Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for January 12, 2013

I declare that it is 5pm, and shall stay that way for the rest of today.

I second that motion !

\AND THE AYES HAVE IT ! MOTION CARRIED.

So it is written, so it shall come to pass that the only ’shots" discussed shall involve whiskey and other libations. ;-D

Just in time for the 7PM shootout….8-9 PM triage….10PM, “Breaking News!”

Finally, a bar I can go to :D

Check your pistols with the barkeep. – M. Dillon

So one can get extra happy, of course.

They forgot the clause to the sign. Debaters will be shot.

BYO

And why is that idiot smiling?

If Wiley keeps restricting what we can discuss during Happy Hour, there won’t be much left.

Guns and booze in the same place? Go to any bar in the state of Montana. In fact, the management of any of those bars will not allow you in without at least one visible gun in you possession! Think I"m kidding? Take a road trip and see for yourself. Just take your “piece” with you.

Debates on gun control? What a concept! We ought to have one someday. Oh, right… it’s not the right time and/or place to have such a debate. And if the NRA and its patsies in the media and politics have their way, it’ll never be the right time and/or place to have this debate.

I’ve seen signs on bars up north (MI) in deer season – No knives no guns.

There IS no debate! The Bill of Rights settled it a long time ago!

Wiley is a lit match looking for gasoline today.

The Earps cleaned up Tombstome by requiring visitors to check their guns at the sheriff’s office when they arrived.You can own ’em, but just not walk around with ’em.

Either way, you’re gonna get loaded!

NRA complained that the presidential commission headed by Biden only talked to them about gun control instead of violent entertainment and mental health care…DUH! The NRA doesn’t produce violent entertainment, nor treat mental patients. I’ll bet that commission isn’t talking to violent entertainment groups about gun control or mental health care, either. They were talked to about something they can actually do something about.-What? Whaddid I say? Hunh? Lemme go! You’re violating my First Amendm….SMACK!-[Standing outside the Bar & Grill on the sidewalk, straightening my jacket, rubbing the knot on my skull.]-“Ooowwww….”

Won’t you have some Madeira, m’dear?

It used to be called “The Western Frontier”.

Wiley’s just waiting for someone to shoot off his mouth . . 7:01 . . . ☻

The faction that believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever on firearms is beginning to concede that some people are too crazy to own a gun. So, is a person crazy enough to carry a gun into a bar too crazy to own a gun? What about the guy who thinks that he and his buddies can take on the whole US army with a few deer rifles? Can his judgement be trusted? Who gets to decide?

Happy Hour includes no talking period.

2011; 323 deaths by rifles, 12,000 deaths by drunk drivers.What’s to discuss?

Actually I’m all for gun control, If you fire five rounds all five should hit the target in the black…….

I wonder if they have restrictions on inebriation too? No drunks in the bar.>>This is actually becoming more of a problem for barkeeps. There have been successful liability claims against bars that continued to dell to a patron even though the patron was visibly drunk. Many places have cabs on call and if that doesn’t work they have the cops on call.

Can we talk about the death penalty for those convicted of ANY crime involving a gun/firearm?

?they really debate guns in a place with lace doilies on the awning?

Androgenoide, yeah, I’ve always wondered how much help even a thousand assault rifles be when a few dozen Abrams A1 A2 tanks show up at your door, and you have a couple of drones armed with Hellfire missiles circling above your house..

It’s kind of a practical math problem…

No gun debate, but plenty of shots.

.Seriously, this is the kind of thing my father would probably appreciate if he drank. Let’s look at this logically. Gun control doesn’t work on those who use the black market (which is a lot of people, not just criminals). Law abiding citizens get hit by the law and then the criminals who sidestepped the laws by illegally obtaining guns, including assault-class weapons. Think I’m exaggerating? Ask a cop working a gang unit what they regularly confiscate. As for more people being killed by their own weapons in their houses, that’s the risk one takes by owning a gun. Don’t take away my freedom to choose.

Dude, I carry, and I still agree with you!

Probably a state that has drive up liquor store windows. And yes, some states do.

I take it you’ve never been to either a cop bar or a deer camp.

I read in a 1989 Time™ magazine about 438 handgun murders per WEEK in the USA.The other point one might discuss is that there are already laws against drunk driving. Granted, there are also laws about murder, but alcohol is somewhat controled, and I see no problem in controling the sale and use of firearms.Several people near Senator Gabreille Giffords were sensible enough to NOT try to draw their handguns, realizing that they might be mistaken for another person trying to kill her, or simply knowing that they couldn’t reliably shoot the shooter without risking more innocent lives. Obviously, you Americans need to put God back into your mall parking lots.

Happy Hour…just let us drink in peace.

It must be after 7pm.

Second amendment aside……..What makes some people think that passing a law will make guns go away? If it would, I would support it, too. Guns are here. They aren’t going anywhere. You have to decide how you want to deal with that. Criminals will have them, regardless of all the laws you may pass. Get your own, or take your chances. (I’m currently taking my chances, so don’t call me a “gun nut”.)

Look, it’s wonderful to imagine a society without weapons, but that is wishful fantasy. It can’t happen.

Actually the only thing missing is the sign saying “Check your guns at the door.”

Cite the entire statement, don’t just cherry pick the part that seems to bolster your view. “A well-regulated militia…” Or don’t you know that part?

