Bill for concealed guns in bars advances in (Ohio) state Senate

[upstatecajun]

Source: Columbus Dispatch

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 03:06 AM
By Catherine Candisky

Despite strong objections from law enforcement, a Senate committee approved a bill yesterday that would allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons into bars and restaurants - provided they don't drink.

The Senate is expected to act quickly on the legislation, voting as early as today, according to Senate Judiciary Chairman Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland. A Senate spokesman downplayed the possibility of an immediate vote, however.

Before the committee voted 7-2 to approve Senate Bill 17, opponents warned legislators that the proposal to loosen Ohio's gun law would lead to more violence, and they questioned how waiters and bartenders would be able to enforce the drinking ban.



Read more: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/13/copy/bill-for-concealed-guns-in-bars-advances-in-state-senate.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

---

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Liberal-Ohioan/195130570504421

[shraby]

1. If I lived there, I'd be damned if I'd go into a bar that allows

concealed weapons, or even a restaurant if they served alcoholic beverages.
Fights have broken out in bars between men who are drinking and those who are not. The drinker taking umbrage at a remark made by the non-drinker because their judgement has been clouded by the drinks.
I say men because they are more apt to get into fisticuffs at bars.

[Logical]

3. So no illegal guns are in a bar? Really?

[shraby]

13. NO guns in a bar or restaurant, period. That's asking for

trouble and the problem is, the one not asking for trouble - one of the other patrons - is who is going to get hurt.

[Logical]

15. Well, I promise you people have guns in bars who have no CCW license. That is why...

CCW holders should have them. And please provide examples of CCW holders in bars shooting up the place.

[Thor_MN]

31. Please provide evidence of illegal guns in bars and restaurants

That is, when someone didn't go there with the intent to rob the place or commit suicide.

You contend that there are always illegal weapons in bars, prove it.

[Logical]

36. Do you really not see stories of a fight in a bar where a illegal gun comes out? Really?

Because there are 100s.

[Thor_MN]

89. Really?

Still waiting....

[fatbuckel]

32. There are no examples because CCW holders in bars was`nt previously legal.

[Logical]

35. Not true, many states have allowed it since 2000. In Kansas I can even drink....

as long as I am not above .08.

[donquijoterocket]

50. yeah

Because a firefight in a bar or restaurant will really liven up your evening.I've never quite figured why gunners think that killing- or even directing well-aimed gunfire at- another human being is just the easiest, most natural act in the world and that every CCW holder is capable of it and that the desire to be a CCW holder somehow makes you a combination of Dirty Harry and a Steven Segall movie character or Bill Hickok where every round finds its target there are no misses which kill or maim innocent bystanders and no one is ever wounded through and through by a round with enough energy left to kill or maim another.Please provide us with valid examples of a CCW holder preventing a bar from being shot up.

[WatsonT]

16. If they're concealed

and the person doesn't care about the law, then how do you know?

Pat downs at the front door, metal detectors?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Drunks and guns! What could possibly go wrong?

[Logical]

4. You must have missed the "cannot drink" part. But ok. And you can .....

drop the part about "they might drink anyway" because I guarantee you have been in bars where a person had a gun with no license.

[Deep13]

6. Everyone around the permit-holder can drink...

...which increases the risk of a violent confrontation.

I think a person who carries a gun has a duty to excercise extra caution and that means avoiding situations where violence is likely.

[Logical]

8. I want a sober CCW person in the bar where I am drinking......

I trust them more than criminals. And if something goes down I want a honest gun owner there.

[Hoyt]

26. Not me. I've known too many cowboys who carry and thought they were ready to handle any situation.

[Logical]

34. I have known many CCW people and they NEVER want to pull their gun...

unless there is no other choice.

I think the TV version of the CCW person is much different than the real one.

Look at the stats. Very few CCW issues.

[Hoyt]

42. I guess CCW who pulled one on me- and now has 1 less gun and finger - wasn't acquaintance of yours.

And, he wasn't the only supposed law-abiding citizen who has pulled that crap.

Believe it or not, confrontation people carry guns and get permits. Go look up the thread about the CCW judge.

