"I've really never been afraid for my life at the Red Lobster"

[DainBramaged]

The Democratically-controlled Virginia Senate has voted to allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the person carrying the weapon does not drink. The gun bill passed on a 22 to 18 vote, after senators had a vigorous debate about whether or not people might have a reasonable reason to carry guns in restaurants.

The House has passed a similar bill; Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has expressed support for the measure, and is expected to sign it into law. Both chambers also passed it last year, but Gov. Tim Kaine (D) vetoed it.

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R), who sponsored the measure, said he was doing so on behalf of those who now violate the law that prohibits guns in such establishments rather than leave their weapons in their cars when they go out to eat. He said this was a particular issue for women who carry guns in their purses to defend themselves when they go to, say, Red Lobster. (That was Hanger's example.)

Others argued guns have no place in eating establishments where alcohol is being served. Though the bill would prohibit a weapons carrier from drinking, the opponents said it would be impossible to tell if the law was being violated if the gun was concealed.

The debate was concluded by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D). "As a final comment, let me just say this. I've really never been afraid for my life at the Red Lobster," she said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/02/va_senate_votes_to_allow_guns.html


When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?

[Pavulon]

1. When you move to japan. A country with no 2nd amendment

dont carry one. thats your right. exposure is pretty silly.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

73. Please explain.

"the way they've twisted the 2nd amendment"

Whom exactly is "they"?

And how has it been "twisted" in any way which changes it into something other than what the bill of rights itself says it is?

[K8-EEE]

97. I don't think it's "well regulated militia" people doing the shoot em ups

Nor do I think "well regulated" = "unregulated." Because the NRA and their ilk fight Every. Single. Regulation. EVERY ONE. They want GUNS to be the most unregulated product in the country and for this we have 30,000 gun deaths a year WE'RE NUMBER ONE! USA! USA!

[X_Digger]

101. I hope that's hyperbole, because it actually isn't true..

The NRA helped write the 1934 NFA, supported most of the 1968 GCA, and supported many portions of the Brady bill (especially those that created the NICS background check.)

Regarding your objection to 'well regulated militia'- if I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the grocery store." would you assume that the only thing that stores sell are sodas? Or that I'm only going to buy soda? The first clause of the second amendment is the reason why the right is being protected. Consider this similarly worded phrase of the same time period from 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..". Now, does the freedom of the press in Rhode Island only apply to the 'security of freedom in a state'? Why not? Wouldn't you say that the operative phrase ("any person may publish sentiments on any subject") is the one that carries the meat of the sentence?

[K8-EEE]

102. Yes, the way it's TWISTED

Your soda logic being exhibit A. And no, I think they MEANT "well regulated." Which is why they put it in there.

[X_Digger]

103. I don't know how to make it clearer..

.. you have to torture the english language to make it mean what you think it means.

Let's break this down grammatically.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's update the language a bit..

"Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

or if we rearrange the clauses, as we would normally do in modern English..

"The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Does that make it any clearer for you?

Of course, the larger point that you seem to have missed is that the bill of rights isn't an exhaustive list of our rights (otherwise, the ninth and tenth amendments would make no sense whatsoever!) Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; the bill of rights was a restriction on government, as demonstrated by 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"

Now, "abuse of it's powers" by whom? Certainly not the people.

[beevul]

111. Dang it X_Digger.

Ya beat me to it.

Its an argument ender. A real, factual, and true one. To deny that is to deny reality. I'm not saying that'll stop them or anything though...

As stated in the preamble, the only purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish that, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being proposed. The amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision. By design, every clause is either one, or the other. By design.

The Second Amendment, as illustrated by the preamble, doesn't place any restraint on the powers federal government concerning the States or their militias. It places restraint on the powers federal government concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Consequently, any assertion the Second Amendment restricts the powers of the federal government concerning the State militias is patently false. And laughable at this point.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights shows - clearly and unequivocally - that the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from abusing the powers granted to it by the constitution. To that end, further declaratory and restrictive clauses were being added to restrain the exercise of power by the federal government. Thus, the preamble negates any assertion that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to grant the States the right to maintain armed militias. It also negates the claim that the Amendment granted the people an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to place an enumerated restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. The reasons why are not relevant. The restriction is what it is regardless.

Its almost sad. How absolutely airtight that is, and yet they still cling to the "militia" reading, and get stuck on "well regulated, as if those things have any at all.


I could have sworn they taught this stuff in schools. :shrug:

[X_Digger]

124. Agreed.

I haven't seen a cogent, much less compelling response to both our posts on this subject.

Dodges, spluttering, hyperbole, lashing out with ad hominens- sure, plenty of those.

[Callisto32]

144. That phrase, "well regulated"

I don't think it means what you think it means.

It means regulated, as in good working order. Like a regulator on a SCUBA tank gives you the correct amount of gas.

[beevul]

113. They do?

"Because the NRA and their ilk fight Every. Single. Regulation. EVERY ONE"


Can you show me a cite showing the nra fighting the regulation making it unlawful for felons to possess a firearm? How about fighting against the regulation that requires NICS background checks at retail sale?

You did say "Every. Single. Regulation. EVERY ONE." Right?



"30,000 gun deaths a year"

Its disingenuous not to distinguish between murders, suicides and justifiable homicides.

[gorfle]

127. Well, you're right, and you're wrong.

I don't think it's "well regulated militia" people doing the shoot em ups

You are right on that score. Most people who commit murder with firearms have extensive prior criminal backgrounds:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

These are people who, legally, have no right to keep and bear arms because they are felons. So you are correct - it is not the well regulated militia doing the "shoot em ups".

