Guns in Bars

[JohnRich 4]

This news story reminded me of this thread:

Man Tries to Rob Bar, Then Gets Stabbed

"According to police, a 20-year-old Hispanic man pulled out a gun and demanded wallets and cell phones from six customers who were in the bar's patio. Then, the customers attacked the gunman and one of them stabbed him with a pocketknife..."

Full story: News Channel 9

[rhaig 0]

what??? knives aren't banned in bars??? oh dear...

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Still waiting on this BTW:

Quote

Voting is not a right. There is no such Federal Right that says so

Especially in light of this:

Article I, Section II, Clause I

Amendment XV

Amendment XVII

Amendment XIX

Amendment XXIV

And still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"

You could just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about... Or you could just continue to ignore how wrong you were.

[SkyDekker 1,278]

But why is the right to vote more important than the right to free speech?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But why is the right to vote more important than the right to free speech?

Why is either right more important than the right to keep and bear arms?

[SkyDekker 1,278]

It isn't.

Now care to answer my question? Why is the right to vote more important than the right to free speech?


(and more importantly, why do you think all these rights should be the same?)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Now care to answer my question? Why is the right to vote more important than the right to free speech?


(and more importantly, why do you think all these rights should be the same?)

I think all of the rights play in harmony with each other. If you remove any ONE of the rights, or limit it so that only a few can exercise those rights, then the system will eventually fail.

You mentioned three of the rights Voting (V), Speech (1), Firearms (2).... So I will just use them as an example, but I feel that all of the original Constitution and first 10 Amendments are included (being that a large number of the other Amendments are clarifying the other two... Blacks right to vote, Womens right to Vote.. Etc).

So lets say that the Govt is starting to act "tyrannical" maybe along the lines of the SC Gov that proposed (She claims in jest):

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."


You can hear it for yourself here: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2011/09/28/10/28/11veHD.So.156.mp3


Lets assume she was serious. So, right now we have three options:
1. Vote her ass out. Option 'V'
2. Ask WTF were you thinking? And verbally bitch slap her. Option '1'.
3. Arm up and storm the mansion and remove her. Option '2'.

So using the 1st Amendment people were able to say "Huh? Are you freaking serious?" Her office was quick to answer that she was just using 'hyperbole'.... I must admit, that I don't buy that... Do you? Listen to the audio again and her inflection, then read the words again.

At any rate, the other side replied already with: “Now is a time when politicians need to be held accountable more than ever. To suspend an election would be removing the surest mechanism that people have to hold politicians accountable: the right to vote. Does the Governor not believe that people of North Carolina have the ability to think for themselves about whether or not the actions of elected officials are working?"

Would you agree? I do. So, the issue should die right there... Free speech WINS! But lets say that somehow the Gov was able to prevent that little clip from making it out and suppressed any opposition to her evil plan.

Well then how would the people know about it till she tried to get legislation? And when the people found out they ran to the polls and tried to punish those idiots. Horrah, voting (option 'V') WINS!!!!!

But lets say that they actually managed to pass the law.... Well that is when the armed citizens come in.

But remove any one of those three and it does not work.

1. Remove the ability to vote her ass out.... And free speech would not matter. Yes, appealing to the Congress and the SC might help... But if you could not vote Congress out and they all appoint the SC... See the issue? Only '2' would work.

2. Remove free speech and no one would know until their ability to vote was already gone.... And without free speech organizing a resistance to her would be difficult. But again, only '2' would work.

3. Arming up and throwing her ass out is the LAST option; the one that protects the right to speak against her and vote her ass out.

I can tie many of the other provisions into this as well....

The 4th protects the right of the citizens to have materials that speak out against her and to have weapons.

The 5th protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. So they have to use due process, not just lock you up and throw away the key.

The 6th is a speedy trial BY JURY and in PUBLIC. So you will not just "disappear" one night.

The 8th prevents them from just locking you up or killing you for an opinion.

The 9th protects the citizen from other infringements

The 10th limits the power of the Federal Govt and gives it to the States or the people. Important since that the FEDERAL Govt covers these rights and protects them. So trying to not let people vote, not be able to speak freely, or have arms.... Is a FEDERAL right and the State can't prevent it (according to the Constitution anyway).