[Logical]

81. Of course there are some! But as a whole less trouble than the average citizen! n-t

[Travelman]

86. Lemme get this straight ....

You say that someone who had a concealed carry permit pulled a gun on you, apparently for no reason whatsoever. And in response to this action, this person, who has been trained to fire their weapon until a threat is down, somehow managed to let you not only take away his gun but also pull his finger off in the process, presumably while you were unarmed. And also the gun presumably did not fire while you were engaging in this super-heroic action.

Tell me, how did you know that this person had a concealed carry permit? Did they just take it out of their wallet to show it to you after you pulled their finger off of their hand?

[Hoyt]

90. It was obvious when the SOB pulled the gun. You guys seemed to believe permit holders are angels.

They are not, or they wouldn't be arming themselves and training in earnest in preparation to shoot someone.

As to training. Just proves you guys aren't as macho and well trained as you think. Further, you think you are prepared. But criminals -- assuming you actually ran into to one, which is unlikely -- will just start pumping a bullet into you before you even have a chance to draw.

As to the finger -- try this. Put your finger on the trigger (not in target shooting mode). Then have someone who has become really ticked at your aggression grab the gun with their fingers around the hammer and twists it like there is no tomorrow -- One broken, severely bent appendage.

As to the permit, I knew the SOB, and knew his penchant for guns and violence. One of the reasons I'm against carrying in public -- I've known many carriers for decades and everyone of them should never have been allowed to carry in public.

Now, as to you calling me a liar. I suggest you go caress your gun.

[Travelman]

98. So, it was "obvious" just because he pulled a gun, that he was a permit holder.

And then you say that you knew the guy.

So, is he sitting in prison right now for assault with a deadly weapon? Because if he isn't, then you have not only failed to follow through with your civic duty to report him, but also alowed him to continue to be a premitted carrier. Of coruse, that will mean that you're going to prision also for felonious assault over the broken finger, but you can at least claim self defense.

How, exactly, do I put my finger on the trigger without it being in "target-shooting mode?" If my finger is on the trigger, then I'm ready to fire. I'm in "shooting mode" if my finger is on the trigger, period. And if someone "becomes really ticked at my aggression" and grabs the gun, that gun is going to fire, and the grabber will wind up with a hole in the chest. Even if I do not intentionally fire, twisting the gun around and mangling my finger as you suggest would undoubtedly cause the gun to fire, once again putting a hole in the grabber's chest.

I never called you a liar. You yourself have just lied in that regard.

[slackmaster]

25. If your concern was valid, the negative result would be reflected in crime statistics

It's not.

I think a person who carries a gun has a duty to excercise extra caution and that means avoiding situations where violence is likely.

That is true, and statistics indicate that people who carry guns do exercise extra caution.

[truebrit71]

48. So the young guy that witnessed Rep Giffords being attacked who said he was getting ready...

..to "engage" would actually have wound up killing/wounding the person that had disarmed the mental gun-nut that had caused all of that carnage..

There is no such thing as a 'defensive' weapon by definition. What are the gun-carriers going to do, shoot the bad-guys bullets out of the air? No, they would shoot the bad guy...only sometimes they aren't the bad guy as I highlighted above...

People kill people. People with guns kill people more efficiently.

[slackmaster]

55. You just provided a great example of a person who DID use extra caution

In case you didn't notice, he did NOT shoot anyone. He used good judgment.

[truebrit71]

58. No, the situation was over before he could draw his weapon...

...but he said his target was the person who had disarmed the gun-worshipping demento that nearly killed Rep. Giffords...

Nice try though...:puke:

[slackmaster]

62. He DIDN'T draw his weapon. He didn't shoot anyone.

There was no problem in what he did.

[truebrit71]

66. Way to miss the point...

...it's not like you're being deliberately obtuse or anything...:eyes:

[slackmaster]

79. You're not making much of a point by presenting an example of where nothing went wrong

HTH

[Hoyt]

92. He's making an excellent point -- 95% of the time, things are over before someone could do anything.

I suspect the guy walking around with his gun in the store embellished things a bit when he said he couldn't get a clear shot -- or whatever his BS was. It was over that quick and Loughner was taken down by some old, unarmed ladies.

As to the guy walking around in the store with his piece -- just another packer who had to face the truth that he was not prepared to do a dang thing despite all the paper targets he'd probably been drawing on to prepare for the day he could be a cowboy.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. Besides he wasn't drunk.

