DanG 1 #51 August 17, 2011 Oddly, in Virginia there is not such thing as a bar, at least under the law. All public establishments must derive at least 50% of their revenue from food sales. The only places that a visitor would recognize as a bar are technically private clubs, where you must pay a "membership fee" (cover charge) and have your name recorded as a club member. Places like that can serve all the alcohol they want. I'm not sure how the gun laws apply to clubs. Of course, there are some restaurants that have a separate room set up as a bar (even with a separate entrance) but they always have to have a true restaurant on the premises, too. It's weird. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #52 August 17, 2011 Quote I think everyone agrees that we don't want drunks with guns. So you are not in favour of the Virginia law that allows those who carry openly to get drunk in a restaurant/bar? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #53 August 17, 2011 QuoteI am having a tough time trying to understand the logic behind being allowed to consume alcohol when your gun is out in the open, but not when it is under your jacket. i believe its so everyone is informed of the company they are keeping. just my interpretation. This way you can leave if your not comfortable with people armed and drinking. if concealed you dont have the option to leave because you dont know."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #54 August 17, 2011 Fair enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #55 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWyoming just went to open concealed carry in July. I'm still waiting to hear about them going 'Wild Wild West.' What does "open concealed" mean? They allowed concealed carry with no permit. (I assume that is what it means). You can still get a permit if you want it to establish reciprocity with other states. It was an error. There is "Concealed Carry" and "Open Carry" of which Wyoming is the latter. They are not mutually exclusive. Virginia allows open carry (no permit required). It also allows concealed carry with a permit. The rules are a little different. Please read the entire reply. I was addressing the term "Open Concealed" of which there is none. There are two categories that are mutually exclusive in definition, but not necessarily exclusive in practice - Open Carry and Concealed Carry.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd yet, you tried to say that the non-weapon specific data trended opposite of the weapon specific data that you didn't even have access to. I said no such thing. Sad attempt to create a strawman. "My research reveals trends that suggest otherwise." Your words, post 12. QuoteQuoteAny intelligent person wouldn't have tried to rebut without the data in hand to support the point. Rebut? The numbers I provided can be argued both ways. They are without bias. If you were able to look at the data and fully comprehend, you would see that. All crime data vs. specific crime data - your scope is overbroad. QuoteQuoteIs that so you can call *them* "poopieheads" when they show your "debate" to be without merit, too? I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that you tend to argue without merit. You have the propensity to create a strawman argument. Debunked above with your own words. QuoteThat, in itself, is childish So, insulting someone that disagrees with your summation is what you consider to be "mature" debate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #57 August 17, 2011 QuoteThose studies have alredy been done. CCW has been around for quite a while now, is in place in 49 out of 50 states, many for more than a decade, and none of them have seen sufficient problems caused by it to warrant considering removal of the program. Furthermore, crime stats nationwide are at a 30-year low. Do a search on my posts here with titles like "More Guns, Less Crime". There's no longer any question about this - it's a settled matter - in favor of guns. The statistics from the B.O.J. suggest trends. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/fjsrc/var.cfm?ttype=trends&agency=USMS&db_type=ArrestsFed&saf=IN For persons arrested and booked for violent offenses from 1998 - 2009 1999 - 4,254 2000 - 4,250 2001 - 4,843 2002 - 4,723 2003 - 4,338 2004 - 4,587 2005 - 4,243 2006 - 4,301 2007 - 4,318 2008 - 4,231 2009 - 4,550 Weapons offense, 1998 - 2009 1999 - 4,268 2000 - 5,203 2001 - 6,007 2002 - 7,488 2003 - 9,202 2004 - 9,936 2005 - 9,560 2006 - 9,023 2007 - 8,657 2008 - 8,426 2009 - 8,308 To be fair, the data I am displaying is a summary of nation wide data compiled by the D.O.J. and does not reflect individual States. However, it does reflect trends, nation wide, in the two categories I included. One can conclude in either direction if the law is effective or not. If the law is to protect a "personal freedom" then the use of "personal freedom" is a misnomer in naming the law as such. CCW is a privilege. Just as a drivers license can be revoked, so can a CCW permit. That, in effect, makes it a privilege."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #58 August 17, 2011 Mike, as I have clarified for you, as others seem to understand my point, the data in the article did not tell the whole story as it focused on but one year, only guns, and the fear of a blood bath. However, I agree with the article that there were no "blood baths." QuoteSo, insulting someone that disagrees with your summation is what you consider to be "mature" debate. Your lack of critical input only insults yourself. You tend to do so in every thread as you create strawmen, regardless what another may post. I appreciate that John Rich can debate this and realize that I am not attempting to negate the law, but only looking at the data that I have found. I would appreciate tables that reflect either way on the subject. That said, I am in favor of gun ownership, as I am a gun owner. I would never willfully surrender my gun if guns were banned across the board. I fully support the the Bill of Rights and believe that our country should be guided by the constitution and not by special interest groups."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #59 August 17, 2011 QuoteOddly, in Virginia there is not such thing as a bar, at least under the law. All public establishments must derive at least 50% of their revenue from food sales. The only places that a visitor would recognize as a bar are technically private clubs, where you must pay a "membership fee" (cover charge) and have your name recorded as a club member. Places like that can serve all the alcohol they want. I'm not sure how the gun laws apply to clubs. Of course, there are some restaurants that have a separate room set up as a bar (even with a separate entrance) but they always have to have a true restaurant on the premises, too. It's weird. I grew up in Virginia (Roanoke) back in the 60's, and they were weird back then too. They had "blue laws" which forced all businesses to close on Sundays, in deference to religious interests. Hard liquor in the bottle was sold in state-run stores only - no private businesses. You could get 3.2% beer at age 18, but had to wait until 21 to get 6.4% - so we teenagers just drank twice as much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #60 August 17, 2011 QuoteIf the law is to protect a "personal freedom" then the use of "personal freedom" is a misnomer in naming the law as such. CCW is a privilege. Just as a drivers license can be revoked, so can a CCW permit. That, in effect, makes it a privilege. So then there's no such thing as constitutional rights? You're saying that