawed.

Very good points. My soon to be wife works for an ignition interlock company (they install breathalyzers in drunk drivers vehicles). And even they (the drunk driver) complain about them! I think that the only people that shouldn't carry are those who have gone through the due process of law. I think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry everywhere- including school, church, work, bars, eateries, and in the airport/airplanes.

 

[KimberPB]

It's a cost vs. benefit thing. The cost of strict driving controls or draconian enforcement far outweighs the benefits when it directly affects literally everyone in the country to some extent.

The cost of limiting the right of a very tiny fraction of the population to bring a firearm into a bar is insignificant to the benfit of saving even one life.

Do you have statistics on this to back it up? In the start of Florida less then 1% of permit holders have done something "stupid" enough to get there permits yanked. I bet the percentage of licensed drivers in the state of Florida that have had there licensed taken is much higher.

Like I said I'm not justifying carrying in a bar. I just think we need to be careful about allowing our rights to be restricted just because of what MIGHT happen.

Like was said before. People predicted blood running the streets, people getting shot over parking spaces, the return of the wild west when Florida and Ohio started issuing concealed permits. Has that happened no but what if they had decided "We'll you know it might so let's just not allow concealed carry"

 

[KimberPB]

It's a cost vs. benefit thing. The cost of strict driving controls or draconian enforcement far outweighs the benefits when it directly affects literally everyone in the country to some extent.

The cost of limiting the right of a very tiny fraction of the population to bring a firearm into a bar is insignificant to the benfit of saving even one life.

Also like was said before. Were in the constitution does it give you the right to own and drive a car? It doesn't. But it does give use the right to keep and bear arms.

So you are basically saying that its ok to allow rights to be taken because only a smaller portion of society is affected.

It should not matter if it's 1 million people or just 1 person. It's a God given right and should not be removed, stretched, distorted, bent, twisted, restricted, ect.

 

[KimberPB]

Very good points. My soon to be wife works for an ignition interlock company (they install breathalyzers in drunk drivers vehicles). And even they (the drunk driver) complain about them! I think that the only people that shouldn't carry are those who have gone through the due process of law. I think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry everywhere- including school, church, work, bars, eateries, and in the airport/airplanes.

Oh and welcome to the site ClearSightTactical!