Oh wait, that couldn't happen 'cause only the non-drunks are allowed to have weapons in the bar.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

68. He didn't shoot the guy with the gun because used observastion and judgement

to determine there was no threat. Exactly as he ws trained to do within the complete bounds of the law. He arrived on scene, assesed the situation, and no action was required or warranted. The gun never even left it's holster.

And of course his target would have been "the man holding a gun"... he was approaching the scene of a shooting. What else was it supposed to be?!? Was he supposed to be looking for toddlers on tricycles or puppies brandishing shotguns?
:rofl:

[truebrit71]

69. What training? Does AZ require training?

..his target was "the man holding the gun" that had been taken from the attacker so if he had shot the guy who had just saved countless other lives it would be perfectly reasonable?

Nothing :rofl: about that at all...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

72. No, it would not have been reasonable had

he shot "the man holding the gun" that had been taken from the attacker
In fact, it would have been illegal as well and he would stand trial for his actions.

He was looking for someone with a gun... he saw a man holding a gun... he took the time to observe that this man was not the target. How else could he have acted to be more responsible? Even police responding would have done the same thing - although they certainly would have had their guns drawn.

I fail to see how this mans actions in response to the shooting are unacceptable.
If anything, his actions were less aggressive than any sort of professional law enforcement response would have been.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. If you're concerned with the wrong people getting shot in "self-defense"...

you oughta be petrified of police.

Police shoot at misidentified targets (even shoot at other cops) FAR more often than Concealed Carriers. Some States keep detailed police and CCW statistics - I think Florida is one of them. A DUer once ran through the numbers and showed that you're more likely to be wrongfully shot by a law enforcement officer than a person who is carrying concealed with a permit.
It's even scarier when you account fo rthe fact that there are many more CCW persons than police officers. :scared:

[jpak]

95. If it's a concealed weapon - how will bar staff know not to serve these assholes?

Fucking stupid republican bullshit

Asshole GOP/NRA over-reach will fail

yup

[WatsonT]

17. Bars have parking lots currently

are you in favor of drunk driving?

[pipoman]

5. *yawn*

It is in place in many states already with no demonstrable issues, why would Ohio be any different. Every time a state proposes or passes this type of legislation the same posters post the same hyperbole...again I say, *yawn*

[RamboLiberal]

82. Double yawn

Can do here in PA and no blood in the aisles of the restaurants that serve alcohol.

[Botany]

7. Drinking and Guns

What could possibly go wrong?

provided they don't drink ..... because people who don't want to drink want to go in bars.

[Deep13]

9. A lot of restaurants have bars too. nt

[florida08]

10. I'm sure that makes the establishment's owner feel safer

Gives the word 'loaded' a whole new meaning. On the curious side..who would go into a pub to not drink? I do believe you still need a permit to have a concealed weapon though.

[shraby]

14. The permit is not the problem, the concealed weapon in a

bar is.

[florida08]

21. I assure you

there are people walking around with concealment all the time and they have not had FBI background checks. A responsible gun owner would not do that. That's why they avail themselves of the permit. To be legal. We have legislature right now to allow open carry of CWP. I do defend responsible law abiding citizenry the right to protect themselves from thugs..that doesn't give them the right to brandish. There is a difference.

I know we've seen many examples of tea party types with iron strapped on attending townhall meetings. Those are not the responsible gun owners I'm referencing. There are actual grownups who understand the dangers of such childishness. Perhaps if those illegally concealing 'know' they're no longer among unarmed patrons they'll think again. I do understand the trepidation. But maybe it's time for the grownups to step forward and interject some sensible firearm protocol. Public safety is always foremost for serious gun owners.

[pipoman]

33. Legal concealed carry in restaurants serving

alcohol hasn't been a problem in the 20 or so states which already have it....why would Ohio be any different, unless of coarse you meant to say, 'The permit holder is not the problem, the concealed weapon carried routinely by criminals in a bar is'...on this we could agree..

[WatsonT]

18. Private property

any bar owner can state "no guns on my property" and it is legally binding.

[michreject]

77. Not evertwhere

In some states, the sign has no legal backing.

[WatsonT]

80. Yes, everywhere

You have the absolute right to dictate who may and may not carry on your property.

With the exception of law enforcement officials of course.

[michreject]

91. Not everywhere

If you invite the public in, as a business, in some states the no guns sign is a waste of ink.

