Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[ColdDayInHell]

Friendly fire, isn't.

+1

 

[Radtekk]

Drinking and driving is just plain stupid. I don't drink all that much, don't like the feeling of being out of control. The liability of carrying while under the influence is HUGE! I have a gunvault in my car so I can secure my weapon when needed (post office, dropping something at my daughter's school, etc) if I was at a bar and had a few, into the vault it goes, and if I got stopped and asked "Do you have any weapons on you?" the answer would be a simple and honest "No". If I got arrested, only then would I tell them what is in the car.

 

[flintoid]

I can't understand people that believe in punishing people for "committing" victim-less crime.

 

[Terminator03]

I can understand the guy being charged with OUI. His actions were bad enough that they caught the attention of the police, and he'll have to answer for his behavior. For the most part, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that he'll basically lose his right to self-defense for doing something stupid that had nothing to do with the gun on his hip.

If he was waving the gun around, firing randomly etc., hold him accountable for that. Nothing that he did directly involved his gun, yet he's going to lose a basic human right by administrative action, that of his licensing officer.

Is it a law? Yes. Is it a fair or just law? No way.

I agree that he did nothing wrong involving the gun itself, and also that he shouldn't be punished for that. That being said, though, it is against the law to be armed while drunk and everyone who carries either knows this, or should know. It is a given that the cops will always tack on whatever charges they can to strengthen their case so it is not unexpected that this guy will lose both his driver's license and LTC for this stupidity given the laws that are in place whether we agree with them, or not.

 

[stinx]

The old Chief in my town used to give everyone who qulified a class A permit with little fanfare. The Chiefs one rule was to stay out of the gin mills while carrying that weapon, If I hear your out whopping it up while carrying, Ill pull your permit so fast your head will spin. The Chief explained it like this: Much like a car is a deadly weapon so is a gun and you need all you facilties clear and uninhibited weather your driving or carrying a gun. Made sense to me way back then,still does today. YMMV

 

[economist]

The old Chief in my town used to give everyone who qulified a class A permit with little fanfare. The Chiefs one rule was to stay out of the gin mills while carrying that weapon, If I hear your out whopping it up while carrying, Ill pull your permit so fast your head will spin. The Chief explained it like this: Much like a car is a deadly weapon so is a gun and you need all you facilties clear and uninhibited weather your driving or carrying a gun. Made sense to me way back then,still does today. YMMV

I give up.

 

[TomH]

The old Chief in my town used to give everyone who qulified a class A permit with little fanfare. The Chiefs one rule was to stay out of the gin mills while carrying that weapon, If I hear your out whopping it up while carrying, Ill pull your permit so fast your head will spin. The Chief explained it like this: Much like a car is a deadly weapon so is a gun and you need all you facilties clear and uninhibited weather your driving or carrying a gun. Made sense to me way back then,still does today. YMMV

Your chief didn't understand liberty at all, and neither do you.

 

[HTRN]

It bears repeating: we need to get rid of these stupid laws. Including arbitary OUI laws.

Alas, we have become a nation of chimps that want the suffocating blanket of the state to keep us warm and safe.... from ourselves.

We have so completly destroyed the idea that was America.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[xtry51]

Personal responsibility. Being banned one stupid law at a time since 1791.

 

[Terminator03]

It bears repeating: we need to get rid of these stupid laws. Including arbitary OUI laws.

Alas, we have become a nation of chimps that want the suffocating blanket of the state to keep us warm and safe.... from ourselves.

We have so completly destroyed the idea that was America.

Sent from my mobile device.

I agree with you for the most part with all of the frivolous laws, but absolutely not with regard to the OUI laws. Wait until your wife, or someone you love gets killed by some drunken a**h***, then get back to me on how you wish there was no punishment for that.

 

[xtry51]

I agree with you for the most part with all of the frivolous laws, but absolutely not with regard to the OUI laws. Wait until your wife, or someone you love gets killed by some drunken a**h***, then get back to me on how you wish there was no punishment for that.

This is a non argument. Once you kill someone there are laws to cover that. No one is saying get rid of manslaughter or murder.

What we are saying is you're better off educating and teaching people to be responsible than you are just passing laws against behavior. Passing laws does not alter behavior, it just criminalizes it. Law does not address the root cause of the problem. Hence we still have drunk driving deaths.

