Va. General Assembly approves bill allowing handguns in bars

[underpants]

Source: Washington Post

Gun-rights supporters had reason to cheer Tuesday after the Virginia General Assembly gave final approval to a bill allowing concealed weapons permit holders to enter restaurants that serve alcohol. Two other bills friendly to gun owners also won final approval.

On a day when the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing perhaps the most widely followed Second Amendment case in years, Virginia's House of Delegates gave final passage to a Senate bill that opens bars to people licensed to carry handguns. (*ON EDIT- but they can't drink)

The measure would not prevent restaurateurs or bar owners from forbidding guns on their premises, its backers said.


Holders of concealed weapons permits could renew their licenses by mail under a bill sponsored by Sen. Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke). Smith's bill, SB3, passed the House on Tuesday by 81 to 18. It passed the Senate on Feb. 16 by a vote of 29 to 11.

The other bill, SB408, approved Tuesday, would allow any person who is qualified to possess a handgun to store the weapon, loaded or not, in a locked container or compartment in a boat or motor vehicle

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/va_general_assembly_approves_b.html

---

NOTE- in Va. there are no "bars" every establishment with an ABC license must serve a proportional amount of food

[michreject]

1. Great news

I hated having to take my coat off and carry open. Although my 1911 in a Milt Spark's with Esmeralda grips got to show off their beauty.

[northzax]

2. What a useless law

Virginia already has open carry, what's the point of allowing concealed carry into bars? You shouldn't see a concealed weapon anyway, right? So the only way this would make a difference is if ABC or the local Police showed up?

And does this apply to staff, as well? Could your friendly neighborhood bouncer be packing? Hmm...

[AlinPA]

7. I keep asking: Why not carry guns out in the open? Why the hell are people afraid

to show the goddam gun if they are allowed to carry it open? Why hide the goddam thing?

[Pavulon]

12. Saves the stupid question from mouth breathing troglodytes.

why draw attention from people? And a concealed pistol provides the owner the choice of wether or not to be involved in an event. Why do you care?

[alarimer]

14. Well I for one want to know what fucking morons are carrying a gun.

So I can avoid them like the plague.

[Pavulon]

17. Maybe I can wear a little patch. Like a star of david or pink triangle

we can get one for people who are part african american so everyone can tell who is "black". Rolling stones have a great song, cant always get what you want.

[onehandle]

30. Gun Control = The Holocaust.

You are so right.

[Pavulon]

39. Arbitrary sure, that why the sun is setting on it. Done

time to find a new cause. Gun control has done nothing but piss off people who vote. You dont want to be around guns, hey go hang out with the guy who does not want to be around blacks, jews, or people they consider to be lesser for whatever reason.

Day is done on this cause. It actually died in 1994, this is just the burial of the stinking corpse.

[pocoloco]

47. It get repugs elected!!

By the way, how many people were killed in Iraq?

I imagine they thought they were going through a Holocaust.

[proteus_lives]

76. So you avoid 80-90 million people?

I CCW sometimes. How would you know I'm carrying?

[AlinPA]

41. The law says we can carry guns. Again, why hide it? I was out west (WY?) and a guy

in the checkout line was wearing a pistol on his hip and it looked perfectly normal to me. He was not afraid to let people know that he was armed, he didn't hide his gun and I had respect for that. I don't have small guns, but I still get irked about people arguing whether we can carry guns.

[Pavulon]

44. CCW allows the carrier the choice to become involved

rather than a target. Fear is not a factor. Common sense is. Take a few minutes to actually think about it rather than just react.

[AlinPA]

50. I've been thinking about it for along time, I still think if we have the right to have a gun, we

should not be afraid to wear it out in the open in a holster. I see we won't agree on this, and that's OK. (My wife is more adamant on this than I am!)

[Pavulon]

51. You should have the right to choose.

if you want to OC that is fine. If you want to conceal fine too. That is my position.

[AlinPA]

53. Except when you're playing cards with strangers ! Peace.

[Pavulon]

55. later, no limit hold em great way to loose your dignity and money..(nt)

[teknomanzer]

100. Common sense...

Damn, you know I am constantly thinking about all those problems I could have solved if only I was carrying a firearm. It is mankind's ultimate tool for interpersonal relations. Lord knows how quickly you can de-escalate a situation by flourishing a weapon. Nothing deters violence like an instrument of violence. :sarcasm:

Now before you fourth admendment types start baring your fangs let me just say this. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you always should. I have the right to walk down the street and call people idiots all day long, but I don't because it is a) not necessary b) unproductive c) just plain impolite. I think the same applies to those who feel they need to carry a weapon with them at all times. There is a time a place for all things.

I haven't fired a weapon since I left the army 16 years ago and in that time I have not once needed a firearm. I have been in some pretty hairy situations and lived in some scary neighborhoods and I survived without a weapon of any kind. A pistol is no sustitute for using ones wits, but far too many people think it is.

If you carry a weapon you are sending a clear and very visible message - "I am anticipating violence." Why the else would you carry a weapon? If you were not anticipating violence there would be no need for a weapon. You say fear is not a factor (in different context of course) but fear IS a factor with those who feel the need to be armed at all times.

Now I'm not advocating a bunch of draconian gun control laws, but I DO NOT see the need to bring a Desert Eagle into your local Shoney's. The country is not so torn with crime and violence that you may have to blow someone half to hell before you finish your chicken fried steak.

[Pavulon]

130. Need is a canard

I am talking about a concealed weapon. That sends no signals to anyone. Un concealing it in some event is going to either be a crime or save your ass. If it is a crime, the person should be convicted. Your needs are yours alone. I would consider eating at shoneys a far shittier and riskier experience than carrying a sidearm.

[teknomanzer]

144. Whatever makes you feel safe...

You can choose to see the world the way you want to. I do not see anything misleading in what I said. You obviously live in world where you think such things are required out in public, I don't. I've seen hair-trigger situations that the presence of a weapon would have made worse.