As for me, I never see one. I go in.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

93. As the owner of the property, you may ask someone to leave.

if they do not, then they are tresspassing.
You can legally have someone removed for tresspassing.
That has nothing to with guns or gun signs.

[michreject]

94. That has NO relation to what we were discussing

The poster stated that in ALL places, a no gun sign has the power of law behind it. I said it doesn't, and it doesn't.

If I enter a place that has a anti gun sign and it doesn't have the power of the law behind it and if I am asked to leave and I do, no law has been broken.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

96. I think it is more reasonable for the placement of arbitrary signs NOT to carry the power of law.

There are many instances where a sign may become obstructed or a carryer may not know about the restriction on that property. If an infraction of the property owner's wishes madates legal reprocussion - then alot of people may be caught up in a legal mess they had no idea they were walking into. I've been in places carrying a firearm when approached and told it was prohibited there... where it was a situation where the sign was only posted on a few (of several) store entrances. I apologized and reccomended that they place conspicuous signs on ALL entrances.

I support prohibited carry by force of law in well known and ehaustively documented places. (hospitals, courthouses, jails, schools, etc...) CCW traing teaches these places and restrictions (that are actually written into the legislation) so that even if no sign is visible, the carrier should STILL know it's a prohibited area.

[michreject]

99. Two things

Restricted areas vary from state to state. Some states have really stupid restrictions. In MI. I can carry in a movie theater if the seating cap is under 1500. If it's over 1500, no legal carry. I can and do carry into a Police Station. Just not the jail area.

Second. Concealed means concealed. How did the business know you were carrying?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

100. Ohio is not only concealed - we allow open carry too.

So the pistol doesn't have to totally concealed. My most comfortable holster is actually an outer waist band holster for my 1911. An untucked short can cover about 90% of the gun, but it's muzzle likes to play peek-a-boo if I'm moving around alot. I don't really care becuase it's comfy and it's a .45acp

In response to your first point, that's another reason I favor signs with little/no legal weight. ESPECIALLY in states without preemption. I think that in places not named by law, the person in violation should be allowed to be informed of their mistake and be asked to leave... if they refuse *then* it becomes a legal issue.

Imagine if every little sign or notice on the doors of shops carried the full weight of the law...

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service GO TO JAIL!"

"Lttle Jane goes to juvenile hall for trying to raise money selling Girl Scout cookies at a store with a 'No Soliciting' sign on the door... next on 'Fox News'at nine o'clock"

"Sir, the sign on the door says Visa or MasterCard Only...
You can't pay with your American Express Card! {clerk picks up phone and dials 9-1-1}"

[Shadowflash]

11. Brilliant!

I'm sure the people of that fine state feel safer and sleep better at night.

[lib2DaBone]

12. Got to thin the herd... guns in bars.. oh brother... brilliant...

[Remmah2]

46. I thought the driving drunks were doing an adequate job of thinning the herd. nt

nt

[onehandle]

19. 'Despite strong objections from law enforcement' nt

[Upton]

23. So?

Law enforcement is generally supportive of such things as the war on drugs and often tries to get around provisions outlined in the 4th Amendment..are you on board with that too?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Good. I'm annoyed when I have to take off my gun and leave it in the car at a restaraunt.

Even family places like Outback, Olive Garden, Chipotle, BW3, Quaker Steak... Most places people don't go "to drink" are included in the ban as well. In fact, I would feel better if the law distinguised between restarunts and bars. Some states only ban carry in places where alcohol is the primaryt source of revenue (bars).

It's annoying to have leave a valuable (potentially dangerous) item unattended in my car when I want to stop somewhere where people can drink a beer. It's ALREADY illegal to actually drink and carry anyways... the bar/restaraunt ban is unecessary and causes the uneeded handling of firearms. IMO, there would be less unecessary handling and less chance for accident in mishandling the firearms if people were just allowed to keep the firarms in their holsters.

This came real close to passing last time. I predict they'll keep proposing it until it does.
I wish we still had Governer Ted Stridckland (D)... he definitely will have singed this.

[truebrit71]

27. Are you taking the piss? Why the fuck would you need to carry a gun around with you..

..in the first place?? Do you live in the wild west? Do you live under the constant attacks from 'Injuns'?