Nor do I think "well regulated" = "unregulated."

You are misunderstanding the 18th century meaning of the word "regulated". "Regulated" did not mean, as it tends to today, "under the constraint of rules". Rather, something that was "well regulated" was "well running". For example, highly accurate 18th century time pieces, used to set the time of other, lesser-accurate clocks, were known as "regulators".

A "well regulated" militia, then, was not one that was well constrained by rules, but rather a well-functioning, decentralized military force.

Incidentally, the organized militias ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of The Dick Act, when they were usurped by the federal government.

Because the NRA and their ilk fight Every. Single. Regulation. EVERY ONE.

I am a member of the NRA and I can tell you that this is untrue. For example, the NRA fully supports regulations that prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. What we will not do, of course, is tolerate restrictions on law-abiding people for the sake of criminals.

[Callisto32]

143. To the tune of 20,000+ restrictions on firearms?

Methinks not.

[cowman]

132. when

the 2nd is changed. good luck with that

[aquart]

2. You will be now, dear.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[pscot]

3. I've never been afraid at a Red Lobster

until now.

[spin]

33. I've never been afraid at a Red Lobster, but then I carry...

and if my daughter and son in law are with me they are also carrying concealed. We are not paranoid or afraid, we just normally carry everywhere.

I know a large number of people who carry. Almost all are excellent marksmen who practice on a regular basis. Many have police or military background.

People differ. Guns are not for everyone.

[K8-EEE]

68. We're not paranoid, we just require 3 loaded guns to eat lobster

All righty then. You never know when they're under-boiled, they might try to pinch you!

[spin]

115. Actually we carry in the restauant...

mainly because it's a pain in the ass to remove your weapons every time you get out of your car. Plus, the weapons might get stolen while in the parking lot.

We all just normally carry. There are only a few places where it's illegal.

[ddeclue]

5. Doesn't Virginia arrest people for public drunkeness IN a bar of all places?

Glad I don't live there.

[Cleita]

7. A lot of states do, but it isn't enforced that much unless the person causes

a problem, then off to the hoosegow he goes.

[Cleita]

10. So people, I guess I'm going to have to cook at home if we get a law like that

in my state. Restaurant owners take note. I don't want to go to any public place where civilians are carrying guns. At least police will be investigated if they shoot off theirs even if it's justified. A civilian can just disappear into the crowd.

[TheWraith]

23. You already have laws like that in California.

Virtually every state in the country has concealed carry laws. You've probably had dinner in a restaurant where somebody was carrying a gun a dozen times. The panic you feel isn't rational--according to the FBI statistics, a legal concealed carry holder is one third less likely to commit a violent crime than a police officer, and two thirds less likely than the national average.

[X_Digger]

28. Lol, you have to Open Carry in CA restaurants.. no new law required. n/t

[PavePusher]

61. Umm, I don't think O.C. is required.

See my post below.

[X_Digger]

66. Ahh, I read the pdf wrong, thanks! n/t

[farmout rightarm]

36. You really are kidding, aren't you?

If not, it must really suck to be that paranoid.

[PavePusher]

60. Too late...

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

Center of page 2, and page 4, second header. A CCW holder may carry in an establishment who's primary purpose is not consumption of alcohol. In other words, A restaurant that also serves beer, wine, etc. But the permitee, if bearing arms, may not consume said alcohol.

What is so hard about this?

P.S. Do you need help packing up?

[gorfle]

128. You should have been staying home all along then.

So people, I guess I'm going to have to cook at home if we get a law like that in my state. Restaurant owners take note. I don't want to go to any public place where civilians are carrying guns.

Clieita, the thing is, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN PUBLIC PLACES WHERE CIVILIANS ARE CARRYING GUNS.

It's just that only the criminals were carrying them. Obviously the law didn't do anything to prevent that.

All this law is doing is saying that now law-abiding citizens can carry in a restaurant, just like they do when walking down main street, as long as they are not consuming alcohol.

If a CCW permit holder can walk down main street, surrounded by hundreds of his fellow men, women, and child citizens, why can't he sit in a restaurant surrounded by them?

[Callisto32]

145. Restaurants are PRIVATE places that are open to the public.

It is up to the owner what they allow there, not the legislature.

[gorfle]

150. And so they can.

Nothing is preventing business establishments from disallowing the carrying of firearms on their premises, and many do.

[phantom power]

6. I do know this...

when the first gun-carrier forgets the "no drinking" part, gets drunk and kills somebody in a bar or restaurant, the threads in the Guns forum are going to be awe inspiring.

[X_Digger]

31. Funny, doesn't seem to be a problem in the other 32 states that allow this. n/t

[Euromutt]

74. And what's to prevent that from happening now?

There's nothing to physically prevent someone packing a concealed firearm from going into a bar, getting wasted and doing what you describe. So how often does that happen? And why would you assume it would happen more often if the law permitted carry, but not drinking?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Then there is the CCW permit holder that stopped a murder in progress at a bar.

See the law has worked as intended.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. Ohhh, I am glad about this

silly laws make me so happy.

Also, it will be easier to take one from one of the drunks if I need one. Thanks, Virginia.

[Cleita]

13. You are so right.

People who want to carry guns just don't realize how easy it will be for robbers to relieve them of their hardware.

[benEzra]

27. If it's so easy, then I'll just relieve it right back. :-b

However, since you don't know that I'm carrying (which you won't), you aren't going to be taking it.