[Pavulon]

145. I also drive safe cars and had two ssbi checks done

one in the military, one later in life. so hotheaded is not really my temperament. You can drive a smart car or a little sub compact and may skate along. But if you are in an accident with a 5 series or an E class you are truly fucked. Similar choice, I make a choice to carry. Has no impact on anyone around me. I live in an upscale community around carrboro nc and my wife is an e med doctor in the triangle. So I pretty much know what happens around my community. I choose to see the world where I have a choice on how I end up in an emergency room or in the fridge downstairs. Justifying my actions to an ip address is not really productive.

The only time a weapon would be present is if someone was about to die. In that situation I prefer to have a say in the matter.

This is not psychotherapy and we arent swapping feelings.

[teknomanzer]

156. Your gun is just a dangerous rabbit's foot...

I never made the claim that you are a hothead - I don't know you well enough (or at all for that matter) to make that call. But everyone is hardwired with the fight or flight response. That biological function is extremely difficult to override. Having a weapon handy during such situations increases the likelyhood of its use.

You want to talk about canards? Since when is choosing a safe vehicle comparable to choosing to carry arms, concealed or not. Choosing a safe vehicle is reasonable considering that if you operate a motor vehicle on a regular basis a vehicular accident is very likely to occur at some point. In fact the possibility of a traffic accident is much more likely than the threat of physical violence. In 2003 there were more than six million reported car accidents, in the same year there were about a little over one million violent crimes reported. That means you are SIX TIMES more likely to be involved in a car accident (where no malice was intended) than to be a victim of a violent crime. There is no comparison here. The choices are NOT similar when you look at the facts.

Maybe carrying a concealed weapon doesn't affect others around you as they are unaware of the weapons presence, but there is no denying that the weapon is present, and will have an impact on the choices YOU make.

"The only time a weapon would be present is if someone was about to die." I am sure that this is NOT what you wanted to say since a concealed weapon is STILL present, just hidden. If it IS what you meant to say than you are an extremely dangerous person. I am certain you meant to say the only time anyone sees the weapon is when someone is about to die. So what you are essentially saying is that someone HAS to die, that is to say that lethal force must be used, in order to defend yourself. Sounds like paranoia to me.

You mentioned that your spouse is an emergency medical doctor and I imagine that you must be some sort of professional yourself. You also mention that you live in a nice neighborhood and you are fairly certain you know what goes on in your community. If that is so then you must be fairly certain that your community is safe, and yet you still feel the need (or "make the choice" if you prefer, since you feel that "NEED" is a canard) to carry a firearm. Whereas I lived in a community where I was openly offered drugs just outside of my apartment (this apartment building was also twice raided by the police while I lived there) and I still did not carry a weapon of ANY sort. I am almost tempted to look into a possible class issue in this matter. Maybe you feel like you have more to lose, more to protect and therefore more anxiety about it. I can only theorize at this point.

No, this is not a psychotherapy session. I am not a psychotherapist. There is however a very definite psychology behind the choice to arm oneself. Unless you can present evidence that carrying a weapon is reasonable (if you lived in an unstable part of the world for example rather than your upscale neighborhood) then your choice to carry must be base purely on feeling, that is emotion, and not reason. I would submit that your choice to carry a firearm is based on fear alone.

Your weapon is pretty much like a religious fetish. It gives you the illusion of safety and security because you believe in its power as a matter of faith, when in fact it provides no such security. Unless you can provide proof that it does in fact make you safer, and does in fact give you the choice between life and death, then I refuse to believe that your CHOICE is based on reason rather than fear.

Still, it is your choice to make and I do not support any curtailing of your right to make that choice (for different reasons altogether. When you see me carrying a weapon, that means the shit has hit the fan folks.) Just don't try and pass it off as being reasonable.

[Pavulon]

157. I dont remember being issues a feeling

were you issued a banana? I was issued an old ass m16, an new (at the time back in the day m9) which was later swapped out for an M4. Those were not about feelings. Being able to make a life or death call is not an emotion.

I am a realist, I will die of cancer or heart disease, just like you. That assumes you are not a minority living in public housing subject to the real shit end of us drug law.
I have proof that during BCT and ACT at no time was I given a feeling, an no time was I instructed on how to leave a tool behind that could be useful.

A sidearm is tool, no more, no less. I have no reason to provide proof or anything else to justify my choices.

[teknomanzer]

163. Really?

And you had the audacity to accuse ME of using a canard. Carrying a weapon in the military is not at all the same thing as carrying a weapon as a civilian. For one thing being armed was part of our DUTIES and not a result of our constitutional rights. And if you recall as a member of the armed services a good portion of your rights were put aside for the duration of your active duty.

As an armor crewman I was issued both a colt .45 (which I might add was so banged up I couldn't hit the far side of a mountain with it even though I qualified expert with both the M9 and M16) and a later on a Berreta 9mm. I qualified with the M16, grenades and the weapon systems of the M1a1 Abrams. Most of the time when I carried these weapons, or drove the tank, they were unloaded. When they were not in my possesion they were locked up in the armory while the tank stayed in the motorpool. These weapons were issued to me for use in training and combat. At no time were they ever provided to me when I was not on a mission, preparing for a mission, or recovering from a mission. Being in a combat zone would certainly provide REASONABLE justification for being armed as one is VERY likely to encounter the threat of violence. Hence the term "combat zone."

No, the military did not issue me feelings, nor did the army issue me the weapons for my personal protection.

Now, the last time I checked the United States is not combat zone. When and if it does become so then I would have ample reasonable justification for pulling arms and ammunition from my "personal armory", as it were. Until that time they can stay locked up. I don't reasonably require a weapon on me for a trip to the grocery store. I am not expecting an ambush on the way to Albertson's.

You are certainly right. You do not have to justify your reasons for clutching close to your heart that clunky metallic (or carbon fiber) lucky charm to me, and certainly not the government. But I get the sense that you have not explored deeply enough your own reasons for doing so. A hammer is a useful tool, but I don't usually carry it unless there are nails that need pounding, therefore I can only assume that you believe that there are people that need maiming and killing on regular basis.

Now given the fact that most violent crimes are committed by people the victim knows, I wonder if you are packing heat at family gatherings or parties with your friends?