So, is any ONE more important that the others? I tend to think that they are ALL important and ALL needed.

But the 2nd is the ONLY one that provided direct power to the people. The others require a process of Govt. The 2nd is the only one INDEPENDENT of govt process.

Many of these issues can be solved by the 1st Amendment, if it is not solved by it, then you can vote... but if you can't vote and can't speak out against it.... What do YOU think is the only other options?

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

I think all of the rights play in harmony with each other. If you remove any ONE of the rights, or limit it so that only a few can exercise those rights, then the system will eventually fail.

Really? There appear to be quite a few countries which do not have a equivalent of the US right to keep and bear arms, yet have democratically elected countries. Do you think they will all eventually fail, but the US will not?

Why is it that you aren't upset about the limits put on free speech at voting locations? I think that many people would be in a complete uproar if the same limitations were put on the 2nd amendment at the same locations.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Really? There appear to be quite a few countries which do not have a equivalent of the US right to keep and bear arms, yet have democratically elected countries. Do you think they will all eventually fail, but the US will not?

Name me Democratic countries whose Governments are older than the US.

I also never said that the US will not fail.

Quote

Why is it that you aren't upset about the limits put on free speech at voting locations? I think that many people would be in a complete uproar if the same limitations were put on the 2nd amendment at the same locations.

Name me a State that allows a person to carry a gun at a voting location.

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

Name me Democratic countries whose Governments are older than the US.

What does older have to do with this? You claimed that without guns democracy would eventually fail. Hence, I asked my question above. Can you answer it?

Quote

Name me a State that allows a person to carry a gun at a voting location

Once again you don't actually answer the question. You seem to have a habit of doing this. But, I'll answer yours, hopefully you will return the favour. Pennsylvania.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

What does older have to do with this? You claimed that without guns democracy would eventually fail. Hence, I asked my question above. Can you answer it?

And if you bothered to look it up, you would have your answer. Go ahead and try if you really care.

Quote

Once again you don't actually answer the question. You seem to have a habit of doing this. But, I'll answer yours, hopefully you will return the favour. Pennsylvania.

Permit to carry handguns? Yes
You have to have a permit. So it is not allowed, unless you have a permit.

Still waiting for you to answer which Govts are older than the US.

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

And if you bothered to look it up, you would have your answer. Go ahead and try if you really care.

Look what up? Which democracy will fail in the future? Still refuse to answer my question I see.

Quote

You have to have a permit. So it is not allowed, unless you have a permit.

Which once again has nothing to do with the discussion. Which is why the right to vote is more important that the right to free speech?

Quote

Still waiting for you to answer which Govts are older than the US.

I am still waiting for answers from you too....going to provide them?

Il give you a hint though. The Magna Carta was enacted before the Declaration of Independence.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Look what up?

I have already explained it to you once.... Go read back a few posts and then actually do something instead fo dodging the question.

Quote

Still refuse to answer my question I see

I have answered it, you refuse to see it.

Quote

I am still waiting for answers from you too....going to provide them?

I already have provided them.

Quote

Il give you a hint though. The Magna Carta was enacted before the Declaration of Independence

SEE, you DO get it.... BUT:

Formation
- Acts of Union 1707 1 May 1707
- Acts of Union 1800 1 January 1801

So while the Maga Carta was sealed in 1215.. It did NOT provide the current system of Govt. In fact it was only actually active for about three mths. (Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition (1992) p1_

You should maybe read up on the Petition of Right of 1628 where Charles I said he could basically ignore the MC. And maybe you should read up on the people raising up in arms in 1642 and 1689 (English Civil War).

The Parliament of Great Britain was formed in 1707.

And you should REALLY look in the Acts of Union 1800. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801... 1801 < 1787

Care to try again?

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

The Parliament of Great Britain was formed in 1707.

Quote

Care to try again?

Indeed.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The Magna Carta was enacted before the Declaration of Independence.

That's a filthy lie. The US won the Magna Carta in the Gulf War with Sweden. That's how we got all that chocolate.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Indeed.