Retention can be a problem for open carry (in which case I think a retention holster is probably de rigueur, but that's not my style).

If you were ever visiting outside California and ever happen to sit a table over from my family at a restaurant, you won't know that I'm carrying, and wouldn't be able to see the imprint of a firearm even if you magically divined that I had one and where it was located. You'd just see a bespectacled Gen-X guy with a slightly graying goatee and a couple of kids and not think anything of it, just like you probably do every day when you visit outside California (or visit northern CA).

If the law requires me to take the gun off and stash it in my glove compartment in full view of everyone in the parking lot, though, then yes, that would facilitate a robber taking it. Which is one reason why laws requiring CHL holders to be constantly unholstering and reholstering their firearms in public are sort of counterproductive, IMO.

[Callisto32]

147. And unsafe.

A weapon secured in a holster is near ZERO in its ability to be fired. Mistakes are made during handling, simple.

[spin]

34. Perhaps if they carry openly...

otherwise the firearms are concealed.

[PavePusher]

62. And you have substantial proof of these?

Please, post it here....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. I suppose you have links to that happening in the other 30 + states that have this law?

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

105. It's called a holster.

Idiots who carry a gun in their waistband deserve to have taken from them.

But I wouldn't take a person's firearm for no reason.

[SteveM]

114. Uh, you know this? Did you carry? Do you carry?...

[Callisto32]

146. And, alas you have no concept of how difficult diarmament is.

It is one of the most complex procedures in the martial arts, and requires special training. A gang-banger who holds his gun sideways cuz that's how they do it in the movies certainly is not going to manage actual disarmament, especially of a person carrying concealed. It is far easier to disarm a police officer open carrying. You know, the guys that you want to keep armed. Which brings me to my next point. If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you are not anti gun, you are just an elitist.

[LLStarks]

9. As much as I am in favor of gun control, this is quite silly and unnecessary. nt

[spin]

35. Why. Have you ever read of the Luby's massacre?

The Luby's massacre was an incident of mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas, United States when George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot 23 people to death while wounding another 20, subsequently committing suicide by shooting himself. It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the Virginia Tech massacre.

***snip***

Reacting to the massacre,<4> in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (Texas's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed sadness for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person.<5> Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.<6> The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to carry concealed firearms.<7>emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Please watch this video of Suzanna Hupp in front of Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Huh?

[zappaman]

11. To be honest

some of the shrimp dishes I've seen there have made me somewhat scared...

[AndyA]

12. Haven't you heard?

The right to bear arms trumps everyone else's right to live their life. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that you don't want to be around a bunch of drunk people packing heat doesn't matter.

To me, it all boils down to this: Would you allow a stranger on the street to leave with your 8 year old daughter in their car? You don't know the man, where he's going, or when he'll be back.

In order to let him leave with your child, you'd have to have trust in him, right? Well, trust is EARNED, it's not automatic.

So, if you can't trust that man to leave with your daughter, how can you trust him to carry a gun around her?

The bottom line is, you can't.

[TheWraith]

19. It's illegal to carry a firearm while drinking.

At least everywhere but Washington State.

And your analogy is bogus.

[AndyA]

40. If you can't trust a stranger with your child, you can't trust that stranger with a gun, either.

Period.

You may say otherwise if you want, but you're being a hypocrite.

It's also illegal to kill innocent people with a gun, but it happens all the time. :eyes:

[X_Digger]

53. Do you trust strangers driving on the street?

I mean, hey, one of them could mow down your daughter.

Do you trust a waitress not to poison you kid's food?

Do you trust an electrician not to burn your house down?

Do you trust .... (insert someone with the capability to do something dangerous to you or your family)..


That asinine, illogical analogy has always sounded rather lame.

Perhaps you should find a better one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. You don't have to trust them with a gun. You won't know they are carrying one.

[proteus_lives]

106. That's idiotic.

[gorfle]

131. If you an't trust a stranger with your child, you can't trust that stranger with a car, either.

Far more people are killed with cars than with guns.

Yet we tolerate people driving around us all the time. It's not because of trust, but rather out of the common understanding that until someone demonstrates that they are unworthy of the privileged of driving they are entitled to do so.

Likewise with firearms. We do not allow them because we trust everyone with a firearm, but rather out of the common understanding that until someone demonstrates that they are unworthy of the right to keep and bear arms, they are entitled to do so.

[Dr. Strange]

133. So, do you trust cops with guns then?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. So how does concealed carry infringe on any of your rights?

[gorfle]

130. It's not about trust. It's about control.

I control who I and my family get into cars with, and I control my ability to respond to violent threats.

It's not about me trusting you or you trusting me. It's about you not having control over what I do as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

I don't trust you driving your car, either, especially since far more people die from cars than from guns. But unless and until you demonstrate that you are a threat, nobody is allowed to impose their will on you concerning driving.

Likewise with guns.

[Callisto32]

148. Well, since to get my LTCF, as they are called in PA, I had to submit msyelf to an FBI background

check, submitted myself to the investigation of the sheriff, had my picture and personal information put on file, and went to the sheriff in the new county to which I moved and updated them as to my status as a LTCF holder living in the county seat, I'd say I have proven myself trustworthy.

[fasttense]

14. As if guns are going to make them safe.

It didn't make the Iraqis safe.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. What does a gunowner being able to conceal his gun in a restaraunt have to do with Iraqis?

:facepalm:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Well, our Olive Garden threads will be livelier

[PavePusher]

63. Doubtful. n/t

[flvegan]

16. Now folks will feel how the lobsters feel.

:hide:

[PavePusher]

81. How so? n/t

[TheWraith]

17. You know this is legal in most other states, right?

What worries you so much about it?

