Friday, November 04, 2005

A Few Thoughts on Prohibitions of Various Flavors

Let's make a bold statement here and say those of us on the side of the Second Amendment have pretty much won the political wars. We have driven back three decades worth of nitwit antigun laws, we have shall-issue concealed carry, we have legal protections for the firearms industry in place, and hte only person in America who thinks Sarah Brady is anything other than an annoyance in a clown suit and floppy shoes is Katie Couric, the queen of the Manolo shoes school of journalism.I've waxed sort of eloquent about the absence of a

hearts-and-mind campaign on the part of our culture. This morning I thought I'd bikini wax eloquent on one of the new battlefronts we're seeing. This from columnist Jim Spencer and this morning's Denver Post:
Guns are an "in" thing. Liability protection for people who make machines whose only function is to kill people does nothing to discourage that notion. Neither does pushing to let loaded weapons be carried anywhere, anytime, even where people drink.
There's the sneaky part...oh my goodness, people having guns where alcoholic beverages are served! That can't be a good thing! Can it?

Now, I've corresponded with Mr. Spencer before, and it's like trying to communicate with a marmot, which squeaks wildly and loudly, then goes and hides under a rock. The guns/alcohol push, though, is what the gun control "movement" is reduced to. It's sneaky, because we don't really think it through..."even where people drink."

We reflexively think of overheated Irish bars, which smell equally of split beer and desperation. Except that most drinks are served in restaurants; hell, even self-serve alundries serve beer!

Where are you most likely to need that gun you're carting around on your hip? Well, if you don't drop by and visit the criminal underground — that is, buy drugs, including marijuana; frequent prostitutes; buy or sell stolen goods, etc. — your risk is probably a restaurant! But if organizations like Brady and the VPC, plus their media shills like Jim Spencer, can succeed in keeping concealed weapons out of places serving liquor, that's a large percentage of the world outside our doors.

So Michael is saying, heck yeah, take that AR to a bar! Nope...I'm saying that "impairment" is a legally defined term. If you use a gun while impaired, you have a very big legal problem. But if you are not impaired, does it matter where you used the gun?

The effort to demonize guns is starting to slip, but the ever-popular Demon Rum is with us always. Liquor doesn't turn people into monsters any more than guns turn people into crazed killers. What bothers the furry little marmots is that the responsibility NOT to become impaired int he first place is an individual responsibility that cannot and should not be relegated to the state.


Anonymous said...

Let's hope the furry little mamals don't win on this one. Ridiculous that here in GA I can't take my concealed weapon into an Outback simply becuase they server beer. and I don't even drink!

Anonymous said...

I argue this one with people all of the time. Instead of making it "illegal" to partake of a partiular constitutional right in specific places, why not pass laws making it illegal to consume or be under the influene of alcohol while in the possession of a firearm? Those folks that want to go out to dinner will be able to while not having to deal with unconstitutional restrictions of an individual right, but those fools that want to mix alcohol with firearms can be dealt with appropriately.