Guns allowed in bars in the news

[XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX]

If everyone is saying the same thing about your writing and you are the only common denominator, I would suggest you might learn to write instead.

not everyone is saying the same thing, infact just you and portias are saying it , again your inability to comprehend what is bieng said.
I niether have the inclination or determination to argue what I am saying with someone who clearly is not going to listen what I am bluntly telling them. drinking does not = getting drunk nor have I claimed such a thing how could you not understand that.

 

[Peacekeeper]

But, some people are fully functional with a BAC of .08, while others would find tying their own shoes difficult at .02.
alcohol affects different people in different ways.
There have been people who passed field sobriety tests with BAC's well above .08, and others who failed horribly being under that "Exact Mark"

I have witnessed a man pass an FST and was later found to have a BAC in excess of .32

I agree with what you are saying here. But do we really want a LEO to decide who is too drunk and who is not. .08 is not perfect. It would be the same for everyone.

 

[Rich B]

I agree with what you are saying here. But do we really want a LEO to decide who is too drunk and who is not. .08 is not perfect. It would be the same for everyone.

And regardless, what is the harm if someone is carrying while over .08? Sure, there is potentially an increased risk, but that still comes down to personal responsibility. I don't see how it infringes upon anyone else's right.

 

[Peacekeeper]

Why do you feel it is your place to judge who is 'too drunk to carry in a bar'?

Exactly! It's not my place to judge. Or anyone elses either. How could anyone including a LEO possibly know how much any one person can drink without being impaired. Or for that matter how much that person had to drink. .08 would be the same for everyone.

 

[Rich B]

Exactly! It's not my place to judge. Or anyone elses either. How could anyone including a LEO possibly know how much any one person can drink without being impaired. Or for that matter how much that person had to drink. .08 would be the same for everyone.

You say that like it means something. Different people handle alcohol differently. .08 is not the same for everyone.

 

[protias]

I obviously read the above statement differently than most of you, especially spartacus.

The way I see the above statement is that if you are forced to shoot someone to defend your life or that of another, the fact that there is alcohol in your blood should have no bearing on the incident if everything else is justified.

I'll spell it out to the ones who are a little thick and have trouble understanding.
Lets say I am out for dinner with the GF and we each had a cocktail, we leave, get home, then on my way from the car to my house I am confronted and attacked by someone and need to defend myself. Just because I have a measurable amount of alcohol in my system it should not prohibit me from using my firearm for defensive purposes.

I am quite sure that is what was originally meant by Protias , but of course spartacus has to take everything to extremes just to create an argument.,

That is what I meant Nutczak. Now let's expand this even further than just bars. How about you are drinking at home? Let's say your BAC is .15 and someone breaks into your house? Do you then lose your right to defend yourself? Absolutely not! Why should alcohol in your system deny self preservation?

 

[XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX]

How could anyone including a LEO possibly know how much any one person can drink without being impaired.

which is exactly why it should not be allowed.

 

[Peacekeeper]

And regardless, what is the harm if someone is carrying while over .08? Sure, there is potentially an increased risk, but that still comes down to personal responsibility. I don't see how it infringes upon anyone else's right.

An interesting point! A drunk can carry their car keys but aren't commiting a crime until they drive. Could this be the same for firearms? Can a person be too drunk to protect themselves?

 

[Rich B]

which is exactly why it should not be allowed.

-1

 

[Rich B]

An interesting point! A drunk can carry their car keys but aren't commiting a crime until they drive. Could this be the same for firearms? Can a person be too drunk to protect themselves?

I thought it went without saying that we were all adults and should be allowed to carry on as adults unless we prove to be otherwise unable.

 

[XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX]

An interesting point! A drunk can carry their car keys but aren't commiting a crime until they drive. Could this be the same for firearms? Can a person be too drunk to protect themselves?

the key analogy does not work, do you carry your car around ? carry the bullet but not the gun is the same as carrying key but not car.

lol, do you really need to ask if someone can be too drunk to protect themself ? (again having a right is not the same as having an ability) Oddly enough it is illegal to drink and drive yet ALOT of people likely including yourself do it anyway, why ? to drunk to know better ?

 

[Rich B]

the key analogy does not work, do you carry your car around ? carry the bullet but not the gun is the same as carrying key but not car.

Of course it works. We trust you to not use those keys to drive drunk. That is the point. The keys are no more dangerous to anyone than a holstered firearm is.

lol, do you really need to ask if someone can be to drunk to protect themself ? (again having a right is not the same as having an ability)

I have not seen anyone argue this.