[Pavulon]

164. Simply provides options

i've carried in in civilian life for over ten years and never had the need draw a weapon out and about. Did catch a guy breaking into my apartment almost 15 years ago not sure if it was the dog, the torch in is face, or the pistol that changed his mind. He left at 215 am and I had an exams all the next day with no sleep. Nor have I had to see if the roof of my "safer" car will really support the weight of the vehicle when it rolls over. The option is nice to have.

As part of national guard deployments heavy equipment was more a threat than an a weapon. Bosnia was more concern with running over some old anti tank mine rather than being shot by locals. Recovering tanks (etc) and getting them on a HET when they broke or their operators managed to get them stuck was also far more dangerous than anything an MP faced after a flood here in NC. No the Abrams or the Bradley for that matter will not wade through a 7 foot deep sloppy muddy pond. Yes you can help attach the cables and freeze your balls off in the water with the rest of us while we laugh at you. They , the MP's, were issued weapons but never had to fire them. We were issued weapons, but someone was assigned to guard them while work commenced.

Equipment related injuries during training involving things north of 20 tons were serious. Missing fingertips seemed more common than they should. No deaths while I was present but they did happen.

We dont see eye to eye. I respect your position. Best of luck.

[tabasco]

137. LOL.

You carry it because you are afraid. You just won't admit it.

[cowman]

138. Not afraid

just ready to defend myself in case some asshole of a criminal leaves me absolutly no choice

[Pavulon]

141. Thank you sigmund fackin freud

if I post my dreams can you tell me some more insightful analysis. I carry because I want to. The same reason I smoke cigars...

[Frances]

71. My husband's nephew lives in Wyoming

Very early one morning some years ago he was in town picking up newspapers that he delivered in his pickup.

A man with a gun kept trying to pick a fight with the nephew. The nephew did his best to calm the trouble maker down, and almost succeeded. Then the troublemaker pulled out his gun. The nephew grabbed his rifle from the truck and shot the man before the troublemkaer could get off a shot.

Later the sheriff questioned the nephew. The sheriff said he'd checked the nephew's record and found he'd been a sharp shooter in Vietnam.

"Why'd you shoot the guy in the shoulder?" the sheriff asked.

"I didn't want to kill him," the nephew replied.

"We were hoping you would," the sheriff answered.

I'm glad my husband's nephew wasn't shot, but I am not a sharp shooter, and even the nephew isn't as young and quick as he was when the incident occurred. I don't want to go back to the days of the Wild West myself.

[ThomThom]

158. yes the wild wild west lives on

We should have more duals too, would be great entertainment. We could have people call others out on Friday and then shoot it out on Saturday prime time. It would definitely improve TV ratings, Saturday night is so boring. :bounce:

[X_Digger]

63. That used to be the default (open carry)..

.. it was only criminals who carried concealed.

Is that the ultimate intent of your repetition of this question in multiple threads? To try to paint concealed carriers with the 200+ year old interpretation of those who carry concealed?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll answer your question honestly.

I don't live in an open carry state, but if I did, I might not open carry for two reasons-

1. Tactical advantage: I carry to protect myself, concealed gives me an advantage over someone who might mean harm to me. I don't paint a target on myself, which has both a good side and a bad side. Maybe a criminal who sees me carrying would target someone else, or he might just shoot me first. I don't intend to have a 'fair fight' with someone threatening grievous bodily harm to me, I'll take any advantage I can.

2. Societal norms: At least right now, and in the state I live in, nobody open carries outside their own property. If it became legal tomorrow, I can imagine some bliss ninnies not hearing about it and calling the cops. Much hassle. If I lived in Virginia, or Arizona, I might consider carrying openly, so as not to have to change my wardrobe to always include a cover garment in some cases. It would have to balance between both the positive and negative points of item #1.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

5. No, he couldn't.

The reason that the FEDERAL background check didn't stop him was inadequate bookkeeping. He was still legally prohibited from owning a weapon for mental health reasons.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[icee]

8. I'm okay with the CCW right, but not the okay to carry into a bar

for any reason. This is a big step for me. I never thought things would get as bad as they are. I suppose I should buy my wife a small gun, but she would refuse to carry it or use it even if she were being assaulted. Does anyone know about smallish guns, like a 32 or something? Something that would slow someone down but maybe not kill them.

[X_Digger]

9. If you (or she) is not prepared to possibly kill, don't carry a gun.

Deadly force is deadly force. You don't shoot to wound, you shoot to stop, and death of the attacker may be a consequence.

Depending on your state, there may be effective pepper sprays that will stun most criminals (and probably piss off those it won't.)

[Pavulon]

10. OC spray. You dont fire a gun to slow a person down.(nt)

[customerserviceguy]

18. This is not a "bar"

This covers restaurants that serve alcohol (thank goodness there are still a few of them around, I like a glass of wine with a good meal) and the concealed carry permitee is not allowed to drink, period.

[ThomThom]

159. In Virginia all bars must serve food so all bars are restaurants

You just don't have to buy food and you can sit at a bar or a table in a bar area.

[FailureToCommunicate]

37. Get your wife to learn Krav Maga. A gun in her purse is just as likely to be used against her.

Even police learn close hand to hand disarming techniques. The reaction time to a surprise attack - to draw and fire a gun- is seconds longer than the attack.

[Pavulon]

49. Police use OC. No sane person wants a fair fight.

if the person can not use a sidearm, then OC is the next rational choice. It takes about a second to draw and fire from concealment with practice. I'll take those odds, especially if I was a female fighting a male attacker.

[proteus_lives]

77. Wrong.

Gun and self-defense for women, especially small women. Krav Maga is less effective if the attacker is foot taller and has a hundred pounds on you.

[Abq_Sarah]

48. OC spray

Or OC foam, if she's worried about spraying anyone other than the target.

Some places offer classes in use of defensive pepper spray. I know the SABRE Defense line certifies people to teach classes, there may be one in your area.

[sasquatch]

11. Oh yeah, Midlo can finally go out in public again

[alarimer]

13. What could possibly go wrong with this?

Remind never to go into bar with these drunken rednecks.

[paulsby]

21. ah yes. feel the bigotry

it pervades your post

[pipoman]

32. You do realize that somewhere around 30 states already allow this very thing, no?

[proteus_lives]

78. Stereotyping.

What an unlovely person you are.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

16. Fuck Yeah!...

Says your local teabagger.