Want to know how well outlawing behavior works in the complete opposite way? Go look at historical drug addiction rates and tell us what year they magically started increasing, and what the rate is now versus when you could buy whatever you wanted.

 

[TReischl]

Your chief didn't understand liberty at all, and neither do you.

I will tell you what "Liberty" is, it is being able to walk into a bar and be FREE from getting shot by some moron who is all boozed up with a gun in his pocket. Maybe YOU can control it, but not everyone can, so why should everyone else be put at risk to protect your precious "liberty"? The BS argument that arresting someone BEFORE any harm has been done is just that, BS. You can argue it like a kid until you are rolling around on the floor turning purple, but very few people in this country want armed people drinking. You can still drink and carry all you want, just not in a public place. If you are married or have a girlfriend, I am sure she is thrilled when you are all boozed up with a gun in your hand.

It bears repeating: we need to get rid of these stupid laws. Including arbitary OUI laws.

Alas, we have become a nation of chimps that want the suffocating blanket of the state to keep us warm and safe.... from ourselves.

We have so completly destroyed the idea that was America.

Sent from my mobile device.

You are one of the few who define those laws as "arbitrary". They are anything but arbitrary. They came about when a whole lot of people got tired of drunk drivers. The chimps are the ones who have the incredibly stupid idea that drinking and driving is a RIGHT. Chimps think they should only be prosecuted after they injure someone else, meanwhile, everyone else should just take their chances, all in the name of protecting the Chimps "freedom". Screw the Chimps.

The rest of us use the state to protect us from Chimps that think carrying guns while drinking and driving intoxicated is ok, as long as you do not harm anyone else...then when they harm someone, they want to lawyer up and worm out of it. Got a news flash for you, there is no separate entity called "the state", it is the rest of the people who are tired of dumbass chimps.

You have no idea what the "idea of America" was. Public drunkeness laws have existed for hundred of years, it is nothing new. You have some fairy tale idea of what America was like.

Personal responsibility. Being banned one stupid law at a time since 1791.

s

Yea, XTry, I took you off ignore a while ago, to watch you whine and snivel like a teenager.

You have this big thing about "personal responsibility" and how the laws are stupid. But I would lay dollars to donuts that if YOU actually injured someone through a stupid act, YOU would be the first one to Lawyer Up, in an effort to protect all your precious freedoms and rights, even though you were wrong. Your tune would be "It is MY right to the best defense I can get, according to the Constitution". You would quickly forget about all that "personal responsibility" crap you preach on this forum.

What the three of you are is a bunch of adults who never quite grew up mentally. You hate authority in any shape manner or form. You just want to do what suits you, when you want to do it. You try to cover your acts with "I am responsible and do the right things, blah, blah, blah." BS. No true responsible person advocates driving while intoxicated or carrying a weapon while drinking. Only fools talk like that, or teenagers.

 

[ochmude]

At that point it becomes a legit crime with victims. Until the exercising of one's rights inhibits another's ability to do the same, there is no crime. This means, unless I have taken, infringed upon, or otherwise destroyed/damaged your life, liberty, or property, there is no crime according to the constitution. Further, any laws that make non-crimes a "crime" are not the law of the land and are not to be followed by free men, but rather by subjects only.

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't that completely eliminate the concept of assault as a crime? If someone shot at you but missed, would they be guilty of something? Is fear of injury or death sufficient to charge someone with a crime in such a situation, even though no actual injury or death has occured? Serious question, you know me well enough to know I'm not just trying to be argumentative.

 

[TReischl]

This is a non argument. Once you kill someone there are laws to cover that. No one is saying get rid of manslaughter or murder.

What we are saying is you're better off educating and teaching people to be responsible than you are just passing laws against behavior. Passing laws does not alter behavior, it just criminalizes it. Law does not address the root cause of the problem. Hence we still have drunk driving deaths.

Want to know how well outlawing behavior works in the complete opposite way? Go look at historical drug addiction rates and tell us what year they magically started increasing, and what the rate is now versus when you could buy whatever you wanted.

Passing laws definitely alters the effect of someones behavior on society. If someone is sitting in jail for ten years, their behavior has very little effect on the rest of society for that ten years. Moreover, many criminals "see the light" while sitting in prison and do change their lives.

