Thursday, June 18, 2009
Around Town / Law and Order / Legislature / Politics / The Economy A Woman Waxes on Guns at the Bar
Posted by Pete Kotz on Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:13 AM
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
like
dislike
Jeez, give me a break, everyone who is against this bill calls it guns in bars, it's actually guns in restaurants, and it's not going to be the wild wild west out here like all you people like to say....look at the records, people who have handgun carry permits are the people who don't commit crimes, they're not a bunch of rednecks running around shooting off rounds in the air....they have to pass written exams, along with a gun range exam, all of which focus highly on gun safety as always people should, and then you have to go through a background check before you can get this...it's not people are just handing people guns as they come to the door and anybody who wants one can carry....people like you never get it, you can't see past the gun....guns are always bad......if a gun is in the hand of someone who respects it and knows how to handle it...it isn't bad, it's still dangerous as guns always are, and that's why people who get the handgun carry permits have to jump through so many hoops to get them....just one more thing, the bill also states if your drinking in the bar it is illegal to carry while your drinking.....
Answers for those who think that "gun control" is the best for America
http://hubpages.com/hub/Answers-for-those-who-think-that-gun-control-is-the-best-for-America
Allowing law abiding -- and thus SOBER -- citizens to carry firearms into establishments serving alcohol causes essentially zero problems in the many states where this is allowed.
No matter how the 'gun control' crowd tries to using dishonest propaganda sound bites it comes down to there will be NO 'blood running' or 'wild shootouts' due to this simple common sense re-establishment of civil rights.
Criminals -- including drunks who drives cars, carry firearms, and commit other crimes due to intoxication -- will be criminals whether law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves or not.
Since NO 'gun control law' can be shown to reduce any of murder, violent crime, suicide, nor accidents there is no reason to restrict the rights of the law abiding.
"No 'gun control' law"? That's right. The DoJ cannot show it. The CDC failed to show it. And the National Academy of Science failed to find even ONE such law.
Might as well scrap them all and return the nation to Vermont style gun control:
That is, law abiding citizens can carry what and where they please. Criminals get prosecuted for their actual crimes.
Well, Pete, it's easy to tell which side of the fence you're on. Frankly, this should not even be newsworthy. If it weren't for people with bad knee-jerk reactions, as in the Brady Bill et. al., instituting restrictions that never should have been implemented, this bill would not have been necessary.
You tell people to go ahead and wave the Constitution and their guns just not around you or in a bar.
The people who are licensed to carry, by and large, are the people who can most be trusted to responsibly carry firearms. Perhaps if you find yourself in a situation where your life is in danger from a criminal while you are eating dinner in a restaurant, and I hope you never have to face that situation,as the patrons of Luby's in Killeen, Texas did, then maybe you will be lucky enough to have someone near you to 'wave their gun' and save your life. Lest you and like minded individuals forget, remember the words of Thomas Jefferson.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”.
Have gun control advocates never wondered why police stations are never robbed? Is it because there are police on the premises? No. It is because there are ARMED police on the premises. If cops could not carry guns then you would see evidence lockers emptied of drugs and other items in very short order. Criminals prefer to attack soft targets. Crime is reduced when criminals know or believe that prospective victims have the means at hand to readily defend themselves.
Funny how these Chicken Little types don't know that many other states already allow this.
In Colorado, it's been legal for ... 5 years now? And we don't have drunken bloodbaths. It has been a non-issue.
In Indiana it's been legal for 70 plus years and we don't have drunken bloodbaths. I guess Hoosiers are naturally smarter than folk from Tennessee.
I have lived in tn. for 62 years.I do not have a permit to carry.I don't Carry one.al tho I have owned .357,44mag,45 auto,.22 in all about 10 pistols.used to reload.I used to go bar hopping a lot. never been in a bar that had no guns.the bar keeper was always armed.and a lot of popple in the bar were armed.and this was back before the permits.
“If the individuals who graciously offer us watering holes have nothing but complaints to offer and nothing to gain... then who does "guns in bars" benefit anyway? Okay, okay, besides lobbyists.”
Only people who might otherwise been nothing but helpless victims and “statistics” in another of the trendy “Gun-Free Zone” killings.
Those damn criminals, you just can’t seem to trust them!
If they continue to keep braking the rules and massacring people in, CLEARLY MARKED, “Gun-Free Zones” . . . we’ll be forced to make it illegal to shoot people in CLEARLY MARKED, “Gun-Free Zones”!
WHAT?! It IS illegal ALREADY?!
I TOLD YOU THOSE CRIMINALS COULDN’T BE TRUSTED!!!
If a bar exercises their prerogative to bar guns; they should also expect to be held responsible for the liability of their decision. (It only cost VA Tech 11 million, it should have been 32 times that.)
“Please do wave that constitution and that gun high into the air -- just not around me or in the bar...”
If they wave a gun around, ARREST THEM! That is a CRIMINAL ACT. Punish ACTIONS; not inanimate objects.
You ask: “Please, someone wake me from this dream before it becomes a nightmare, before the grievous error of this legislation is realized, until one evening on the 6 o'clock news we listen to the report that someone was gunned down at a local bar.”
The difference will be: “Some ONE was gunned down at a local bar” instead of “Some TWENTY-FOUR were gunned down at a local bar . . .” (chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html)
Or “Some FOURTEEN were gunned down at a local bar . . .”
(http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/07/18/news/top_stories/16_42_237_17_04.txt )
At McDonald’s in San Ysidro, the survivors had 77 minutes to leisurely think about their situation while the police waited safely outside. Hmmm? How many survivors do you think were saying: “BOY! I’m glad I don’t have a gun right now! That bastard shot my daughter’s ‘Happy Meal’ off into the floor! If I had a gun, I would have just made things so much worse! UH OH! LOOK! I don’t have to pay my wife child support any more!”?
As for Luby’s survivors; they only had 15 minutes to think about their situation, before the murderer killed himself after the first encounter with armed resistance.
You can go here and listen to what one survivor had to say about her experience in a “Gun-Free Zone”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9NDnqS5h9k
“Oh, that’s not the same at all! Luby’s and McDonald’s doesn’t serve alcohol!”
So you’re saying that ALCOHOL WOULD LESSEN the chance of events like these happening?
