5 Replies to “CSGV: Intoxicated Families? Really?”

  1. Wow. Even discounting the horrific grammar involved in that travesty of a sentence, I wonder how Ladd Everitt feels about the Virginia House allowing intoxicated people to operate multi-ton pieces of equipment filled with combustible liquids around Virginian families…




    0



    0
  2. While the CSGV usually steams me something fierce, This time I have to agree. Unless the bill was spiked because of something legitimate (i.e. other more onerous statutes or pork attachments), I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with them. This, to me, is one of the very few times that a gun control law makes sense. I’d love to say it’s not necessary, but people are going to do dumb things and there needs to be a mechanism in place for this sort of eventuality. Accordingly, it should carry a brutal and draconian punishment because exhibiting that poor of judgement, just like drinking and driving, means that the offender clearly cannot handle the responsibilities that go along with adulthood.




    0



    0
  3. Adam, you realize that the bill penalizes carrying a gun while intoxicated or at a location where alcohol is served. I am sure that brandishing carries additional penalties. Besides, what is the problem with going to a restaurant where alcohol is served if you do not drink and carrying a concealed weapon?
    It is doing something stupid with a gun while drunk that should be penalized. There are other states like Florida where you can carry at a restaurant that serves alcohol and no shooting have occurred in the last 23 years since the law was enacted. I am the same person outside the eatery and don’t become an irrational asshole because I cross the door of the location.




    0



    0
  4. A blanket ban on what any may do in a desperate attempt to prevent what few may do is completely absurd. There are ample number of states that have no law against drinking and carrying a firearm for enough years to prove that this PSH is a solution in search of a problem.

    Since criminals don’t have to follow the law due to the success of their union’s negotiating skills, there are already guns in bars. Removing restrictions on the non-criminal population from possessing firearms in establishments that have liquor licenses just makes sense.

    I suspect that the anti-rights cultists understand that criminal behavior is the problem. They just prefer to increase the number of peaceable, law-abiding citizens who are de jure criminals by legislative fiat since it helps with their end game of prohibiting all firearms ownership.




    0



    0
  5. Yeah, because the government has done such a fine job of keeping motor vehicles out of the hands of intoxicated people.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.