Drunk driving deaths have decreased dramatically. About 10,000 per year.

 

[OfficerObie59]

While I don't know that this guy would be the best candidate, I'd actually like to see someone challenge the "being a licensed gun owner carrying a firearm while intoxicated" as void for vaugeness.

 

[TReischl]

Check your sig line.

Nope, no crime in that instance. Once we become okay with the idea of punishing intent, we have lost, IMHO. Shooting at someone and missing them, causing no injury or damage of property is different than beating one to within an inch of their life. One is a "no blood, no foul" situation, where the other actually caused damage (battery). Both have intent and include an attempt at something, but only one is a violation of another's rights.

Best outcome is the guy shoots back and doesn't miss.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying if someone shoots at another person, misses, you think that no crime has been committed?

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

snip...huge long condescending post.

Seriously?

Liberty is the freedom to drink in an establishment that allows 'drinking and carrying' or not.

Don't want to put yourself in that situation? Don't go into that bar. Your definition of 'liberty' is 'security'. Though since you didn't even know the difference between 'Republican and Republic' I'm not surprised.

I have a girlfriend that respects my judgement. I guess we can say your wife/gf wears the pants. You must not CCW because I don't know anyone who does and keeps the gun 'in their hand.' Mines always in the holster and I've enjoyed multiple glasses of wine at home for dinner and it's never jumped out.

What's your infatuation with chimps? If that's how you treat, relate, and describe your fellow human beings you have some serious ego and mental issues.

 

[bill o]

Drunk driving deaths have decreased dramatically. About 10,000 per year.

Probably due to seat belts and better trauma care.

 

[That Guy]

Where I live, that isn't against the law. In fact, like I mentioned in some other thread awhile back, our vehicles often get peppered by birdshot from dove hunters while we're patrolling during the season, and pretty much no one cares. Speaking as a fellow veteran, it's sad that you swore an oath to defend the ideals of freedom upon which this country was built, and you deployed to actively do the same, yet you really have no concept of what this freedom actually feels like. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a genuine expression of sympathy for your situation.

You don't need to feel sympathy for me - I am doing just fine thinking on my own and not being part of the herd mentality. You believe that laws are always bad things without stopping to consider that sometimes a law curtailing your freedom is preventing you from injuring me or my family. Having personally known two people killed by drunk drivers and several others who have been seriously injured by drunk drivers, I don't believe I need to wait until a drunk driver actually kills someone before we charge them with a crime. They are participating in an activity that a reasonable person knows can have terrible results. If you can't see that as a problem, then I don't know what to tell you - you and I are going to disagree.

BTW, check the laws in AZ - it certainly is against the law to randomly fire a gun in the air. It has been since April 2000. And you call yourself a law enforcement officer. I feel nothing but sympathy for you for not knowing the laws of the state where you work. For the federal government that is so oppressive to so many people.

 

[TReischl]

Seriously?

Liberty is the freedom to drink in an establishment that allows 'drinking and carrying' or not.

Don't want to put yourself in that situation? Don't go into that bar. Your definition of 'liberty' is 'security'. Though since you didn't even know the difference between 'Republican and Republic' I'm not surprised.

I have a girlfriend that respects my judgement. I guess we can say you're wife/gf wears the pants. You must not CCW because I don't know anyone who does and keeps the gun 'in their hand.' Mines always in the holster and I've enjoyed multiple glasses of wine at home for dinner and it's never jumped out.

What's your infatuation with chimps? If that's how you treat, relate, and describe your fellow human beings you have some serious ego and mental issues.

I can say the same thing, want to carry and drink? Stay home, don't go in a bar.

No, you cannot say my wife/gf wears the pants, that is an assumption on your part. I do cc, the gun does at some point get in my hand, when I get ready to go to bed at night, it does not stay in the holster.

I have no infatuation with chimps, it seems that one of the others would like to refer to the people of this state as chimps. Just thought I would see how he liked to be categorized as a chimp himself.

 

[TReischl]

Probably due to seat belts and better trauma care.

No, it is measured by the number of accidents that involve booze.

- - - Updated - - -

I've revised my post. I spit it out really quick, and will edit it later.

The person who was shot at has the right to shoot back, which indicates a rights violation, and therefore a legit crime. What that crime should be and how it should be punished is definitely debatable.