[hlthe2b]

18. Separating gun enthusiasts from their guns like taking the blankie away from Linus....

A fascinating, if disconcerting (to many) phenomenon....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. and somehow unseen guns scare the gun control enthusiasts.

A fascinating, if disconcerting (to many) phenomenon....

[KamaAina]

20. "Hurry up and bring me the goddamn check!"

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

[TheWraith]

21. Do you think that contributes anything to the discussion?

There's about five or six million people in the US with a license to carry a concealed weapon, many of whom do so every single day in perfect safety. A gun isn't a magical object that makes somebody want to start mowing down bystanders--statistically you're less likely to be shot be somebody legally carrying concealed than you are by a police officer.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Pavulon]

25. Just limits the number of ignorant posters who get a dose of reality..

1990 is calling, it wants its issue back.

[farmout rightarm]

32. Are you in some kind of competition to write the silliest post?

If so, you're in the playoffs.

spelling fix

[X_Digger]

24. Every time I visit a Luby's I think of this..

[spin]

26. If you eat at a Red Lobster in Florida or many other states...

you may have one or more people who are carrying concealed eating beside you.

You will have no idea that they are carrying. Concealed weapons holders look just like everybody else. Some wear suits and ties, some wear jeans and cowboy boots. Most are male, but many females also carry and the number of women with permits is rapidly increasing.

Since statistics show that those who have concealed carry licenses RARELY misuse their firearms, you can relax and enjoy your meal. Be careful when you walk outside into a Florida thunderstorm as you have a much higher chance of getting hit by lightning than injured by a concealed weapons permit holder.

[Extend a Hand]

72. in Florida, the last time I ate in Red Lobster

the average diner age looked to be well over 70. All those crazy gun totin' seniors are carrying concealed?

:evilgrin:

[spin]

112. Actually a lot of the people I know who have carry permits...

are senior citizens and most of the remainder could join AARP.

We're the old farts who love to show up at the range and blow the black bullseye out of the target.

[ileus]

139. you can bet some of the old tymers carry a stubby in the front pocket.

[ThomWV]

29. Rights are not extinguished because you are in restaurant or anywhere else

do your free speech rights or right against unlawful arrest disappear when you go into a place to buy a burger?

[farmout rightarm]

30. Stay away from cops and soldiers.

...

[rusty_rebar]

38. Couple of points:

"When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?"

"Those who live in fear without their steel sidearm violate my right to live without fear of guns everyday"

You guys talk about your "Right to live without fear of guns" and your "Right to life without guns"

Please show me where this right to a life free of guns is enumerated, or even implied?


"To me, it all boils down to this: Would you allow a stranger on the street to leave with your 8 year old daughter in their car? You don't know the man, where he's going, or when he'll be back.

In order to let him leave with your child, you'd have to have trust in him, right? Well, trust is EARNED, it's not automatic."

First, this is a ridiculous argument. I would not allow my child to get into a car with some stranger, but I can tell you that if in fact they did get into a car with some random stranger, they would in all likelihood be pretty safe.

Think about it for a second. Most people, I will say 99 out of 100 at least, are good people that would never in their wildest dreams harm a child. So in all likelihood, if my child were to have to get into a strangers car for some reason, I am pretty confident that the stranger would probably take them home, to the police or some authorities. That is what I would do. I think that is what 99% of the people out there would do.

Second, you trust complete strangers every day. When you drive, you trust that the other drivers will not cross into your lane and kill you. The only thing stopping them is a strip of paint. You trust the guy at McDonald's is not putting rat poison in your food. You trust that your kids teacher is not molesting them in the closet at school. And all of these trust relationships are reasonable.

If you lived your life with the rule of trust no one until they earn your trust, then you would not be able to function in society. A guy walking down the street with a concealed firearm is no more dangerous (in fact far less) then the cars that are whizzing past on that same street.

Please show me the statistics proving that someone with a handgun is more dangerous then driving your kids to the park. The facts just do not support your assertion. Yes the guy with the handgun could pull it out and kill 6 or 7 people, the chances are pretty small that that will happen. Any of us could do something stupid behind the wheel of a car and kill 6 or 7 people, the chances of that are much higher.

[farmout rightarm]

43. If "trust is EARNED" to that extreme, it's hard to imagine how someone who held that opinion

could ever begin a friendship. How the hell does someone "earn" trust without getting at least some to work with in the first place?

I wonder why people can't seem to understand that "civilians" who carry firearms are statistically no more likely to commit mayhem with them than policepersons are. It's so frustrating. I suppose some folks want to insist on a life free of any danger...how do we convince them it's impossible?


http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11947356

[Katya Mullethov]

58. I get to return wallets full of money now and again

A customer will find it on the counter or floor and then I will stick it under the register till they come looking . More often than not they will remark something along the lines of " You just cant leave your stuff laying around for a second anymore or somebody will grab ... "

Dude ..... you got your wallet AND the money AND the debit card back didn't you ?

Uhh yeah ....why ?

The point may be momentarily lost on him , but not me .


Less than 1 in a hundred people is causing all the grief , but the other 99 point are the ones getting screwed .

[spin]

39. Seriously, watch the video of Suzanna Hupp in front of Congress...

The video deals with the massacre at the Luby's Cafeteria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[sharesunited]

41. Virginians never learn. More rampage shootings to follow.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. White noise post.

Xshruy blbvub jsdlkj a ksj quqiuab nog a huaflka ahfjk ehdf

[farmout rightarm]

46. bla bla bla

...