Seriously, unless you are law enforcement (who are exempt from this anyway) why the hell do you feel the need to carry a gun?

[slackmaster]

30. Why are you addressing another DUer in such a brusque manner?

Why the foul language, truebrit71?

Can't you ask your questions in a calm, non-judgmental manner?

[truebrit71]

39. Sorry mom, I always use foul language when warranted..

..and someone getting all huffy because he has to remove his penis extension when he goes into a restaraunt needs his/her fucking head examined..

Drunks and guns, yeah, no reason to get riled up about that idea...:eyes:

There is a reason DU has a gungeon...

[slackmaster]

43. Wow, you really are emotionally involved in the issue

I think your reaction is inappropriate and rude.

Drunks and guns, yeah, no reason to get riled up about that idea... :eyes:

It seems to have escaped your attention that the bill will not allow people who are drinking to carry guns.

There is a reason DU has a gungeon...

Yes, because of irrational, anti-social behavior like yours.

[truebrit71]

49. I have been held-up at gunpoint twice in my lifetime so excuse the fuck out of me...

...if I don't share your love of penis extensions...

[slackmaster]

52. Were the people who held you up carrying guns legally, with permits?

No?

Then people who are carrying them legally have nothing to do with what happened to you, and your ire is not rational.

[truebrit71]

56. Sorry, I neglected to ask them at the time I was being held up..

...next time I'll be sure to ask....:eyes:

My ire is not rational? Being stuck by gun-toting criminals is not reason enough to raise my ire? On what fucking planet does that even remotely approach logic?

[slackmaster]

60. If your hostility was directed at criminals, that would make sense

Being all pissed off at people who are obeying the law makes no sense at all.

You're obsessing on the inanimate object IMO.

[truebrit71]

64. And just how the fuck is anyone supposed to know who is legal and who is not...

..when they are being held up? Are they supposed to inform you ahead of time "Dear soon-to-be-victim-of-a-gun-related-crime, I have obtained this weapon illegally so please do not let this experience taint your opinions of those that legally acquire guns, now give me your motherfucking wallet?"

Are you mad?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

74. Here is a hint...

:think:
People who commit aggravated assault and robbery most likely did not take the time to attend classes, get backround checked, photographed, fingerprinted, or permitted to carry that gun. In all likelhood, their acquisition of the gun tself was illegal as well. In fact, you can probaby also assume that even WITHOUT a law allowing concealed carry, they would still have that gun and be sticking it in your face... after all, why would gun possesion laws affect thier choices when they've already decided assault and rob people?

People who are licensed to carry concealed are FAR more law abiding than the general public. And most criminals are repeat or multiple offenders. State records and statistics clearly illustrate these FACT.

[truebrit71]

75. ..damn, I forgot to think about that as he shoved the .38 in my face...

..."most likely", "in all likelihood", "probably..assume"...

..your point, of course, as complete bullshit because you have no way of knowing ahead of time if the scumbag has the gun legally or not..

In the end it matters not one whit whether it was a "legal" gun or not, IT WAS A FUCKING GUN....and therin lies the problem..I can see that there is no distinction between a legal gun and an illegal gun,(and when you are being held up the LAST thing you tend to think is "I wonder if that gun is legal or not", it would be rather like asking the crim if it was loaded or not) and you refuse to see that..

Fair enough...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. Correct, the legality of the assailant's gun does not even matter.

So why would you oppose the right of people to carry one for self defense?
Why would you make it illegal for people to equip themselves in defense from others who ignore laws?

Allowing or prohibitind legally carried guns DOES NOT MATTER... criminals will use them anyways.
So why legally handcuff the people who aren't going to use them unlawfully?

[Upton]

59. Penis extensions?

What about women who carry...what insults do you have reserved for them?

[truebrit71]

73. Penis envy perhaps??

...Chicks having guns makes far more sense (although I still think it's dumb) than guys, because women are far more likely to be targets of violent crimes..

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. I carry a gun in the rare case I may have to defend myself with it.

Wild West? 'Injuns'?
I live in Ohio. Note the mention of my former governor as well as the the OP topic being written about Ohio. Obviously your reading comprehension is lacking (maybe you should consider concealed carrying a hooked on phonics book around with you). Possibly your history too... agressive native americans have not been a problem in Ohio for centuries.