[Pavulon]

19. I feel sorry for you guys who still pimp the anti cause

it is being destroyed in the courts and everyone sees it for the bamboozle it was originally. time to move on.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. Caption: "Hey, where'd everybody go? Helllloooooo....."

[proteus_lives]

79. The fail is strong with this one.

Onehandle: Old dog with no new tricks.

[msongs]

20. barring gun carry on public airlines violates gun owners' 2nd amendment rights nt

[Pavulon]

23. You can check them. Not a problem. Dont believe they hype.

gun control in the last 20 years has been a direct bamboozle of people. Fooling poor people, victims of crime, that "something" is being done. Because passing laws that criminals ignore and that annoy people who vote is easy. Fixing the root cause is not.

[onehandle]

27. Fuck that!

I need protection against dudes with boxcutters!

Not that boxcutters have ever perpetrated any major crime. I just pulled that out of my ass.

Never mind.

[slackmaster]

29. If you want to carry an appropriate weapon on a plane, I recommend a laptop computer

A nice rugged one with sharp corners. You can use it as a shield, or a blunt weapon.

[Igel]

52. Actually, you can carry a weapon.

You just have to make sure that it's dual use.

I have this practice guitar that's pretty much a solid piece of padauk, a hardwood.
( http://www.soloette.com/nylonspecs.php#classic )

The TSA guy looked at it and asked if it was a club. "No. It's a practice guitar." I showed him where the pieces fit to make the frame and where the earphones plugged in. And I was waved through. My only thought was that most clubs wouldn't weigh nearly as much or have handy and sharp metal or wood projections. Or have a case.

[slackmaster]

54. Holy dogshit, there are probably fifty ways you could kill a person with that thing!

:hi:

[paulsby]

24. what PUBLIC airlines?

USPS? Con Air?

here's a hint. passenger airplanes are privately owned, not public.

[onehandle]

25. So when will a brave soul walk onto a plane with a pistol strapped to his side.

Like it's a Starbucks.

He will truly be the Rosa Parks of our generation.



If only it wasn't for that pesky, Constitution ignoring Airport security and Homeland Security.

[Pavulon]

31. and the courthouse, and other common sense no CCW areas. I just dont want to have to "contribute"

to a local sheriff or LEO in some state where ccw is "may" issue. The sun is setting on this issue, bamboozle is over. You would be better off arguing for jim crow laws or to preserve the country club that bans jews than a platform pushing gun control.

The airline is responsible for my safety there. If I die they pay a large sum of cash. If I get shot in the mall, no one is paying out.

[onehandle]

36. Wait... Are you saying that others are responsible for your personal safety.

You would trust security and even worse, cops to protect your precious body?

Dude. You are drinking the Gun Control kool-aid.

[Pavulon]

43. Them fancy metal detectors and tha law

around kinda mean that in a secure area that someone is responsible for my security. In the airline example, they are financially liable as well. In starbucks or say lubys they are not there. No metal detector and the only police presence comes after to tape up the scene. You know this, I know this.

This bullshit died in 1994, the scotus is just burying the corpse. The numbers and studies back the premise that gun control is a farce to fool people that politicians are helping them reduce crime.

move on. Lobby for health care, that along with drug reform actually change the game. 50% of gun deaths are suicide, ever seen the bill from a quality mental health care provider. No insurance = 72 hour observation. Insurance = $40,000 charge.

[paulsby]

33. airplanes are a controlled environment

unlike campuses, restaurants, etc.

everybody who enters the secure area of an airport, let alone an airplane is screened for weapons

thus, it's disanalogous.

even i, as a LEO can only carry during extraditions

[onehandle]

40. Tell that to the Jersey Wives. nt

[Pavulon]

45. They were compensated by the airlines, lubys victims were not, you done tellin'?(nt)

[X_Digger]

26. Airlines are private businesses. n/t

[onehandle]

28. I'll buy you the plane ticket. A major airline can be your Starbucks.

How about it, Rosa Parks?

[Pavulon]

34. Victims of 911 were paid settlements by the airlines, people shot at the mall

not so much. See the airlines secure my safety while on their planes, starbucks does not. But yep, you would be better off telling blacks to go back to the back of the bus than actually trying to pass gun control now.

[onehandle]

38. A teabagger in a Starbucks = Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Tell it, Brother!

[Pavulon]

46. Get used to it. Now you know how those white guys felt when blacks sat down at the lunch counter

gun control as you have been bamboozled to believe in it is being taken apart in the US. You can write about your feelings and I am sure you will be able to identify with the Jesse Helms mindset circa 64.

Pick an new issue, healthcare needs help, because this one is done.

[proteus_lives]

80. Hypocrisy.

So people can only protest for things you personally like?

[X_Digger]

35. I respect private businesses ability to deny access to patrons carrying firearms..

I may not shop there, but I respect their right to limit who they serve, and what conditions they set for entry.

[warm regards]

56. Do you feel the same way about smoking?

[X_Digger]

57. Yup! (and I smoke) n/t

[warm regards]

90. Then we agree that private entities should be allowed to decide what goes on inside their

establishments. Unfortunately, there are many amongst us who do not.

For the record, I am a non-smoker and I will never understand why so many non-smokers believe insist that all bars and restaurants ban smoking.

The same goes for guns--it should be up to the owner.

[X_Digger]

99. Yup, and this bill doesn't interfere with restaurants ability to deny. n/t

[ThomThom]

160. so are bars and restaurants ... Can they ask you to check your gun?

just asking

[pipoman]

42. Does anyone know?

Is this 30 or 31 states (out of the 40+ states which allow concealed carry) which have a similar statute?

[X_Digger]

64. Actually, I think this is #32. n/t

[bongbong]

I found out

I found out during a previous gun-nut thread that the Federalist Papers actually prove the OPPOSITE of what the gun-nuts say they do. Federalist Paper #29 specifically points out that militias - the 2nd Amendment kind - must be trained like armies are. Otherwise they are just rabble.

I invite any interested party to read Federalist Paper #29. Its intent is super-clear. What the NRA wants is the OPPOSITE of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

BTW, don't bother attacking me. I'm just the messenger in this case, letting people know the "accepted truth" is a big lie.