[mwrguy]

48. Can the government be held liable?

They are facilitating another massacre. Who will be held responsible when it happens?

[farmout rightarm]

52. IF it happens, hopefully the perpetrator.

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that these rare incidents virtually always take place in so-called 'gun-free zones'?

[PavePusher]

64. And a restaurant law was going to stop them?

:spray: :rofl:

[K8-EEE]

69. I agree. The gun nuttiest states have the most shootings. n/t

[K8-EEE]

70. The ones who HAVE to have a gun in the bar prob also

have a RIGHT to blow smoke in your face, just in case their drinking-with-loaded-guns thing doesn't kill you the smoke can do it on the installment plan.

[sharesunited]

75. If you want to call gun love "nutty."

Some just call it worshipful.

[K8-EEE]

100. OK I'll go with that.

Lemme tell you these 'religious' freeper types give them a choice between the gunz and Jesus and Jesus goes DOWN.

[beevul]

89. Uhh...

Are you saying vermont has the most shootings?

Alaska?

Montana?

Or are you saying that California, New Jersey and Illinois are all "gun nutty" states?


I can't keep up...

[proteus_lives]

107. More promises of bloodbaths to come.

Yet violent crime continues to fall.

The anti-rights crowd has some shitty oracles.

[WVRICK13]

42. Unfortunately

the only place we have to shop is in Virginia, Winchester is an hour in one direction and Harrisonburg is an hour fifteen minutes in the other direction. Winchester is affluent with lots of RW nut cases. I was in Winchester this Saturday and the bizarre bumper stickers scared me to death. It was like being on a planet where intelligence was a rare commodity. Harrisonburg is very Mennonite oriented and strangely enough all of the bumper stickers I see there are related to peace and tolerance. By the location you can tell I live in the middle of nowhere WV and the bumper stickers here are not quite as odd as in Winchester. Give me a Mennonite farmer over a wealthy Right Winger any time.

I am not anti-gun. I know that is unpopular here but I am opposed to going back the wild west where you can carry a gun anywhere you darn well want. All it takes is a moment of emotional outburst and someone can end up dead. It's bad enough when you can see a fist fight in the bar area of a restaurant but a gun fight is a whole other story.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Most of the country allows this already.

Which part is like the wild wild west?

[farmout rightarm]

49. The "wild west", like "the good old days" is mostly a figment of wishful

nostalgia and has little resemblance to actual history.

[WVRICK13]

51. A Gun In A Bar

is like the wild west. In WV you cannot carry guns into a bar even with a CCW permit. Nor a bank, library or court house to name a few places. What are the chances the gun toting friend is not going to drink in the bar? Alcohol or other drugs with a gun is a bad mix.

[farmout rightarm]

55. What are the chances that a BAD guy will cancel his plan to go into a bar

to rob the patrons or murder an ex-boyfriend of his wife's because it's illegal?

There sure is a lot of hysteria hereabouts based on speculation about what horrible things 'might' happen.

I remember G Bush launching an invasion of Iraq because they "might" do something evil. \

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I can carry into a bank, library, and the portion of a restarunt that isn't 21 and over only in WA

no issues. I have never once heard of a shooting in Washington State, inside a public library. Weapons are not prohibited there. I can carry to a courthouse, and into the unsecured area of the building, but I must surrender the weapon to the officer manning the metal detector, and he must safely store it for me, while I conduct whatever business I visited the courthouse for.

I cannot carry inside a bar, or part of any establishment that has a lawful 'No Minors/People under 21' sign due to serving alcohol. As far as I can tell, that's what the people of V want.

Washington State is not the cliched old west.

Edit: and I would like to point out, I have reasonable justification to carry concealed in a bar. I do not drink, therefore, when I am out with friends, I am the designated driver. If we elect to go to a bar, I must leave my pistol in the car, which is a recipe for getting it stolen.

[PavePusher]

82. Do you have documented, historical proof of this?

Or is your "history" based on fictional movies, television and novels?

Note: I love reading Louis Lamour... but his stories would have you believe that the "west" was littered with gunshot victims from the Cumberland Gap to Los Angeles. And that's just not so.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

125. Please see this post..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=288003&mesg_id=288003

I'm sure you ran into Skinner's post in GD, it also applies here.

[PavePusher]

149. I missed something?

I never get to read stuff before it gets killed... sigh.

[farmout rightarm]

47. Does Virginia have a problem with fist fights in restaurant bars?

I mean is it like an epidemic or something? Peace and tolerance, where they actually exist, often owe it to armed resistance to oppression. I'll tell you this much: if only armies were allowed to have arms, every society would be a military dictatorship.

[rusty_rebar]

50. All it takes is a moment of emotional outburst and someone can end up dead.

Again, I hear this all the time. Please show me the statistics. Concealed Carry is legal in most states, so there should be some statistical information to show this happening all the time.

[WVRICK13]

54. Oops

You can take a gun into a bar with CCW, I just looked it up. Sorry about that. I guess that would cut down on the knifings in our bars around here.

[pneutin]

56. Ban bumper stickers

you know, since those scare you so much

[X_Digger]

57. edit: woops, I see you caught your mistake.

delete

[RamboLiberal]

59. You ever seen the bumper stickers at the gun range?

They do tend to be Palin or Ron Paul supporters and RW. So far this liberal has managed to survive nearly every weekend in the warmer months at gun ranges where everyone has a gun on their belt. We've even talked politics without shooting one another. I'll admit I'm a bit outgunned. :evilgrin:

So I think you'll survive Red Lobster just fine with people carrying concealed (or openly) - unless you eat some bad seafood.

