Legalizing The Keys In Your Pocket

18 Responses to “Legalizing The Keys In Your Pocket”

1. Southern Beale writes
   May 29th, 2009 10:29 am

   The gun is simply one more tool in your pocket that you don’t think about.

   Why doesn’t that make me feel better?

   If you’re so clueless you don’t even remember you’re carrying a deadly weapon maybe you should leave the fucking thing at home.

2. Blake writes
   May 29th, 2009 10:39 am

   Why doesn’t that make me feel better?

   Because you are biased?

   Leave them at home? Can you tell the criminals to do the same thing, please?

   Give me a break. Seriously?

3. Steve Steffens (LeftWingCracker) writes
   May 29th, 2009 10:47 am

   Blake, where the hell do you live, North Memphis?

4. Why?? writes
   May 29th, 2009 10:53 am

   I’m tired of hearing the argument “the criminals carry their into places!” WHERE AND WHEN?? I haven’t seen to many CRIMINALS come into Jim and Nicks or O’Charleys toting their guns trying to hold up the place. That argument is soooooo lame and mis guided. If you feel criminals are going to come into an establishment, then don’t GO!! COMMON SENSE. To many of these so called “defenders” of rights just want to be able to live out their John Wayne fantasies.

   What if you were out at and eatery with your kids or any other family, and somebody pulls out a gun to do “criminal activity” and one of the “defenders” pulls out his gun to “save the day” and your daughter is innocently shot while trying to flee, what if you mother or grandmother where accidentally shot by the person”defending” himself, how would you feel then.

   I guess just chalk it up to your 2nd amendment rights huh?

5. Blake writes
   May 29th, 2009 10:54 am

   I could live in rural Cheatam County for all that you know, but that has nothing to do with anything nor does it matter.

   Can you still tell the people who don’t care about the law to leave theirs at home? Or any weapons they might use as well. Kthnx

6. Diezba writes
   May 29th, 2009 11:22 am

   But Southern Beale, aren’t keys deadly weapons? What about steak knives? Broken beer/wine bottles could also be deadly weapons.

   Perhaps we should ban these from establishments with alcohol as well.

   And of course, the profanity always adds credence to your argument.

7. Blake writes
   May 29th, 2009 11:24 am

   then don’t GO!! COMMON SENSE

   So, by that standard, then the odds are that a criminal or shooting will never happen anywhere or at anytime? You are saying that a person is 100% safe in any establishment that they go into, correct?

   Some people don’t like to hedge their bets on things being 100% safe all the time. It’s kind of like, no matter where I go, my tire never has a flat. So, I guess I can take out my spare tire and jack, right?

   Carrying a firearm is not for the purpose of fostering a “wild west” feeling or atmosphere. It’s simply realizing that evil exists and it exists outside of our control. However, if you feel that you can control when evil will strike, then you are free to do whatever you want as well.

8. Actually... writes
   May 29th, 2009 11:28 am

   if permit owners were required to go through the kind of training that Secret Service agents receive, and were required to practice for 8 hours a month, so they can ‘drop the bad guys in their tracks’ then this would make sense. But it is entirely more likely they will be Barney Fife, and won’t be keeping their one bullet in their pocket.

9. Blake writes
   May 29th, 2009 3:02 pm

   Ah yes. The old, “cops and the government is better than citizens” argument.

   Nice to see where you think you get your rights from.

10. SayUncle writes
    May 29th, 2009 7:56 pm

    I have competed in events against police. And I outscore them every time, as a general rule. Excepting the occasional policeman who is also a gun nut. And police are pretty well noted to accidentally shoot unintentionally. Look up Lee Paige.

    That said, I stopped at a restaurant to get some carry out. Did not know if they served or not. Opted to not disarm, walked in, paid for food and left. No idea if I broke the law or not.

11. Eleanor A writes
    May 29th, 2009 8:49 pm

    Opted to not disarm, walked in, paid for food and left. No idea if I broke the law or not.

    And couldn’t be bothered to learn. Wish that’d work on cops when they stop me for speeding, or the Feds when I decide not to pay my taxes.

    Typical: You don’t give a (hoot) about other people, their feelings, rights, or whether their laws apply to you. So why should we much care what you think?

12. Blake writes
    May 29th, 2009 10:18 pm

    “You don’t give a (hoot) about other people, their feelings, rights, or whether their laws apply to you. So why should we much care what you think?”

    Sooooo….an event that never affected you in any way form or fashion that could potentially happen all the time (and does around you in every other public place, I guarantee) causes your feelings to be hurt and your rights to be infringed upon?

    On the other hand, you are wanting to openly restrict the rights of others by forcing them to do something?

    What’s the term for this? I can’t seem to…oh…right…Irony.

13. Mikee writes
    May 30th, 2009 4:58 pm

    I think you missed Uncle’s point. Legal, law abiding licensed concealed handgun carriers should not fall afoul of the law because they don’t know that crossing a restaurant threshold is potentially illegal, because unknown to them that place serves beer and wine.