[Gin]

60. supposedly the person with the gun won't be allowed to drink

hmmmm...who is going to check that?

new menu side dish....blood & guts with that beer and burger

[Pavulon]

62. Considering it is law in lots of places

and the sky has not fallen and christ has not returned in those states would lead me to believe that nothing will happen.

[wordpix]

65. ah yup-i can see it now - bar bouncer feeling up and down for gun

and telling gun slinger he can't drink.

Good idea. :crazy:

what is this country coming to? (Jefferson is rolling in his grave by now)

[DissedByBush]

74. Probably after-the-fact enforcement

You're legally safe if you pull your CCW.

If you do it and they find you've been drinking, you're probably toast.

And rightfully so.

[jefflrrp]

61. founding fathers wanted, huh???

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United State

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

----- Now I don't know about you, but it seems like your assertion is pretty full of shit. Don't yell at me. Just the messenger

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. You went and brought facts and citations and verifiable history into this...

You spoiled a perfectly good faith-based subthread!

[jefflrrp]

68. Oops

I certainly try =)

[wordpix]

70. good argument BUT those were the days of settlers and relatively few Americans

scattered in small towns, farms, and the frontier. Everyone had guns for hunting, not to mention protection against the British and bears.

We are now in a different time of 300 million+ U.S. residents, with most people crowded in cities. We need gun control or prepare to see daily mass shootings. Haven't you noticed they've increased? It's bad enough that getting hold of guns is easy. Let's not make it easier.

:grr:

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. We have lots more guns than even ten years ago. Where are the "daily mass shootings"?

Just asking...

[wordpix]

82. i guess you don't read much, right?

also, i said it was going in that direction, not happening now. But NOW there are way too many shootings---maybe not daily, but the pace is increasing.

[X_Digger]

97. Crime is going down, but media reporting is going up.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 4.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2009 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 8.2 percent when compared to 2008 figures from the same time period.

[jefflrrp]

73. my friend, they really haven't "increased"

per se. Its just that our news media likes to harp on relatively rare mass shootings because "if it bleeds, it leads." Violent crime, as well as gun crime, has been going down for awhile now. And please tell me, friend, why the founders' intent with the 2nd Amendment (ie defend against tyranny) is any less different than in this time period?

[wordpix]

83. my friend, yes they have increased, just start reading the daily news

maybe you're a non-reader? :shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. It appears he gives more credence to verfiable statistics than tabloids...

...an approach I would recommend to you.

[bongbong]

101. Logic fail

None of the quotes you provided does anything to refute Federalist Paper #29 - "well-regulated" clearly means trained like an army. In fact, at least one of them REINFORCES my point.

Logic fail.

[RantinRavin]

66. And if the 2nd Amendment gave the right to keep and bear arms

to the militia you may have some point, although Federalist #29 only deals with the responsibility of training the militia.

to empower
the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA
ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

However, the 2nd Amendment does not give the right to "keep and bear arms" to the militia, it gives that right to the people, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

[X_Digger]

69. Sad, isn't it..

..when someone gets a little bit of information without any context and they wave it around like it's the cure for cancer.

"But see, man, it's like right here, I'm tellin ya! Duuuuude, you gotta seeee this!"

(Not you, bongbong.)

[bongbong]

107. Exactly!

Like using the 2nd Admendment to justify near-unlimited gun ownership without understanding the basis of the words in the 2nd Amendment.

[X_Digger]

109. Who's proposing this 'near unlimited' business and where do they post? n/t

[bongbong]

110. Ho Ho Ho

You can, with the proper papers, legally own a missile-firing jet or a fully-working tank in the USA. That is just about as "near-unlimited" as I can think of.

Don't think that getting those papers is too hard. All it takes is having a clean record and/or being a "weapons dealer". If you don't meet those criteria, greasing the right palm does the trick.

[X_Digger]

111. insert non sequitur here..

You've always been able to do those things. Only in 1934 were restrictions added. (Tax restrictions, mind you.)

Private citizens had cannon on their ships in the 17th & 18th century. (Yes, even some of the signers of our founding documents.)

Yet you say that as though it's something new.

[bongbong]

113. Nothing new, just new to me

It was new to me to learn you could own a missile-firing jet.

It's kind of interesting living in a country where a guy, just by being rich enough, could legally own enough firepower to kill tens of thousands of people in a few minutes.

And I don't mean interesting in a good way.

[X_Digger]

116. Yup, there's lots of misinformation regarding regulations around firearms..

We had one poster who swore up and down that 'drum magazines' were generally illegal, or that a grenade launcher actually propelled a grenade.

[bongbong]

104. Just read F.P. #29

Just read Federalist Paper #29. It is super-clear in its intent. Since Standing Armies were against the will of the Founding Fathers (but quite to the liking of the Military Industrial complex), the need for a militia was to defend the country. It wasn't so that Tom, Dick, and Harry could get their self-esteem up by buying guns.

Let's see all the gun-nuts defend America from an invasion. The mathematical version of that would be (1/Red_Dawn)^999. (note that "Red Dawn" is in the denominator)

[X_Digger]

105. I've read FP29, and RantinRavin's point still stands.

Whatever was thought of the militia, and how it was to be organized, or who thought it was or wasn't a good idea- none of that has any bearing on whose right the second amendment protects.

As the SCOTUS said in Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Or as the government asserted in Miller, “The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

[bongbong]

106. Nope

Nope, Rantin's point fails. F.P. 29 clearly deals with the whole idea of what a militia is for, and how it is to be trained. The 2nd Amendment starts with the idea of the militia as the reason for the right to bear arms.

And I've already shown that your appeal to SCOTUS authority is meaningless in another post of mine.

[X_Digger]

108. What Cruikshank and Miller show..

.. is that the right to self-defense was recognized as an individual right before the second amendment.

FP29 is an argument about the efficiacy of a militia.

The second amendment's prefatory clause asserts why protecting the right of the people is to be protected. It doesn't limit the right to that one purpose. That's not how the bill of rights works. It's an admonishment to government, not the people.