because those rights can be revoked if someone abuses them, we should instead adopt the term "constitutional privileges"? The Constitution doesn't really have a Bill of Rights, it's just a Bill of Privileges? Because we can be executed if we commit a heinous crime, that citizens don't really have a right to life - all they really have is a privilege to life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #61 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf the law is to protect a "personal freedom" then the use of "personal freedom" is a misnomer in naming the law as such. CCW is a privilege. Just as a drivers license can be revoked, so can a CCW permit. That, in effect, makes it a privilege. So then there's no such thing as constitutional rights? You're saying that because those rights can be revoked if someone abuses them, we should instead adopt the term "constitutional privileges"? The Constitution doesn't really have a Bill of Rights, it's just a Bill of Privileges? Actually, to be honest, I am in more favor of Constitutional carry as it does reflect the premise of the 2nd amendment. Permits reduces the "Right to Carry" to a privilege."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #62 August 17, 2011 QuoteBecause we can be executed if we commit a heinous crime, that citizens don't really have a right to life - all they really have is a privilege to life? Sounds like the reality of this country to me. You only have "rights" so long as your current goobermint allows you the privilege of exercising them. Those rights can be restricted to the point of being essentially non-existent.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #63 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause we can be executed if we commit a heinous crime, that citizens don't really have a right to life - all they really have is a privilege to life? Sounds like the reality of this country to me. You only have "rights" so long as your current goobermint allows you the privilege of exercising them. Those rights can be restricted to the point of being essentially non-existent. Correct. That is why I brought up the legality of the CCW permit as I believe that it effectively nullifies the 2nd amendment and favors those who oppose the right to bear arms."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 August 17, 2011 QuoteYour lack of critical input only insults yourself. You tend to do so in every thread as you create strawmen, regardless what another may post. So, stating that your data selection is overbroad for your summation is a strawman... got it. QuoteI appreciate that John Rich can debate this and realize that I am not attempting to negate the law, but only looking at the data that I have found. I must have missed where I stated that you wanted to negate the law. Can you point that out for me, or could that possibly be a .... *gasp* strawman? QuoteI would appreciate tables that reflect either way on the subject. That said, I am in favor of gun ownership, as I am a gun owner. I would never willfully surrender my gun if guns were banned across the board. I fully support the the Bill of Rights and believe that our country should be guided by the constitution and not by special interest groups. This, I agree with...as with your statements about concealed carry permits in general.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #65 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuote I think everyone agrees that we don't want drunks with guns. So you are not in favour of the Virginia law that allows those who carry openly to get drunk in a restaurant/bar? There is no law that allows drinking while open carrying. It is just not specifically prohibited. It is legal to drink while open carrying in Virginia. It is illegal to be in posession of a firearm while intoxicated."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #66 August 17, 2011 Quote Quote I think everyone agrees that we don't want drunks with guns. So you are not in favour of the Virginia law that allows those who carry openly to get drunk in a restaurant/bar? That question insults the intelligence of some readers here. Oh wait, irony and joke and such .... ? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 August 17, 2011 Thanks for clarifying Southern Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #68 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteBecause we can be executed if we commit a heinous crime, that citizens don't really have a right to life - all they really have is a privilege to life? Sounds like the reality of this country to me. You only have "rights" so long as your current goobermint allows you the privilege of exercising them. Those rights can be restricted to the point of being essentially non-existent. That's where the concept of "natural" rights comes in. We don't have such rights only because the beneficent government grants them to us, and subject to be taken away at the government's whim. We have these rights because they are like laws of nature, or God-given if you want to use that term. The government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #69 August 17, 2011 QuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. You can attempt to rewrite history any way you wish to, but the facts simply are not on your side when it comes to this.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. Prove your assertion with quotes from the Constitution and BOR, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. Prove your assertion with quotes from the Constitution and BOR, then. So . . . then . . . you were ok with slavery before you were against it?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. Prove your assertion with quotes from the Constitution and BOR, then. So . . . then . . . you were ok with slavery before you were against it? Show the text and make your case, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #73 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. Prove your assertion with quotes from the Constitution and BOR, then. So . . . then . . . you were ok with slavery before you were against it? Show the text and make your case, then. You doubt that at one time slavery was allowed by the US Constitution? Seriously? http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 August 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe government, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognizes the existance of those natural rights - but it is not creating them itself. Those rights exist independent of whatever the government says. Oh dear, no. That is not now, nor has it ever been the way it worked. Prove your assertion with quotes from the Constitution and BOR, then. So . . . then . . . you were ok with slavery before you were against it? Show the text and make your case, then. You doubt that at one time slavery was allowed by the US Constitution? Seriously? http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html You're claiming that the 13th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights? Seriously? Ok, then - show where the 13th amendment granted the right of freedom to the former slaves, vice abolishing the practice of slavery. And NO, the *outcome* of either action being the same does not count. Prove your argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #75 August 17, 2011 Mike, you are beyond arguing with. I hearby pledge that from this day forward when it comes to having any sort of intelligent conversation, I will attempt to just ignore your ass. I might not make it, but I'm certainly going to try.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
