Guns in Bars

I’ve been following this for a real long time now, and I guess this is just the typical result of partisanship. There is one reason and one reason only for a law outlawing guns in bars: to keep guns out of bars. If a client in a bar, whether or not you can prove he is drinking at the moment, is carrying – then the police and/or proprietor have an obligation to rectify that situation.

So, I’m with all the righty bloggers who disagree with the “keeping guns out of restaurants that incidentally serve alcohol to some patrons” law and look forward to the override of Bredesen’s promised veto.

But really… sensible people trying to figure out what to do to insure the public safety without treading on the right to self-defense could have easily and quickly realized that the solution would be a law that bans guns in bars but not in restaurants that incidentally serve alcohol to some patrons.

The public would be safer, and my Google Reader would therefore have been about 2000 posts lighter on posts titled alternatively “Guns in Bars” and “Guns in Restaurants”.

7 comments to Guns in Bars

  • And why do people need guns in restaurants?

  • Self defense, and to prevent theft from an unattended vehicle, I guess. And because it is their Constitutional right to keep & bear arms.

  • Scenario – you live on 10th st & decide to walk down to the City Cafe at about 9:00 pm for a bite. Plenty of opportunity to get mugged, beaten, raped, killed on the way to & from. Are they going to provide a secure lock-box outside the door for you to keep your weapon while you pop inside to eat?

  • RW

    And why do people need guns in restaurants?

    Why do women with zero health issues “need” abortions in the 3rd trimester?

  • RW – what is Georgia law on 3rd trimester abortions? I’m just curious – reading about Dr. Tiller’s homicide, I learned that Kansas law bans 3rd trimester abortions unless the woman faces grave health risks from carrying to term, or unless the fetus is not viable.

    I also read this from a friend of someone who elected for (but eventually didn’t have to use) a late-term abortion.

  • RW


    I really have no clue. Of all the subjects out there, abortion ranks near the bottom on my care-o-meter. However, it is the perfect vehicle to use when discussing various political topics with people as a virtual mirror to an almost endless cadre of intellectual inconsistency (not that I’m charging it in this case, at all, just throwing it out there to make someone who may be of that mindset to think “wait a minute, what WOULD I say in that situation”?)

    Right now, abortion rights are the law of the land & the arguments over the subject pertain to various impediments/delays put forth in getting the varying types of abortions secured. Likewise, private gun ownership is the law of the land & the arguments over the subject pertain to various impediments/delays put forth in getting the varying types of guns/carrying procedures secured.

    So, whenever someone uses the “why does someone need….” argument in the context of, say, guns, X-dollars in salary, X type of automobile, etc., which is almost always put forth in an attempt to foment an anecdotal emotional response to curtailing someone else’s rights (“they don’t really ‘need’ that), the virtual mirror that I prefer to use is “well, if we’re going to use ‘need’ as a basis of curtailing that which is not only personal property but that which is legally guaranteed as a constitutional right” and see if the person using the argument is intellectually consistent or simply using hyperbole in an attempt to score political points.

    BTW, thanks for the link. As you know, I’m not ardently pro-life (I’ve voted in the past for Zell Miller, Max Cleland, Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdell, all of whom are/were pro-choice at the time – Zell has since viewed his grandkids’ ultrasound & is pro-life) but I am of a mind that PBB’s should be banned with the exceptions of medical conditions, much like put forth in the story you linked (and, no, not the ‘health’ cop-out….I’m hip to that game). However, this sent portion sent chills down my spine: “Most of these abortions are abortions of wanted, loved, even named babies, and they are caused by tragic circumstances. Nobody talks about them, few people defend them, fewer find a calling to provide them”

    Imagine, RW reaching to find the virtual mirror, if I were to type as a response to one of your recent postings, “[m]ost of these death penalty executions are guilty people, and they are caused by tragic circumstances…”

    The “Most” thing flew off the screen. Shouldn’t it be “all”?

    Any way, didn’t want to turn this into an abortion discussion, but rather a “hey, if you are willing to infringe on others’ rights by claiming that they may not need them, be prepared for them to do the same to you” argument. And, no, I have no problem with various forms of oversight to gun ownership OR abortion. I try, even though I fail at times, to remain intellectually consistent.

  • Just always remember that in a gun free zone the man with the gun is king.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>