Show of HandsShow of Hands

DerekWills May 22nd, 2017 1:01pm

We've easily established the following: You can legally have a drink or two while carrying a handgun. If you have one too many, it should be a crime, unless you have already justifiably used it in self-defense. Isn't this policy illogical?

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

commonsense America isnt racist
05/22/17 12:16 pm

If you are planning on going outside your home to drink.....don't have a gun on you. Really easy.

Reply
DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/22/17 12:20 pm

But if he does, it should only be legal if he has to use it? That's asinine.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
05/22/17 7:59 am

Drunk is different from person to person.

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
05/22/17 6:51 am

Extremely so, yes.

Reply
DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/22/17 6:16 am

This is absolutely illogical. The law is designed to establish a line that, once crossed, will begin the criminal justice process. You cannot establish two lines for the same rule of law. This policy means that if you cross the first line, you are a criminal, unless circumstances push you to cross the second line.

Take homicide. There is a line between justifiable homicide and murder. Once you cross the line into murder, we have various degrees by which we punish the murderer, but at no time once the line is crossed will it ever be justifiable homicide again. It would be illogical and semi-paradoxical if we did.

You cannot say that it's illegal to possess a firearm while drunk unless you've already used it against a viable threat. Why? Because that criminalizes the act of doing nothing. Bob blew a .08, but is minding his name own business? Throw his ass in jail because he happens to have a gun on him... that is until Bill attacks him with a knife, then he's good to go... 🙄

.

Reply
musicotic Michigan
05/22/17 6:37 am

Fine. Then take the policy away. Bob is breaking the law when he defends himself from Billy, because he is drunk and using a gun. That's what you want right? People getting arrested for defending themselves?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/22/17 6:45 am

Nope. I want victimless acts to not be criminal acts.

How long does Bob get to be immune from arrest following his justifiable use of force? He's still drunk, and he's still in possession of a firearm. Is it that he only has a certain time limit to go home? Or does he have until midnight? Or is he immune from arrest for 24 hours? Or is it that he's immune until he gets home, but if he leaves again, he gets arrested? What happens after the fact?

thebarr
05/22/17 6:08 pm

In the act of defending oneself I would overlook a lot of things. If Amy killed an attempted rapist with a heroin filled syringe, beat him to death with a brick of cocaine, or used a lethal neurotoxin on him I'd probably overlook them all. Nevertheless I'm not convinced that it should be legal to stroll around with these things on your person.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
05/22/17 6:58 pm

I just don't understand why everyone wants to control acts that don't have any effect on anyone else.... the same goes for drugs.

thebarr
05/23/17 2:55 am

When the junky shows up in the ER I'm not willing to send them off to die, so I want to take care of it on the front end. But I see your point.