Oddly enough it is illegal to drink and drive yet ALOT of people likely including yourself do it anyway, why ? to drunk to know better ?

This might be the worst statement made yet.

 

[KBCraig]

Every internet discussion involving guns and alcohol just proves that alcohol really does turn people into stupid angry belligerant morons.

And that's just the people who don't drink.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Oddly enough it is illegal to drink and drive yet ALOT of people likely including yourself do it anyway, why ?

Not generally true. There are a few classes of people effectively prohibited from "drink and drive" by their prohibition of a BAC>0.0, but in every other case in Wisconsin Statutes the prohibition is expressed in terms of intoxication, impairment or some BAC permitting some alcohol in their blood.

Please provide a citation to a Wisconsin Statute making it "illegal to drink and drive."

 

[Spartacus]

Please provide a citation to a Wisconsin Statute making it "illegal to drink and drive."

Since you love picking nits, open containers of alcohol are illegal in any motor vehicle so it is indeed specifically illegal to drink and drive.

 

[hardballer]

There is some discourse concerning "should a drunk person be able to defend themselves." Sure. The problem is that a drunk person, even a little drunk, may, can, will make decisions that he or she would not make sober. Did you really need to pull your gun and fire 9 rounds of .45ACP into the goblin? Did you need to fire two rounds into the goblin? Did you need to fire at all? Should you have shot him in the back? How'd that happen? What were you thinking. Oh... it was your neighbor returning your chainsaw. Bad deal for your neighbor. Oh, it was your daughter's boy friend, bad deal for him for sure.

Is it really that hard to see where this is leading? Is their anyone writing in this thread that still mistakenly believes that they are not 'really' drunk with just two measly drinks? There are so many studies and informal tests out their it isn't even funny. You are impaired after two drinks. Some thirty years ago, I volunteered to spend a day doing shots for a closed course motorcycle test. Extra -curricular for MC school. Not bad work if you can get it. This was also done for some MC rag.

One shot in an hour, then two in an hour and then three in an hour. Well you can guess where this is leading, At one, I immediately was a bit impaired. But it wore off by the hours end. Two in an hours time (15 minutes apart) and I was slowing down significantly on reaction times. 3, well, maybe not shjt faced but drunk. Greatly impaired reaction times and judgement out the window. 4 shots within an hour and the crew would not let me get on the bike though I thought I could do it. I felt prudy good.

The point here is that a long time ago, I learned that anyone who claims to be 'OK' after a few drinks is full of BS. Period. No Discussion. That is not just based on my own personal experience but a life time of observations.

So, again, sure a drunk person should be able to defend themselves. Are they open to a shjt load of bad litigation? Yes they are. Does it make any sense at all to drink and drive? H8ll no. Not even one. Sure people do it. Some get tickets, some don't. In my opinion, if you are behind the wheel of a car or are carrying, you should be sober. If you choose to do otherwise, well, I have other opinions.

 

[J.Gleason]

Since you love picking nits, open containers of alcohol are illegal in any motor vehicle so it is indeed specifically illegal to drink and drive.

Spartacus, Cite your source please! Give us a state statute which prohibits an open container in a vehicle other than that which refers to minors.

Stop making up your own laws and statutes in an attempt to make others here believe that you are the "All Knowing and Great and Powerful OZ." When in fact most of the time you are wrong.

 

[Spartacus]

Spartacus, Cite your source please! Give us a state statute which prohibits an open container in a vehicle other than that which refers to minors.

Stop making up your own laws and statutes in an attempt to make others here believe that you are the "All Knowing and Great and Powerful OZ." When in fact most of the time you are wrong.

I never said open containers were a state statute, I said it was illegal:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/new-fact-sheet03/OpenContainer.pdf

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/statepatrol/enforcement/faqs-enforcement.htm

 

[Spartacus]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

 

[Brass Magnet]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack.

I doubt he's lying, but one wonders why he doens't just enable automatic logon so he doesn't have to see them.:question:

Why did Gleason even have to ask you to follow forum rules by citing to authority? Shouldn't you just do that? You shouldn't need to get "called out" over and over again for not following forum rules. At least you finally did follow them, after prodding.

In any case, there IS a statute.........

*sigh*

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/stat0346.pdf
346.935

In the very least, if you don't have a cite, don't make it sound like what you say is absolutely correct. Say you can't find a cite, (or more likely are too lazy to look for one) and that you THINK you are correct.

One of the biggest reasons this forum is successful is because people cite to authority with which one can be educated on the facts and not the opinions or unsubstantiated claims of other users.

It's not in the rules but it wouldn't hurt to back up some of your opinions with facts either.........