If you doubt that, check out the preamble-

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Now, who in the above sentence does 'its powers' refer to? Remember, people have rights, government and the states have powers..


p.s. I think you're confusing me with another poster, you've never replied to a post of mine (eta: re SCOTUS) that I can tell.

[bongbong]

112. So what?

Lots of things changed with the Constitution. The Founding Fathers changed a lot of "everyday life" when the USA became established. F.P. #29 clearly shows their attitude with respect to the purpose of the "militia" and how the "militia" was to be trained. Since the 2nd Amendment uses "militia" as the rationale for gun ownership, it is clear what the Founding Fathers felt about it.

My point, which I never explicitly stated in this thread (but did in the gun-thread a few months ago) is that using the 2nd Amendment as justification for near-unlimited weapon ownership is wrong and clearly contrary to the Founding Fathers' intent. If you want to own every gun, tank, and fighter jet ever made, go right ahead.

But you can't use the 2nd Amdendment to justify it, and thus you can't use the 2nd Amendment to limit gun-control laws.

As for your appeal to SCOTUS authority, maybe I wasn't clear - but actually I was. I destroyed the veracity of "appeal to SCOTUS authority" in my reply to another poster, not you. Just read my reply (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4290943&mesg_id=4291978) to learn about it.

[X_Digger]

115. Because two sentences use the same word, does not mean they are the same..

F.P. #29 clearly shows their attitude with respect to the purpose of the "militia" and how the "militia" was to be trained. Since the 2nd Amendment uses "militia" as the rationale for gun ownership, it is clear what the Founding Fathers felt about it.

Yes, it makes clear what one founding father thought about the militia.

Just because the second amendment states why the right to keep and bear arms must be protected (in order to protect the ability to raise a militia), that doesn't mean that a militia is the only right protected. If that were so, they would have said the right of 'militia members', or the right of the 'militia'.

You didn't actually address my point, that the bill of rights is not a limit to the people, but the government.

Let me give you another contemporary (to their time) construction in a similar vein.. Rhode Island's constitution- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.." Would you assert that the only freedom of the press applies to topics dealing with security of freedom? Or only for purposes dealing with security?

[bongbong]

119. You miss my point

As I said in another post, my point is that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own a gun. It has only to do with "well-regulated militias", which as the F.P. #29 makes abundantly clear means a trained and disciplined force. This in itself shows how much the NRA and other gun-nuts openly lie about how "well-regulated" means "well-aimed".

Since the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with ownership of weapons, it shouldn't be used as a way to overturn gun-control laws.

But as we know from the Plessy, Gore v. Bush, and Citizens United decisions, the SCOTUS hasn't had anything to do with protecting the Constitution or upholding the Rule Of Law for a long time.

[X_Digger]

121. No, I understand your point, I disagree with your assertion.

The second amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, because the ability to raise a militia is good.

It doesn't grant the right (it's pre-existing), nor does it limit the right to be only for an express purpose.

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- you wouldn't assume that stores only sell soda, nor that I'm only going to buy soda.

[bongbong]

122. Nope

I didn't assert anything.

I just pointed out the clear words of the Founding Fathers. They were clear about their intent concerning the words in the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with weapon ownership, only with the fact that "well-regulated militias" are necessary since Standing Armies won't be part of the USA. Thus the 2nd Amendment can't be used as a cudgel to oppose gun control laws.

But when have mere laws and Constitutions stopped gigantic monied interests like the military-industrial complex?

[X_Digger]

125. Well, you did assert that..

the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own a gun. It has only to do with "well-regulated militias"

That's the assertion I don't agree with, nor does the court. (1873, 1939, 2008, etc.)

Heck, I know it's an argumentum ad populum, but 73% of americans believe the second amendment protects an individual right to own arms.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

[bongbong]

126. Oh boy

I've already shown that SCOTUS decisions have nothing to do with the Constitution, so why do you keep bringing them up?

Then you bring up an "argument" that you say yourself is meaningless (appeal to popularity). Now that's some mad debating tactic!

If the 2nd Amendment WASN'T just about militias, why did it mention it at all? Why not just say "The right of people to own arms will not be infringed", without any mention at all of militias?

It'll be funny to see how you spin that one.

[X_Digger]

129. You haven't shown anything.

non sequitur (latin for 'it does not follow')

You demonstrated what certain framers though about the militias (FP29). *eta: You do realize that the federalists / anti-federalists were two separate groups, right? That neither side constituted the whole of the 'framers'?

You pointed out that the second amendment mentions militias (Article II).

In your mind, the ergo was "the second amendment is about militias".

But it does not follow. (non sequitur)

If the 2nd Amendment WASN'T just about militias, why did it mention it at all? Why not just say "The right of people to own arms will not be infringed", without any mention at all of militias?

Let me turn that about. If the second amendment was about militias, why didn't they say "The right of the militia" or "The right of militia members"?

The right belongs to the people, agreed? Not the militia, not militia members (insofar as they are not distinct from 'the people').

Look at other state constitutions from that same time frame as examples of what they were thinking-

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

If you want to understand how the specific language of the second amendment was chosen, look at the debates surrounding it.

Here's Madison's first draft: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The 'religiously scrupulous' section was removed when the resolutions were broken out into different amendments.

Various transcription errors lead to the fight over commas and semicolons.

[bongbong]

132. Let me turn that around!

I've answered all your questions and addressed all your objections to my argument. But you have no answer to my latest point other than "let's turn that around!". Since you choose that answer, I'll just toss it back to you. Why didn't they just say "Nobody can infringe your right to hold on to arms"?

That makes even MORE sense in light of the other points about state constitutions you just brought up! The examples you gave are basically variants of "Nobody can infringe your right to hold on to arms" (while giving reasons for that statement - protecting yourself & your state). Your other points in your latest post are historical dross.

Well, at least you tried to keep up with me. But it seems you keep making points that just reinforce my argument. Again, those are some mad debating skillz!

[X_Digger]

135. Actually, you've dodged more than you've answered..

.. but that's okay, I'm used to that.

And I did answer your question about why they didn't write it a certain way. Going back to the original proposal, clauses were rearranged, sections were dropped.