Yup, ya had me wondering there!

 

[xtry51]

I will tell you what "Liberty" is, it is being able to walk into a bar and be FREE from getting shot by some moron who is all boozed up with a gun in his pocket. Maybe YOU can control it, but not everyone can, so why should everyone else be put at risk to protect your precious "liberty"? The BS argument that arresting someone BEFORE any harm has been done is just that, BS. You can argue it like a kid until you are rolling around on the floor turning purple, but very few people in this country want armed people drinking. You can still drink and carry all you want, just not in a public place. If you are married or have a girlfriend, I am sure she is thrilled when you are all boozed up with a gun in your hand.



You are one of the few who define those laws as "arbitrary". They are anything but arbitrary. They came about when a whole lot of people got tired of drunk drivers. The chimps are the ones who have the incredibly stupid idea that drinking and driving is a RIGHT. Chimps think they should only be prosecuted after they injure someone else, meanwhile, everyone else should just take their chances, all in the name of protecting the Chimps "freedom". Screw the Chimps.

The rest of us use the state to protect us from Chimps that think carrying guns while drinking and driving intoxicated is ok, as long as you do not harm anyone else...then when they harm someone, they want to lawyer up and worm out of it. Got a news flash for you, there is no separate entity called "the state", it is the rest of the people who are tired of dumbass chimps.

You have no idea what the "idea of America" was. Public drunkeness laws have existed for hundred of years, it is nothing new. You have some fairy tale idea of what America was like.

s

Yea, XTry, I took you off ignore a while ago, to watch you whine and snivel like a teenager.

You have this big thing about "personal responsibility" and how the laws are stupid. But I would lay dollars to donuts that if YOU actually injured someone through a stupid act, YOU would be the first one to Lawyer Up, in an effort to protect all your precious freedoms and rights, even though you were wrong. Your tune would be "It is MY right to the best defense I can get, according to the Constitution". You would quickly forget about all that "personal responsibility" crap you preach on this forum.

What the three of you are is a bunch of adults who never quite grew up mentally. You hate authority in any shape manner or form. You just want to do what suits you, when you want to do it. You try to cover your acts with "I am responsible and do the right things, blah, blah, blah." BS. No true responsible person advocates driving while intoxicated or carrying a weapon while drinking. Only fools talk like that, or teenagers.

Just because you have no sense of responsibility or honor, does not mean everyone else also does not.

I always take responsibility for my actions.

And freedom has nothing to do with being free of danger. That is a fool's argument.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Passing laws definitely alters the effect of someones behavior on society. If someone is sitting in jail for ten years, their behavior has very little effect on the rest of society for that ten years. Moreover, many criminals "see the light" while sitting in prison and do change their lives.

Drunk driving deaths have decreased dramatically. About 10,000 per year.

Screw those 10,000 lives. After all, that's the price of liberty. [/sarcasm]

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." --Thomas Jefferson

In short, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[TReischl]

Run one of THEIR kids over while you are just slightly under the legal limit, lawyer up, and see THEM change their tunes real quick like. Amazing how reality sets in after someone gets run over by a drunk.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

I can say the same thing, want to carry and drink? Stay home, don't go in a bar.

No, you cannot say my wife/gf wears the pants, that is an assumption on your part. I do cc, the gun does at some point get in my hand, when I get ready to go to bed at night, it does not stay in the holster.

I have no infatuation with chimps, it seems that one of the others would like to refer to the people of this state as chimps. Just thought I would see how he liked to be categorized as a chimp himself.

I've proven that I can drink responsibly and carry a weapon at home why shouldn't I do that in a fine dining establishment or bar? What difference is there besides there being other people? Concealed means concealed.

Ya know for someone that's such a stickler for being safe I'm surprised you take the gun out of the holster at night. I just take the holster off with the gun in it.

So, someone drops down and mentions chimps and you decide to throw it back at them. Tell me again how this gives your argument credence?

 

[MassMark]

You don't need to feel sympathy for me - I am doing just fine thinking on my own and not being part of the herd mentality. You believe that laws are always bad things without stopping to consider that sometimes a law curtailing your freedom is preventing you from injuring me or my family. Having personally known two people killed by drunk drivers and several others who have been seriously injured by drunk drivers, I don't believe I need to wait until a drunk driver actually kills someone before we charge them with a crime. They are participating in an activity that a reasonable person knows can have terrible results. If you can't see that as a problem, then I don't know what to tell you - you and I are going to disagree.