    When otherwise law abiding people are turned into criminals though no criminal intent exists on their part, the law that makes them criminals should be changed so they can remain law abiding.

    It would be like me saying that you are a criminal if you drive up to a gas pump with your car pointing north. It makes no sense to have such a law.

    Neither does it make sense to have a law that says the legal licensed law abiding gun carrier must always be at risk of breaking a law because he does not know the liquor license status of the restaurant he is entering.

    He or she cannot drink while carrying anyway. That is already the law, and hey, these folks obey the law.

    Fixing the law to avoid problems for the law-abiding is good government.

    Making criminals of otherwise law-abiding people is stupid.

14. dontcallmemikey writes
    May 30th, 2009 5:30 pm

    Mikee -

    “Legal, law abiding licensed concealed handgun carriers should not fall afoul of the law because they don’t know that crossing a restaurant threshold is potentially illegal, because unknown to them that place serves beer and wine.” - Not likely, ya think?

    “When otherwise law abiding people are turned into criminals though no criminal intent exists on their part, the law that makes them criminals should be changed so they can remain law abiding.” - Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would suggest that if this situation actually occurred, then the law enforcement officer would probably just tell the law-abiding peace-carrier to put it away.

    “Neither does it make sense to have a law that says the legal licensed law abiding gun carrier must always be at risk of breaking a law because he does not know the liquor license status of the restaurant he is entering.” - solution. Ask. Very simple question, as the manager discreetly, or the waiter/waitress discreetly. Or, when in doubt, leave it out, locked in your vehicle.

    “He or she cannot drink while carrying anyway. That is already the law, and hey, these folks obey the law.” - all it takes is ONE who doesn’t. I find this argument the least compelling, because alcohol and common sense don’t occupy the same territory. And do not even try to tell me ALL carriers of weapons are good boys and girls - that’s not EVEN possible 100%. Some people who get gun permits just haven’t been bad (yet) or haven’t been caught (yet).

    “Fixing the law to avoid problems for the law-abiding is good government. Making criminals of otherwise law-abiding people is stupid.” - The law should exist for the COMMON GOOD. Since this law affects families - including children - it seems prudent that the inconvenience of those who carry should give way to the needs of those who are innocents in the fight entirely. And, I know, I’ve heard it - how many people shoot up Applebee’s… well, note the date on the link below:

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6828097

15. Some Guy writes
    June 1st, 2009 2:06 am

    Eleanor,

    A gun is a vital piece of emergency equipment, which can protect even those who sneer at the need for preparedness.

    I hope you never have occasion to regret your ignorant hostility towards those who are prepared to act in an emergency instead of cowering on the floor and hoping that the bad guys will leave you alone because of your abject helplessness.

16. SDN writes
    June 1st, 2009 6:27 am

    There’s a reason they call it concealed carry. Unless you put up metal detectors and frisk EVERYONE entering EVERY building, I will be carrying and you hoplophobes will never know it. Until I need to use it to defend myself or my family. The fact that it will defend you or your family is what’s known as “gravy”.

17. Hoplophile, Bibliophile writes
    June 1st, 2009 8:34 pm

    “Why??” said:
    “If you feel criminals are going to come into an establishment, then don’t GO!!”

    “Why??” is one of those misogynists who thinks rape victims are “asking for it” and have only themselves to blame for the crime of being raped. His “blame the victim” mentality is disgusting in what should be a modern age of enlightenment.

    Rape is not the crime of a woman committed by her being in the wrong place at the wrong time — it is a violent crime of power committed by a criminal for which there is no justification.

    In a way “Why??” did us a favor: he showed us just what kind of vicious, hateful people are against gun rights — and why.

18. Sarah writes
    June 2nd, 2009 12:38 am

    dontcallmemikey:

    “‘Neither does it make sense to have a law that says the legal licensed law abiding gun carrier must always be at risk of breaking a law because he does not know the liquor license status of the restaurant he is entering.’ - solution. Ask. Very simple question, as the manager discreetly, or the waiter/waitress discreetly.”

    Well, not that discreetly. After all, you’d have to get their attention while standing outside of the restaurant door and being very careful not to step in. Ridiculous? Not what you want? Maybe, but that’s the law. And I would rather not risk my liberty on a law enforcement officer’s common sense.

    “’He or she cannot drink while carrying anyway. That is already the law, and hey, these folks obey the law.’ - all it takes is ONE who doesn’t.”

    So you don’t trust them not to drink, which is both illegal and goes against their most basic sense of responsibility, but you do trust them to obey the no-carry laws, which many of them seem to find ridiculous and onerous?

    Now I do find it difficult to get worked up about restrictions regarding bars, but am less inclined to compromise when it comes to, say, a fancy French restaurant. (And when it comes to parks, don’t get me started.) (Even when it comes to bars: according to current law, if you’re a plumber or a fed-ex worker, you cannot even step into a bar with your firearm. And again, no, I am not willing to entrust myself to other people’s common sense.)