BTW my state of PA allows Concealed Carry in bars for quite awhile - no shootings in Red Lobsters, Olive Gardens, Don Pablos, etc. have broken out. Sure there are shootings in bars - but they are mostly in the dive bars where most of us would never go or fear to tread anyway and most of the time the gun carry was illegal.

[K8-EEE]

71. Because it's a paranoid mindset

It's repuke all the way. The dumbest thing is when they act like their guns are protecting them from "the government." Yeah right like the government with an ARMY and NUCLEAR WEAPONS is soooo afraid of your gun!

[PavePusher]

83. Do you believe the American Government would use nukes...

on it's own territory and citizens?

And you say gun owners are paranoid... Sheesh.

:tinfoilhat:

[K8-EEE]

98. NO, nor do I think a gun would "save" me from the government in any event

What kind of bad freeper novel is that.

[proteus_lives]

108. Not that bright.

:tinfoilhat:

Like the US would use nuke inside it's own borders.

[Glassunion]

65. Comments on the comments…

From the OP:

“When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?”

When I’m sitting at the table next to you, I am exercising several of my rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution. Is it your choice to determine what rights I am allowed to exercise? Let’s go over just a few…
1st Amendment: as my wife and I are sitting at the table next to you, we are going to have a conversation. Is it up to you what we should and should not be talking about? If we are having a normal conversation without making any disturbance or swearing, should you intervene in our conversation if we are covering a political topic that you may find disagreeable?
2nd Amendment: I have a firearm concealed under my shirt and my wife has one in her purse. Of course you would not know that, so I doubt that you would have cause for alarm. You are in no more danger from me and my firearms than I am of you taking one of the knives from your table and stabbing me in the neck.
13th Amendment: Should my wife and I be working in the kitchen for no wages? I’m sure there are those in the restaurant that are offended by our presence; however, it is not because I have a firearm. Perhaps we can go back to having special restaurants, water fountains, schools, etc…
Point is… It is not your place alone to decide who can exercise their rights. If you want any of the above changed, by all means write your representative.

Post 4.

Those who live in fear without their steel sidearm violate my right to live without fear of guns everyday, but why should they give a shit, they are manly men with their steel blanket.......

Speculation. I would not dare make an assumption about you, yet you for some reason seem to think you know all about me.

Post 22

When do the fucking gun laws STOP TRUMPING ALL OTHER LAWS?

They don’t.

Post 11

So people, I guess I'm going to have to cook at home if we get a law like that in my state. Restaurant owners take note. I don't want to go to any public place where civilians are carrying guns. At least police will be investigated if they shoot off theirs even if it's justified. A civilian can just disappear into the crowd.

Again with the speculation. You are assuming that gun owners are out to kill you, then disappear into the crowd. You are in no more danger from me, then I am from you.

Post 6

I do know this... when the first gun-carrier forgets the "no drinking" part, gets drunk and kills somebody in a bar or restaurant, the threads in the Guns forum are going to be awe inspiring.

Wow! “When the first gun-carrier (meaning there will be more?)”, “gets drunk and kills somebody” So thank you for already grouping the gun owners all up into one criminal body. You have already accused, tried and convicted us of a crime that has not happened. You have a magic 8 ball too?

Post 14

People who want to carry guns just don't realize how easy it will be for robbers to relieve them of their hardware.

I’m sure you have an endless amount of stories and instances that you can enlighten all of us with to back that statement…

Post 12

some of the shrimp dishes I've seen there have made me somewhat scared...

I agree

Post 13

Haven't you heard?
The right to bear arms trumps everyone else's right to live their life.

No, no it does not… Read the Constitution.

Actions speak louder than words. The fact that you don't want to be around a bunch of drunk people packing heat doesn't matter.

I would not want to be around a bunch of drunken people packing heat either. But it was hard when I was working for the Marines overseas. However, nothing bad ever happened. Go figure?
Again with the speculation. You are assuming that gun owners are just sitting around with baited breath wanting to just start guzzling down the beer and waving their gun around.

To me, it all boils down to this: Would you allow a stranger on the street to leave with your 8 year old daughter in their car? You don't know the man, where he's going, or when he'll be back.
In order to let him leave with your child, you'd have to have trust in him, right? Well, trust is EARNED, it's not automatic.
So, if you can't trust that man to leave with your daughter, how can you trust him to carry a gun around her?
The bottom line is, you can't.

Actually we have proved that you would be probably be better off leaving your daughter with a CCWer than a cop. The numbers are there. But you just go ahead and speculate on how evil we somehow are.

Post 19

Separating gun enthusiasts from their guns like taking the blankie away from Linus....
Edited on Tue Feb-16-10 06:26 PM by hlthe2b
A fascinating, if disconcerting (to many) phenomenon....

Flame bait with an absolute zero amount of contribution to the discussion. IMHO.

Post 21

"Hurry up and bring me the goddamn check!"
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

More flame bait… Yes, yes, we get it. All gun owners are criminals. No crimes committed, yet somehow criminals none the less.

So what I carry? So what you don’t like it? You can stand on the capitol steps and scream in my face how much you hate my wife, my family and how we should all be strung out and lynched just like in the good ole days. So what I don’t like that? That is your right, and I will never, NEVER infringe on your rights. I will just bid you a good day and continue on my way.