BTW, check the laws in AZ - it certainly is against the law to randomly fire a gun in the air. It has been since April 2000. And you call yourself a law enforcement officer. I feel nothing but sympathy for you for not knowing the laws of the state where you work. For the federal government that is so oppressive to so many people.

I have been hit by not one, but two drunk drivers - both incidents injured me severely, including a broken back. Neither were, nor could have been prevented by any drunk driving laws then, or on the books now. The highlight in your post signifies that you have no concept of liberty and likely never will. Herd mentality? If that is the case, than I will gladly stick with my herd and you can stick with the flock...Enjoy.

 

[xtry51]

Run one of THEIR kids over while you are just slightly under the legal limit, lawyer up, and see THEM change their tunes real quick like. Amazing how reality sets in after someone gets run over by a drunk.

If you hit one of my kids I'm having you arrested for hitting them, not because you've been drinking. Again just because you don't stick to your principles does not mean others do not. Stop projecting.

And being against drunk driving laws does not mean I support drunk driving. It simply means I believe people should be left to police themselves.

And I always carry, whether I'm drinking or not. By some miracle I've never drawn my gun and murdered babies and puppies.

 

[TReischl]

Just because you have no sense of responsibility or honor, does not mean everyone else also does not.

I always take responsibility for my actions.

And freedom has nothing to do with being free of danger. That is a fool's argument.

WOW! Do NOT ever comment on my Honor, or responsibility for that matter. You are talking out your butthole, which is normal for you.

Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with being free from danger, duh. If it didn't, I would not be a veteran, what did you think all of us were doing out there? protecting the country from lead infested toys?

Now I remember why I blocked you in the first place. Do you live under some rock that maintains your ignorance at a comfortable level?

- - - Updated - - -

If you hit one of my kids I'm having you arrested for hitting them, not because you've been drinking. Again just because you don't stick to your principles does not mean others do not. Stop projecting.

Your "principles" are like a pair of women's panties on a clotheline, they flutter in the breeze.

 

[HTRN]

This is a non argument. Once you kill someone there are laws to cover that. No one is saying get rid of manslaughter or murder.

What we are saying is you're better off educating and teaching people to be responsible than you are just passing laws against behavior. Passing laws does not alter behavior, it just criminalizes it. Law does not address the root cause of the problem. Hence we still have drunk driving deaths.

Want to know how well outlawing behavior works in the complete opposite way? Go look at historical drug addiction rates and tell us what year they magically started increasing, and what the rate is now versus when you could buy whatever you wanted.

You and Mass2A compliant beat me to it.

I in no way condone operating motor vehicles or firearms in public while under the influence. However a malum prohibitum law that defines some arbitrary value of "intoxication" is just feel-good bullshit that is passed by folks that like to ignore first principles.


Listen, doing something 'bad' with a tool to violate someone else's rights is certainly wrong in society (with or without government.) But to have arbitrary laws about sitting peacefully with a holstered firearm and a glass of bourbon is as much a logical fallacy as "hate-crimes."

I find that, folks that can't get past their emotions have a hard time digging deep into the logical principles of their beliefs and those effects are often times logically invalid.

The chimps comment is borrowed from Doug Casey (than you Doug) and is fitting, as in the middle of the bell curve, most folks just act emotionally and are generally well intentioned, just like chimps.

TReischl, you must feel that you know me personally as you bloviate quite a bit about what I "hate" and what I "do."

I assure you that your assumptions are wildly inaccurate and you have no idea as to whom I am.

I suggest that you sit back and try to squelch your emotions and visceral hate for liberty and re-read my posts. I find my positions only as logically as I can, exclusively from the basis of first principles.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

WOW! Do NOT ever comment on my Honor, or responsibility for that matter. You are talking out your butthole, which is normal for you.

Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with being free from danger, duh. If it didn't, I would not be a veteran, what did you think all of us were doing out there? protecting the country from lead infested toys?

Now I remember why I blocked you in the first place. Do you live under some rock that maintains your ignorance at a comfortable level?

So uhhh, I think we can all agree that the Native Americans had pretty expansive freedoms.

Tell me again how their lives were free of dangers.