Why?
Hopefully I'll never use it, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. If you haven't noticed, police generally show up AFTER the crime to collect evidence and write reports. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If you're wondering, it's one of those Glock 9mm pistols and I keep a spare 30 round high capacity extended clip in the car too.

[Travelman]

87. Magazine.

Not "clip."

[Hoyt]

28. For God's sake -- we ought not "inconvenience" folks who carry in public.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. Aside from the fact that they're now required to excessively handle loaded guns in parking lots...

And leave valuable potentially dangerous items unattended in vehicles...
by all means, what's alittle "inconvenience" sprinkled on top.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of idiots Columbia Law School churns out these days. :puke:

[florida08]

22. then again I could be wrong

[slackmaster]

24. I come to these threads just for the unfounded hysteria and hand-wringing from people who oppose CCW

This one does not disappoint. As usual, the strongest objections come from people who either haven't read the bill or have no actual facts to support their irrational fears. They pass negative judgment on people who choose to carry weapons without even bothering to calmly ask them why they carry.

So much prejudice, so much anger, all without rational justification.

[Hoyt]

29. You should include the irrational tripe of folks who can't leave home without a gun.

[fascisthunter]

37. Gun Toting Fanatics... people should get their heads examined

if you feel you NEED to carry, you are more likely to over-react in ANY situation. But, I'm sure the DU gun lobby will have some circular NRA sophistry to combat reality.

[pipoman]

40. Glad to hear there is no violent crime in Boston...I guess the stats

must be in error..

[truebrit71]

41. So if everyone was packing there would be no crime? Is that your theory?

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

45. That is a Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[truebrit71]

51. Please read the post I was referring to...

...THEN feel free to commment...

[slackmaster]

54. pipoman most certainly did not suggest that everyone should carry a gun

He never has.

[truebrit71]

61. Sorry, not swallowing that bait..

..

[slackmaster]

63. Bait?

:rofl:

You've already taken the anti-CCW hysteria hook, line, and sinker without bothering to consider the facts.

[truebrit71]

70. Yup.

The facts, guns kill people, and people that have guns are more likely to die violently than those that don't...

:rofl:

[pipoman]

67. Did I say that?

Nope, sure didn't. The poster I was responding to has somehow determined those who choose to carry a means of self defense are doing so irrationally....therefore, there must not be a violent crime problem where that poster resides....If there were a violent crime problem in Boston, how could it possibly be considered irrational to choose to maintain a means of protecting one's self. I don't know about you, but I choose 'insurances' based on anecdote..my house isn't likely to burn but I have smoke alarms and insurance, my car is newer so is unlikely to break down but I carry tools. I am sure you do neither since it is more likely you will become a violent crime victim than your home burning and you believe self defense is irrational....you must really think fire insurance is nuts?

[truebrit71]

71. Speaking of strawmen...

..I don't like guns so therefore I must hate fire insurance..:wtf:

Let me ask you, do you always wear a condom to prevent yourself from accidentally making someone pregnant?

In many communities smoke alarms are mandated by law as is insurance, but you knew that didn't you?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

76. Wearing a condom isn't the same as having one on hand.

I'll bet quite a few guys keep a condom with them in case of chance sexual encounters.
That doesn't mean they have to be wearing one at all times.

Just like having a handgun... you only have to have it with you to be prepared.
You're not actually "using it" at all times.

[slackmaster]

83. I usually wear two, and take one off when I want to have sex

That way it feels much better.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

84. Ankle holsters... you get to have two AND be totally naked!

[slackmaster]

44. I also enjoy reading all the commentary from amateur psychologists and psychiatrists

:rofl:

[truebrit71]

53. They are out in force in this thread...

...that's for sure..

[RaRa]

65. I guess it's a birthday present for my brother

(today) who is a criminal defense attorney. Don't know if there's a half sarcasm key. But I'm guessing this will be good for his business. And, no, he's not a pro-gun person. Good things he doesn't frequent bars either.

[inwiththenew]

85. It passed the Senate 25-7

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/04/13/senate_oks_gunsinbars_legislat.html

[Johnny Harpo]

88. Oh Great..Just What ..We Need...

as if our Re-Puke controlled legislature isn't doing enough to screw up our state even further.

"Just check your gunns at the door boys"

Sound like a scene from a John Wayne movie.

What jerks!