In the discussion thread: It's not illegal to be drunk in your home with a gun, Michigan appeals court rules [View all]
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #39)
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:33 PM
happyslug (13,840 posts)
40. I have a problem with the decision, one sentence puts me off
we would in essence be forcing a person to choose between possessing a firearm in his home and consuming alcohol. But to force such a choice is unreasonable
I defend the right to bare arms and I defend the right to own a firearm, but firearms (and most other things, including Automobiles and women) do NOT mix well with Alcohol. Yes, I like to drink when I go out on the town and looking for a women to pick up, but the sex is a lot better when both of us are sober. The same with Firearms and driving, both are a lot better if the people using them are sober.
The older I get, the more I see why so many people supported Prohibition, contrary to popular opinion, most people can NOT handle alcohol and given the choice most people should opt for anything else over alcohol (including women, cars and firearms). Alcohol comes up so often in abuse cases and custody cases (much more then drugs, through drugs when they come up are as bad) you come to the conclusion a lot of problems would disappear if alcohol (and other drugs) would go away.
Thus I do NOT mind forcing such a choice, Alcohol and anything else (firearms in this case, but that can include Children, Spouses, Cars etc) and if they choose alcohol not firearms (of whatever the other choice is). The sentence of the Michigan Supreme Court thus upsets me, I would make a broad exception for anything if Alcohol is involved.
Now, the court could have avoided my objections by simply pointing out that the Defendant was NEVER near any Firearm when he was seen drunk by the Police Officers AND as long as the Defendant made that "Choice", no problem. I would have kept the door open for police to entered into someone's house when they can see someone is acting intoxicated (and leave that up to the Police Officer to determine, but based on observable facts) OR acting on information that the Defendant is intoxicated AND carrying a Firearm (loader or unloaded).
Reading between the lines I think the Court would agree with me, but they wanted to rule on the Second Amendment and the home of the Defendant and clearly restrict what Police could do with firearms in someone's home NOT to rule that the Police would have acted correctly if they saw the Defendant intoxicated AND with a firearm.
Thus this ruling is a lot narrower then it appears at first glance, but alcohol is a problem and to state that people can choose Alcohol AND firearms (or Automobiles, spouses or children) is just a Red Flag for me, people have to learn it Alcohol mixes well with nothing and if you choose alcohol, be prepared to give up other things you want.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
I have a problem with the decision, one sentence puts me off
Please login to view edit histories.