It seems you just continue to ignore things you can't answer.... Like the Acts of Union 1800.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801... 1801 < 1787

[DaVinci 0]

BTW just for you:

France. Independence in 1792, Constitution in 1958 (Constitution of the Fifth Republic).
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by either 5 years or 171 years depending on how you want to look at it.

Germany 1945.
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by 158 years

Finland December 1917 (from Russia)
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by 130 years

Netherlands 1815 Constitution
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by 28 years

Sweden 1975 Constitution
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by 188 years

Switzerland A constitution of 1848 modified 1874. Approved by the Federal Parliament 18 December 1998, adopted by referendum 18 April 1999, officially entered into force 1 January 2000
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older by 61 or 213 years depending on how you want to look at it.

Spain Constitution approved by legislature 31 October 1978; passed by referendum 6 December 1978; signed by the king 27 December 1978
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older 191 years

Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 and the Constitution Act of 17 April 1982, which transferred formal control over the constitution from Britain to Canada.
US Constitution 1787
US Govt is older 80 years or 195 depending on how you look at it.

UK (this is a difficult one since they have no 'official' Constitution) (Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act establishes current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in April 1927.
Acts of Union 1800 1 January 1801

So even if I gave you the UK Govt being older (and ignoring the Acts of Union 1800 and Parliamentary Titles Act...) that would be ONE.

Care to try and find a few others?

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Quote

that would be ONE.

Which was the challenge, find ONE.
Thanks for playing.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Which was the challenge, find ONE.

And I said IF I give that one to you.....

Face it, you have failed. You can only try to claim a victory if I grant you something that is actually not true.

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

Guns in bars cause no problems

"Almost a month ago, at midnight on Sept. 30, Senate Bill 17 became law, allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their concealed handguns into places where alcohol is served, as long as they don’t drink.

"And so far, the law hasn’t resulted in problems or violations, according to law agencies in the area.

"'We haven’t had any problems yet,' said Huron County sheriff’s Lt. Theresa Shean. 'What I am truly finding is that people who come in for permits are responsible people, and they are very concerned in carrying out their rights in a responsible way...'"

Full story: Morning Journal

[quade 4]

Quote

Update:

Guns in bars cause no problems

"Almost a month ago, at midnight on Sept. 30, Senate Bill 17 became law, allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their concealed handguns into places where alcohol is served, as long as they don’t drink.

"And so far, the law hasn’t resulted in problems or violations, according to law agencies in the area.

"'We haven’t had any problems yet,' said Huron County sheriff’s Lt. Theresa Shean. 'What I am truly finding is that people who come in for permits are responsible people, and they are very concerned in carrying out their rights in a responsible way...'"

Full story: Morning Journal

JR, 30 days is hardly a good sample on this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

30 days is not statistically significant, no. But so far, as observed by local law enforcement, there have been no problems.

Just as blood didn't run in the streets and we didn't return to the old west when concealed handgun laws were passed (now in 49 states), there has not been an incident in the past month, which while not statistically significant, is a milestone of sorts.

--
Rob

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Senate Bill 17 became law, allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their concealed handguns into places where alcohol is served, as long as they don’t drink....

Man: Hey hunny, I'm going to the nudie bar with the guys...

Wife: Ok dear, just as long as you don't look.

Man: Ok, nevermind...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

30 days is hardly a good sample on this.

It's not intended to show any kind of final conclusion, but it does show that there haven't been any problems so far. There was not, as the gun-o-phobes feared and wailed, mass incidents of gun fights in bars. I'm sure an update will be posted in the news at later dates as time goes on with this law.

But here's a question for you: If there had been 20 bar shootings the month after this new law was passed, would you be here saying; "30 days is hardly a good sample on this"?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

JR, 30 days is hardly a good sample on this.

How about 10 years?

http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy

In 2001 the VPC and Bradey group claimed that Michigan making it easier to get a CHL would cause, "gun-toting, trigger-happy citizens loose on the streets." The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Web site describes state reforms like the one enacted in Michigan as "a recipe for disaster."

But.... Violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for *any* kind of misbehavior.... That is ANY to include anything like theft.

A yes, that is not in a bar.... But the same lies were told.

Maybe this?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/

"The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police"

I realize that is only a year, but still all evidence shows your side is wrong.