“….. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That does not say, “…..and bear certain arms.”

If taken with another line, “….being necessary to the security of a free State,….”, this tells me that part of the intent was to protect from tyranny from our own government. This implies that we should have access to any type of weapon. (So all you misguided folks who are always asking, “Why does a deer hunter need an assault weapon?” are out there somewhere in left field where second amendment debates are concerned.)

We have already infringed upon these “inalienable” rights by simply restricting where legal gun owners may carry, for one example among many restrictions.

So Omnius, since you think it’s okay to refer to your political opponents using a disgusting sexual innuendo (teabaggers), no doubt you won’t object if others do the same for you and your ilk – something like “fudgepackers”, maybe.Oh, you’d rather they didn’t? Maybe you ought to consider extending the same courtesy, then.

Ban all Guns. From now on we do things 911 style..Bye Y’all..Pour me one Wiley, I’m coming in.

That there still is a debate is pathetic.

trm, why do responsible gun owners shame themselves by having any dealings with, or even having respect for the NRA? They are an un-American, anti-government cult that tells you you need assault weapons so you can attack government employees, and to use them against American democracy. NRA = Al Quada..The leadership of the NRA are way too paranoid to posses any kind of gun. I think they should be arrested and tried for treason. Everybody has a right to have and use guns… The argument that we need guns to defend ourselves from a democratically elected government is more proof that people who believe that, are too crazy to posses guns…Like other radicals, they use our freedoms to control us…

Look, I’m pro gun. Maybe even the government should issue every sane citizen a riffle..But I fear the NRA much much more than I fear rampaging meth heads. Meth heads are stupid. The NRA are a lot smarter, but way more evil…Which is what makes them more dangerous….. The main reason you should own a gun is to defend yourself against the NRA. …

notsoastute, sabotage irritates people, it doesn’t win the day… The French resistance would have been squashed like bugs if a giant super powerful, and quite frankly, undefeatable nation didn’t come to their rescue…But, your right. Nothing can prevent us from blowing ourselves up at the farmers market on sunny Saturday mornings, while the birds are sing and taking to wing…

So much for the No Debates on Gun Control between 5-7 pm. Or did everyone make sure their posts happened before and/or after that time. (like moi!). .I`m sure someone will correct me – but wasn`t the American 2nd Admendment about bearing arms written to allow for the citizens to legally have weapons to defend their townships and country because the United States had no standing army?.….. and doesn’t the USA now have a standing army? They do spend billions on their military. .just asking…..

And how do those exceptions “I take it you’ve never been to either a cop bar or a deer camp,” figure into the argument?>>Those are two places where there will be guns and booze.

The laws of Canada seem pretty good at preventing the tragedies. Last major massacre was Montreal, 1989.

And firearm competitions are the only reason to have a weapon? If someone wants to stock pile weapons or ammunition, for defense against some imagined threat or for any other reason, that is his/her right. It does not matter if you or I think it’s stupid, or even crazy.

What would go a lot farther than laws in controlling these mass shootings would be to stop sensationalizing the events in the media. “A gunman opened fire in……” is all that needs to be said. We don’t need to hear the name of the actor, or his life history in the mass media. Keep that information where people can find it if they search for it. These nobodies want publicity, to make a name for themselves. We should make their names “unmentionable” in public.

“So you are willing to submit to a psychological screening before you are allowed to buy a gun, or ammunition?”Only if you’re willing to submit to a psych screening before you exercise any of your constitutionally-protected rights.You first.

“And besides you not liking the “epithet” just how is “teabagger” a disgusting sexual innuendo?”http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging

Thank you. … I understand the need for a long gun for hunting. Hand gun for competitions and target shooting. Different country, different laws. But there are some weapons that only the miltary and law enforcement agencies should have, all others – no.

People need to stop debating whether the Constitution guarantees us that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or not. That is not the issue.-The issue is this: Is the 2nd Amendment reasonable anymore? Or, should irresponsible and amoral people’s right to have weapons be infringed? I think reasonable infringement is the moral thing to do.-Remember not to call the Constitution or its Amendments “sacrosanct,” “sacred,” or “enshrined,” as if God himself wrote it. If we still went by the Constitution as written, neither women nor minorities would have full rights. We have long realized that this was unreasonable, so it was changed.-It is time for the 2nd Amendment to be changed also.-Besides, it doesn’t guarantee the rights to buy ammunition. If the US Gov’t wanted to disarm us, all they would have to do is stop the import of bullets. At that point, all these guns would be no more than expensive baseball bats. Many weapons and most munitions are manufactured in China…think about that.

I call bullcrap. Cite please.

Your opinion of speech and firearms is irrelevant.. The fact is that both are inalienable rights protected by our constitution.If you agree to have a psychiatric examination before you exercise your constitutional rights, that’s your choice. Not mine.

Sorry, the ACLU will not even talk about the 2nd amendment – that is why the NRA has taken it up. When the 2nd amendment was written it was about muskets, since that and cannon was all there was. So, as far as I am concerned, the public should be able to carry any configuration of gun the the civil authorities do. Swat is different, they are a special squad that trains and work as a team – those weapons are only used for that, not normal police work.

Any limits on society should also be with law enforcement.

Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at. Including the liberal democrat breaking into my house.