The state analogues show what many of the same people thought when it came to writing their state constitutions. From their perspective, it was a given. The anti-federalists were worried that the federal government would interfere with states militias. By making sure to protect an individual right at the federal level, they protected the states abilities to raise an effective militia. (Remember from the preamble, this is a restriction on the federal government "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers".)

We seem to agree (god I hope so at this point) that the reason for the second amendment is to make sure the states can raise a militia, yes?

It does so by protecting the pre-existing right of individuals to have arms. Thus, the federal government can never neuter a state's ability to raise a militia by disbarring it's members from being armed.

You still haven't answered why you think "the people" somehow means "the militia"..

It's English- archiac English, I'll admit.

"Because X, Restriction on Government Y is imposed"

[bongbong]

139. I've dodged???

I find that pretty funny in light of the fact you "answered" my question about why didn't they just plainly state that the right to bear arms was not to be infringed, instead of mentioning militias at all, by saying "why didn't they just say something else???" That is a classic dodge.

Then you start talking about the anti-federalists wanting to protect their militias. So why didn't they just say "States will have the right to raise militias"?

And then - once AGAIN - you make my point about the 2nd Amendment not being about the right to own weapons but instead about militias by saying "We seem to agree (god I hope so at this point) that the reason for the second amendment is to make sure the states can raise a militia, yes?". We already know what the Founding Fathers thought a militia should be from the F.P #29 - "well-regulated", as in "trained like an army".

It is clear that unregulated ownership of guns was not what the Founding Fathers wanted. This is abundantly clear from the F.P. #29.

My point about the 2nd Amendment being abused by gun-lovers stands. The only thing that I can see from the way the 2nd Amendment is written is that a "well-regulated militia" is the reason for letting the Feds allow weapon ownership.

Show me the army training and discipline that the millions and millions of gun-lovers have, and I'll agree with you.

Go ahead and own 10,000 guns. Just don't abuse the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Fathers by using it for something it was never intended for.

And I have answered why "the people" means "the militias". The 2nd Admendment says so.

[X_Digger]

143. *sigh* Went right over your head again, didn't it?

Why does 'the people' in the fourth, fifth, etc amendments mean individuals, but in the second mean something else?

You have to torture the English language to make that interpretation fit. I understand. A faith-based idea like this can't take scrutinizing too close.

So why didn't they just say "States will have the right to raise militias"?

Because the anti-federalists feared that a tyrannical federal government could effectively neuter militias by disbarring the use of arms.

Under Article I, Section 8, congress has the power to call forth the various militias- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The anti-federalists thought that language gave too much power to the congress (putting the milita in the control of congress, save the officers who were under state control.)

Without the protection of the second amendment, Congress could refuse to 'organize, arm, and discipline' the militia, stripping the state militia of power. By protecting the individual right to arms, whether or not congress chose to arm the militia would have no bearing on state militias.

a "well-regulated militia" is the reason for letting the Feds allow weapon ownership.

Close, but no cigar.

1) The feds don't "allow" - it is a right of the people. Rights don't flow from the federal government. The government may restrict rights only under an appropriate standard of scrutiny- rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny.

2) The ability to raise an effective militia is the reason the second amendment protects an individual right, yes. But it does, in fact, protect an individual right.

[bongbong]

Nope

It didn't go over my head at all.

Obviously the issue of gun ownership is an article of faith with you. Thus, nothing I will say will ever convince you since it is a religious issue with you. On the other hand, I worship on the altar of logic and history. The tortuous spin you put on the clear intentions of the Founding Fathers, the points of mine that you never addressed, and the completely irrelevant "points" you made, will not change any of that.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[X_Digger]

151. "Fathers"?

You've harped on one 'father' that I'm aware of.. what others did you mention, and can you point to those posts of yours?

[bongbong]

147. Nope

It didn't go over my head at all.

Obviously the issue of gun ownership is an article of faith with you. Thus, nothing I will say will ever convince you since it is a religious issue with you. On the other hand, I worship on the altar of logic and history. The tortuous spin you put on the clear intentions of the Founding Fathers, the points of mine that you never addressed, and the completely irrelevant "points" you made, will not change any of that.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. People bring up the MIC because the "blood in the streets" argument doesn't work anymore

Unless of course there was a jump in gun-related crime in places like Ohio and Minnesota that the 'conspiracy' is keeping hidden.

[friendly_iconoclast]

148. You forget about Texas vs. Lawrence, or leave it out deliberately...

...because it doesn't support your premise?

[bongbong]

58. I found out

I found out during a previous gun-nut thread that the Federalist Papers actually prove the OPPOSITE of what the gun-nuts say they do. Federalist Paper #29 specifically points out that militias - the 2nd Amendment kind - must be trained like armies are. Otherwise they are just rabble.

I invite any interested party to read Federalist Paper #29. Its intent is super-clear. What the NRA wants is the OPPOSITE of what the Founding Fathers wanted.

BTW, don't bother attacking me. I'm just the messenger in this case, letting people know the "accepted truth" is a big lie.

[Pavulon]

59. Hurry tell the scotus. Considering they are about to broaden

the 2nd. I mean I am sure none of them have ever read that paper. Hey do they say what role blacks should have back in the day?

[bongbong]

103. Appeals to SCOTUS authority - HUGE fail

So if you appeal to SCOTUS authority that means Bush v Gore in 2000 was correct, right?

Logic FAIL.

[Pavulon]

131. Umm, the supreme court is kinda important

things like abortion rights were decided there. Not in congress. You are aware of that right?

[bongbong]

133. Yes

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that chimpo would not have been sleeping in the White House from 2001 to 2009 if the SCOTUS hadn't stuck their unConstitutional nose where it didn't belong.

[Pavulon]

134. Has nothing to do with this case.(nt)

[underpants]

142. link

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

[proteus_lives]

75. Good news.

I mean the guns were already there but still cementing gun rights is always a good thing!

[IndianaGreen]

81. Get a group of drunken gun-toting morons together

and people will get hurt or worse.

