Tuesday, July 14th, 2009...10:58 am
Give Me My Shotgun, Curly
Jump to Comments
Here is the thing: does anyone want to be that bartender who gets to tell the well armed man that he can’t be served? In my experience, the beligerence of a guy who is drunk is only rivalled by the beligerence of a guy who really wants to be drunk.
11 Comments
July 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
My question is this: if the weapon is concealed, how will the bartender know?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Y’argh — fair warned be the barkeep who comes between me an’ me grog. ‘Tis no matter what I be packin’. Y’argh…
July 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
What was hidden before will remain hidden. What was hidden before will continue to remain hidden.
Those people who are temperamentally inclined to cause a problem will continue to cause a problem whether with or without a firearm and whether or not they have been drinking.
The newly legalized freedom doesn’t allow or encourage freedom to cause a problem, only freedom to continue not causing a problem (which was sadly illegal before).
Mandating that people behave well or in a certain fashion will always end up being up to the people at large. This slight change in the law is as unlikely to cause any increase in problems as people who carry without problems will continue to carry without problems (which is 99.9% of the population).
July 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I love the fact that while a woman should not get to decide what goes on in her uterus, Republicans are perfectly okay with telling a property owner what goes on in their property.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Speaking of uteri, Thane, what’s your view on abortion?
July 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Designated driver, designated shooter. What’s the problem?
July 14th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Republican values:
Yeah, but then who rides shotgun?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:08 am
This is a whacked way to get our state buzz on for wild west nostalgia. What’s next? Cattle thieving? Moonshine running? Whore houses?
Why does it feel like there’s a big hurry to unravel any appearance of civility and social decorum in this state? I get that the legislature has many a member who proudly claims their good ‘ol boy ‘tude towards running the leg/state. And while many of them are solid on anti-immigration, some of these bills (now laws) stand to drive away the most upstanding of our LEGAL citizens who prefer to live in a community that embraces and progresses forward in the 21st Century.
Just as with any good buzz, this law threatens on hell of a hangover. The first time there’s a bar room shooting, who do you think will be sued? The leg? The Governor? The NRA lobbyists who pushed for this bill? My money is on the bar tender being sued. That is, if he’s alive and can be served papers.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Thane,
Have you ever been to a bar where people drink and lose their inhibitions? Have you ever been to a football or baseball game with rowdy fans?
This is not a “slight change to the law.” And it will foster an environment where disagreements are solved with gunfire rather than the less dangerous pushes, shoves and fistfights.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“AzMama” is being a bit unfair to our frontier predecessors. Compared to the current leadership in the legislature, they were downright enlightened. Keep in mind that it was the booze-peddlers, miners, faro dealers and cow-punchers of the “Theiving Thirteenth” Legislature of 1885 that had the vision to create the university system that our current legislature in these supposedly more sophisticated times seems bent on destroying.
It should also be noted that two of the three “wild west” practices listed by “AzMama,” namely livestock theft and the sale of untaxed liquor, were as illegal then as they are now. Prostitution, was, of course, legal, but very regulated.
Contrary to our mythology about the Old West, the possession of firearms actually was regulated in Territorial days. Back in 2005, Rep. Sinema pointed out during floor debate that the law prohibiting weapons (not just firearms) in establishments that serve liquor actually pre-dated statehood. Most incorporated cities and towns had some level of regulation about carrying arms within city limits. The Earp brothers were enforcing one such ordinance in Tombstone on a famous October day in 1881.
The nostalgia that conservatives cite to justify their sociopathic views on issues like this is largely ill-informed bunk. The truth is that Arizona’s leadership in those days often pursued a forward-thinking agenda that would not be embraced by the current misanthropic crew that runs the legislature. Perhaps a little more actual “wild west” thinking might be good for the state these days.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Mr. Prezelski, you’re a man after my own heart.
Our state and it’s consitution were considered quite progressive for the times. Here’s something I read in a great book on the AZ Constitution that had me swooning in my seat for the days of the “wild west”:
“The Progressives [framers of the AZ Constitution] attempted to put a stop to such practices [granting twenty-year tax exemptions to railroad companies]. Arizona’s consitution therefore contains multiple provisions that ban preferential tax treatment.”
:::sigh::: Oh, I long for those long ago days where our state leadership was considered “progressive”, forward-thinking stewards of our grand state.
Maybe if our legislature focused more on cultivating a culture and regard for education than on legalizing guns in bars, we could all let go of our Hollywood revisionist perceptions and hold fast to a better way forward for Arizona and all of her citizens.
That’s probably hoping for too much, isn’t it? Oh to dream….