[spin]

77. Great reply!!! (n/t)

[Glassunion]

79. I'm sure there would have been more...

But I can't click on quite a few of these posts... This "ignored" person is all over the place... :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

84. After this thread I may have to add numbers 2 & 3 to my list... sadly. n/t

[Glassunion]

87. It helps pave the way to constructive conversations.

I mean really, how many times can you say "WTF!" in a given day?

It's funny how my list of "Ignored"'s tend to stay away from my topics. Are my questions or subject matter too much?

[DainBramaged]

80. All the while carrying your gun because you can.....

how sad the gun is so important to your life, how sad. Most of us in the 4th quarter have made it here without carrying a gun or NEEDING to ever own a gun. And those of you who think guns are the answer to your Constitutional participation are simply the fringe of society. And being on the fringe is not any way to live.


Buh bye gunnie.

[Glassunion]

86. Again... You speculate so well.

Again, I would not dare to speculate about what you think or how you act. Again, I do not know you. Yet for some reason you seem to me to be able to have some sort of magical power to reach through the internet and glean all that there is to know about me.

I appreciate how you emphasized the word sad twice in the same sentence. As if to hammer home how sad you think that my sad life is somehow so sad, very sad.

Again, since I don't know you, why would I care if you made a choice to own or carry a firearm? It is your choice to own or carry or to not own or carry. Need has nothing to do with it. I've never had the opportunity to live in the 4th ward, so I will not speculate as to what it would be like. I did some of my growing up in Kennesaw.

You are correct, your sentence about how all 80+ million (almost 1/3 of the entire nation) people who choose to own firearms are on the fringe. A small tiny little fringe that includes the equivalent of the entire populations(man, woman and child) of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Maryland combined. Your right, just a little fringe.

I'm not sure of your definition of fringe, but if it means "A whole friken lot of people" then yes, I will agree we are on the fringe.

If we go by my definition of fringe, I would not say that I exist on the fringe. But even if I did, what business of it is yours to decide what rights I exercise? I believe in and exercise all of my rights afforded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What's so wrong with that? I do nothing to prohibit others from doing the same? Again, what am I doing wrong?

Thanks for your input.

[proteus_lives]

109. 80 million owners, fringe?

Gunnies? Bigot-flavor speech. I shudder to think of you call black people.

You control-types are the ones tilting at windmills. That's why you're all so sad and bitter.

[spin]

116. At the rate gun ownership is increasing...

you may soon be the fringe.

[farmout rightarm]

135. There are probably not very many bad guys who have a plan to invade your

home-slash-cardboard box.

editing: not an insult, just accepting the information in your profile
\

[slackmaster]

78. Obviously you've never been a lobster

When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?

It's very simple:

Don't buy one.

[Glassunion]

88. Words cannot express the AWSOME!

We buy two, bring em home, let them fight it out. Then we eat the winner. We feed the loser to the cats.

[DrCory]

151. Cue the Star Trek TOS fight theme! N/T

[X_Digger]

152. Lol, yah.. I can see the triskelion in my head..

[NYC_SKP]

85. The FOOD at the Red Lobster is scary. I never wanna have to eat the food again.

It's the worst.

As for guns, hell, they aren't going away no matter what laws we write or penalties we apply.

:patriot:

[K8-EEE]

99. Well, there's that.....

I think they feel if it floats in enough margarine it will seem edible.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. This law hasn't caused problems in the other states that have passed it.

[proteus_lives]

110. Shh, the grabber-oracles are always right.

Bloodbaths! Bloodbaths! Bloodbaths!

[proteus_lives]

104. You have every right to not own or carry guns.

But If I'm not breaking the law, you have no right to tell me not to. It something makes you uncomfortable, then leave.

[SteveM]

117. I've never been afraid of my house burning down. But I "openly carry" insurance...

Sorry, that argument by Whipple misses the whole point. Her feelings are irrelevant, and have little bearing on much of anything.
Concealed-carry is a fact-of-life in most states; expect to see increased liberty in where guns may be taken. Excluding restaurants and other public accommodations means those carrying must repeatedly remove their weapons and (usually) store them in a car where there is increased likelihood of theft. Of course, I support an establishment's right to disallow service to patrons with guns, but if one were to enter such a place it would not be a violation of law; an "offender" could rightly be told to leave or be considered a trespasser, which WOULD be a violation of law.


"When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?"

You have a right to many things -- including a "life without guns" -- in your own home. But you do not "...get a crack at our right to life without guns." There is no such right. You know, for all the talk from gun-controllers about "why do you have so much fear," it strikes me that you needlessly fearful about the presence of guns, since in the vast majority of states guns are already around you. Do you really feel fear? I don't fear that stuff, I fear not having a job or health insurance and being 62 in May.

BTW, I do not have a concealed-carry license. I sleep 8-9 hours a night. I also have a loaded revolver beside my bed.

edit: sp

[DainBramaged]

118. "I also have a loaded revolver beside my bed."

What horrible paranoia. I feel sorry for you. You are the one filled with fear.


Oh and if you think I'm a 'gun controller', fine. It's scarred people like yourself who wind up killing someone accidentally.





:shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. Statistically speaking you are quite wrong with your analysis.

[SteveM]

129. So, what's wrong with the revolver?... And more corrections...

"Paranoia," so widely used and abused as a term, essentially means an unreasonable fear (and its accompanying actions), all out of proportion to the actual threat. By this definition, I am not paranoid. Let me break it down for you:

(1) There is a distinct possibility (though low) of a break-in/home invasion where I live. Heretofore, my plan was to run to the other end of the house should HyperPunks smash their way in. I'll be 62 in May, so that's not such a good plan.