[jefflrrp]

84. FAIL

statistically, those with concealed carry permits (THOSE who are vetted by the state and FOR WHOM this new law is for) are among the most law-abiding, non-violent citizens in America. You have a greater chance of being shot by a cop than by a citizen with a permit. In Virginia, there are in the neighborhood of 150-200,000 people permitted to carry a concealed handgun. I am one of them. Why, when I want to go with friends or family to a restaurant (that also happens to serve alcohol) should I be forced to disarm, therfore jepardizing my safety and the safety of my friends and family, if such an incident as Luby's, Texas was to occur? And why should I have to do the "Virginia Tuck," ie go from concealed to open carry in a restaurant? As much as I value my 2nd Amendment rights, I'd also like to keep it on the down low. As they say, discretion is the better part of valor. Plus, I'd like to not scare anybody in the restaurant.

[IndianaGreen]

85. You are assuming these people are responsible gun owners, they are not!

Using the Luby's mass killings as a rationale for letting every dipshit with a gun to go to a bar is really quite a stretch.

[jefflrrp]

86. once again

we're not letting every "dipshit" walk into a bar with a gun. Only ccw permit holders. Open carry is already 100% bonafide legal. Whats the big deal?

[jefflrrp]

87. and as ive said ....

statistically, ccw permit holders are more law abiding than other citizens, including drunk moron citizens.

[cowman]

114. And you

are assuming that they aren't. Show me the stats that say CCW holders are irresponsible. We go through FBI background checks, take safety courses and have to qualify with our weapons to get a CCW. So don't give us that usual BS about a bunch of drunken CCW holders in a bar or restaurant, just doesn't happen

[IndianaGreen]

124. And you are assuming that the majority of people that carry guns are licensed

which they are not.

[X_Digger]

128. Are those who carry guns illegally now..

.. any less likely to carry if a new law allowing those who legally carry isn't passed?

eta: Sorry, that wasn't clear..

They were breaking the law before, are you saying that this law not being passed would have stopped them?

*scratches head*

[cowman]

140. Once again

show me the stats that say CCW holders are dangerous. Why do I have to be licensed for a Fundamental Right?

[proteus_lives]

88. Ahh, the cries of "bloodbaths in the street!"

Another old and broken anti-rights tactic.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

94. What happens when

nail biting prohibitionist's 'common sense' is found to be not common sense afterall, but unjustifiable, cowering in the corner, fear of the unknown?

[ieoeja]

127. How can you be from Indiana, a state that has allowed CCW in bars for 15 years,

and make that comment?


I remembered when Indiana first passed the CCW law. Everywhere I went I saw people in the bars packing pistols on their hips.

My dad and I both enjoyed making fun of them since it was never, ever, not even for one fucking second in the entire history of Indiana, illegal for a person to carry a pistol OPENLY in a bar. Unless you were in a city that had its own ban. But most never did. Certainly none where I grew up in southern Indiana.

Apparently, not all the must-carry-gun-at-all-times crowd were paranoids. Many of them are a lot like the must-pray-to-Jebus-at-every-public-event crowd. They want everyone to see that they are a BETTER AMERICAN THAN YOU. And BETTER AMERICANS THAN YOU love Jebus and guns.

[lanlady]

91. what a way to dishonor the memory

of the dead of Virginia Tech. F*&%$ing disgrace.

[underpants]

92. As you are probably aware the Tech families got a direct slap in the face...

with the gun show law being rejected, while they were sitting in the room, a few years ago here.

[pipoman]

93. Thank dogs

we rarely legislate based on the feelings of victims..we should always legislate based on statistics not emotions.

[jefflrrp]

95. Wait a collar-picking minute....

Now I jus may be a good unedujumcated Sathern boy, but pleese tell me if Cho, the "furriner" who shot up VATech, got his guns from a gunz show?

Wait. He didn't. But I mean, we always should push for laws that make no sense, right? I mean, those terrahists used boxcutters to take over the planes, right? So lets ban sales of knives at stores. And lawnmowers. Cause them have blades too, ya know.

[jefflrrp]

96. And Im

damn proud of my state for rejecting that, too.

[cowman]

117. I seem

to remember that VT was a gun free zone so no one could carry a weapon on campus ergo no one could put a quick stop to the tragic killing

[lynne]

120. A concealed weapon wasn't the problem at VA Tech -

- This law relates in no fashion to what occurred at Tech. Your one size argument does not fit all.

[cowman]

123. And you are

wrong. VT was a gun free zone school ergo nobody could carry a gun. If just one person was carrying that day maybe the tragic results would have been different. I not saying that it would have but maybe it would have stopped this maniac before it turned into such carnage. When seconds count, the police are minutes away

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. I wasn't aware that the VT killings occured in a bar.

Perhaps you could fill us in on this...

[cowman]

154. I was replying

to post #91

[panzerfaust]

98. Good to see that Natural Selection is still at work

[leftynyc]

102. Booze and guns

What could possibly go wrong?

[mbperrin]

136. My thought, exactly! Why, we've had concealed carry in Texas bars for years!

Google

Advanced Search
WebShow options...
Results 1 - 10 of about 543,000 for texas bar shootings. (0.34 seconds)


Yeah, what could go wrong?

[RantinRavin]

161. number of results means nothing

Google Advanced Search


WebHide optionsShow options... Results 1 - 10 of about 15,900,000 for santa claus . (0.20 seconds


Holy Cow, there are 15,900,000 Santa Claus ???

[mbperrin]

165. Do you suppose the 643,000 google hits were all articles saying there were no Texas

bar shootings?

:)


Look, we sold two bars we had owned for years when concealed carry became legal. Already way enough shit going on without it.

And if you raised your kids and never let them believe in Santa Claus, I hope you get what's coming to you, you mean bastard. And if you did, your point is.....?

[friendly_iconoclast]

150. Look at the 30+ other states that *already allow this* and find out

Quick answer: Not very much.

[Blandocyte]

118. That law needs tweaking--

I'd allow concealed carry only if the concealers had to wear a hat marking them as a good guy:

[Kablooie]

153. So now all the lawyers can shoot each other for real! Guns are legal in the Bar!

[Nikki Stone1]

155. TPTB are really hoping we'll kill each other.

That's the only thing that makes sense.

[hunter]

162. In the very unlikely event I ever need a gun in a drinking establishment...

... I'll steal it from someone who's got one.

It seems only fair, since the person carrying the gun is probably the only reason I might ever need a gun myself.