(2) Instead of trying to "outrun" the thug(s), I keep a loaded revolver beside the bed for the unlikely event of a home-invasion.

(3) I sleep soundly, get up and make breakfast (today, pan-fried venison nuggets, grits and egg) & hot tea (Constant Comment, pekoes and raw honey), answer silly posts like this, and look forward to what little employment I can muster up. All this capped off by a late lunch and beer at my favorite Austin coffee house (Bouldin Creek Cafe) where I spend time discussing acting and art with people who know more about that stuff.

I'll be frank. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I DON'T think you "feel sorry for (me)." I think you use the term "paranoia" as any parlor psychologist uses this and other such terms: as a moral and stylistic condemnation in order to make others the object of derision. In fact, I think you exhibit quite a bit of anger and unreasonable fear when you say "it's scarred people like yourself who wind up killing someone accidentally." But I'm not a psychologist.

BTW, there is a healthy reason for "fear" (not to be confused with "paranoia"). And my fear of home-invasion? Diminished below even the concern for a house fire. I have insurance for that, too.

Would you like to discuss the nature of "fear" sometime?

[farmout rightarm]

136. "scarred"?

:eyes:

[benEzra]

119. I've never been afraid of being rained on in Red Lobster either...

but if I am concerned about rain while walking there and back, I sort of have to take my umbrella with me, yes? Do you take an umbrella with you in the supermarket on a rainy day because you afraid it's going to be raining inside the supermarket?

Do any of you carry a pepper spray? If so, do you carry it with you in stores and restaurants? If so, why?

[one-eyed fat man]

120. Two questions?

"When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?"

Assuming you are not the last draftee left on active duty, who is forcing you to carry a gun?

If you were somehow able to pass registration and confiscation like in England, how many of the career criminals, gang-bangers, Aryan brotherhood, drug trafficantes, etc do you think would be lining up to drop their ordnance into the smelter?

[jeepnstein]

122. There is no "right to life without guns"...

in the Constitution. I can't find it anywhere in there. Am I overlooking that one?

If what you mean is "When do I get to live my life in a way my feelings cannot ever be hurt because everyone will have to agree with me?" then I can't find that one, either.

[gorfle]

126. You don't.

When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?

You don't.

You do, of course, have complete freedom to choose not to carry a firearm yourself.

But you have no control over people who choose to break the law and carry them around you.

And now, thankfully, you have no control over people who choose to obey the law and carry them around you, either.

That's the thing about gun control. Even if guns were completely outlawed, you still would not have a crack at a life without guns, as they would still be all around you, just in the hands of criminals.

The debate was concluded by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D). "As a final comment, let me just say this. I've really never been afraid for my life at the Red Lobster," she said.

I've never really been afraid of a house fire. But I still have a smoke detector in all the bedrooms and living room of our house. I still have fire extinguishers.

Being prepared for an emergency does not mean you are afraid.

[onehandle]

134. Finally, gun owners can feel comfortable in a restaurant.

It's all about them.

[DainBramaged]

138. It's ALWAYS about them and their 'rights'. WE have to put up with their Right to threaten and

intimidate. Someday, we'll regain control of the Supreme Court, and a well armed militia will be taken literally, not as a cue for the gun industry or paranoid among us to rule the landscape.

[mvccd1000]

140. What else intimidates you, and....

...why do you label gun owners as "scarred" when you're the one who professes to be intimidated by inanimate objects?

[Euromutt]

141. "Their right to threaten and intimidate"?

Allow me to quote the Revised Code of Washington, Section 9.41.270 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270):

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

Emphasis in bold mine. I cite the RCW because Washington is where I live, but I'm sure other states have similar statutes.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to display or draw any firearm in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another."
If I were to do so in this state, I could be spend up to a year in jail, be fined up to $5,000, or both; I will have my Concealed Pistol License revoked, and the court may order me to forfeit the firearm(s) in question. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay with that.

Hopefully this establishes that I don't have a "right to threaten and intimidate," nor do I desire it. But I can't help it if you feel threatened despite my not "manifesting an intent" to do so, that is entirely your problem, not mine, nor the state's.

[FLAprogressive]

137. well congratulations to her?

[Callisto32]

142. On your own property.

A right to life without guns is not a right. It cannot be a right because it imposes upon other people, not just requiring them to leave you alone. If you have a right to not be around guns in public, you have a right to force me to not carry one. That makes me your slave, because you have control over my actions when I am harming no one.

[Taitertots]

153. Is this fear mongering or cowardice? Probably both

The homicide rates speak for themselves. You are better off in a room filled with CPL holders than average people or police.


"When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?"
Who told you that you have a right to life without guns? They are not constitutional scholars to say the least.

[quickesst]

154. I'll give it a shot....

"When do those of us who don't need to or want to carry guns, or want to be exposed to them, get a crack at our right to life without guns?"

I could say as soon as someone waves a magic wand and all the bad guys lose their desire to use guns for violence against other human beings. That won't happen, so I will appeal to logic. I understand that you, and most likely everyone who participates in this thread will go through life without an incident occurring while dining out, but I would wager that if anyone of the aforementioned were at some point placed into a situation where a disgruntled/crazy/extremist individual decided take human lives at random, and you, your mate, or one or more of your children were chosen to be next, you, and everyone reading this thread would have wished a responsible, and responsive citizen would stand and with one shot save the ones you love. I have never understood the left's willingness to sacrifice their family for ideology having never been faced with the actuality of it. I believe that willingness would disappear rather quickly. Thanks.
quickesst