guns alcohol booze
Previous Post
Next Post

By Dennis Petrocelli, MD recently published a piece, “Drivers with DUIs Shouldn’t be Armed” which read:

…gun owners with DUI convictions are a discrete and dangerous group. For lawmakers eager to make progress against gun violence, they’re too good a target to ignore.

This editorial implies that gun purchasers with a history of a DUI charge cause a considerable amount of gun violence. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

That editorial references a recently published article in the Journal of the American Medical Association“Association of prior convictions for driving under the influence with risk of subsequent arrest for violent crimes among handgun purchasers”. Its authors assert that handgun purchasers who had a prior DUI conviction were twice as likely to commit a violent offense after purchasing their gun.

The data in the article was supposedly so compelling that the Journal‘s editors wrote that these findings “unmistakably support” more California confiscation legislation, adding “we are as intolerant of mixing alcohol and firearms, so called drunk firing, as we are of drunk driving.”

michael bloomberg security detail armed
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, center, and his security entourage cross Ninth Avenue in Manhattan (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

If you have followed the endless stream of unconstitutional infringements proposed by the confiscationists backed by billionaires protected by armed security details, then you know that what sounds like irrefutable proof is often a complete distortion of the truth. This latest hit piece on gun owners is no exception.

The study tried to examine what happened with the roughly 80,000 people who purchased a handgun in California in 2001 over the next thirteen years. The researchers focused on those individuals who had prior convictions for DUI and non-DUI-alcohol related offenses.

Here’s the objective truth, buried in a graph: in stark contrast to the claim that these purchasers were a significant source of gun violence, only 2.5% (37 people) of those 1,495 handgun purchasers with prior DUIs were ever charged with a firearm-related offense.

Whether or not they were convicted, whether or not their “offense” was actually a morally-justified defensive gun usage, is not even discussed. Quite possibly, for a portion of that 2.5%, charges were dropped or they were acquitted.

The associated editorials insinuated that handgun purchasers with prior DUIs were violent with their guns and that violence would be stopped by prohibiting them from purchasing guns. The truth is that 97% of handgun purchasers with a prior DUI did not go on even to be charged with a gun-related offense.

You would never know that, however, if all you read was the Bloomberg report or the JAMA editorial. And that’s what the confiscationists are banking on. They run with headlines that superficially make sense and hope that no one questions them.

Keep in mind that Bloomberg smeared that whole group of 1,495 gun owners, as did JAMA‘s editorial board, by accusing them of “drunk firing.” The identified DUI convictions occurred prior to the handgun purchase and there wasn’t any data showing that these purchasers were continuing to misuse alcohol.

The most consistent aspect of all of these proposed unconstitutional infringements is how many innocent gun owners get swept up. Red flag laws can stop one suicide if guns are taken from twenty people, and this new infringement would disarm roughly forty people to theoretically stop one from incurring a gun-related charge.

The confiscationists are convinced that is a program feature, not a bug. By proposing “common sense” infringements that take time and energy to debunk, they are trying to do an end-run around the Constitution and the Supreme Court in the name of “public health.”

The most frustrating aspects of this “public health” “gun violence epidemic” nonsense is that two-thirds of all gun related deaths are suicidesBloomberg would rather bash this group than tackle the real issues of mental health and inner city violence.

JAMA does no better, which reveals it to be a biased organ for the confiscationists rather than a trusted source of medical information. Policy decisions should not be based on the actions of 37 people out of 80,000, yet JAMA thought that was an “unmistakable” good idea.

If lies, distortions and diversions aren’t enough to get you to the polls this November, hopefully this elitist hypocrisy will. Not only does Michael Bloomberg have an armed security detail, he was aghast that Johns Hopkins University police were unarmed. If guns are so dangerous, why would he want the unarmed, defenseless students to be patrolled by an armed police force?

Whenever you see a headline supporting gun confiscation, check the source and read the original publication thoroughly. Stay well regulated, and VOTE this November!


Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is joining the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

This post originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I assume the author of this article submitted a letter to the editors of JAMA pointing out the deficiencies of the study and their editorial, but that JAMA declined to publish it. That would be par for the course; dissent and debate are to be assiduously muffled.

  2. “…there wasn’t any data showing that these purchasers were continuing to misuse alcohol.”

    LOL. How, pray tell, does one “misuse alcohol”? Adult beverages are meant to get you drunk and they generally work as intended provided you use them the way they were designed.

    Yeah, you can drink in moderation but you’re not doing it for the taste. You’re doing it for the chemical changes it causes in your brain which is exactly why people tell kids that alcohol is an “acquired taste”. You acquired a taste for what it does to you not how it actually tastes.

    This country has such a strange relationship with intoxication. It’s fascinating but also annoying.

    • Um, disagree with your statement big time. I myself just had a glass of red wine with my dinner. It’s not marketed or intended to “get a person drunk”. It’s meant to complement a meal.

      In fact, alcoholic beverage producers typically includes the words “please drink responsibly” with their advertising, whether in print or on TV. You’re confusing the abuse of beverages to the point of intoxication with mere consumption. You’re confusing Phi Theta Epsilon’s raging parties off campus with my glass of wine by the fire pit.

      • Right, it’s all about the taste which is exactly why the non-alcoholic market for wine, beer and liquor is so HUGE!

        • No it’s not. I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve been in a lot of liquor stores. You don’t have buildings full of coffee with a single 4×8 shelf of the decaff stuff.

          The NA market is nothing compared to the booze market. Last year booze was a $253.8 billion business in the United States alone. If NA is lucky it might get to $25 billion worldwide by 2024.

        • And the decaf market is puny compared to the caffeinated market. Personally, I think both are pointless. But that doesn’t mean every time anyone touches a drop of alcohol their intention is to get ‘drunk’.

        • “But that doesn’t mean every time anyone touches a drop of alcohol their intention is to get ‘drunk’.”

          So, microdosing means that LSD isn’t primarily meant to make you hallucinate? What about shrooms? They’re food and you can microdose on them too. Microdosing both is all the rage these days.

          Under your arguments obviously magic mushrooms are the same as a beer and Denver decriminalizing them makes total sense. I mean, it’s just a food and not everyone who touches them intends to trip face.

        • Psilocybin and psilocin (as well as THC) are not metabolized by the human body as food, so there’s a fundamental difference. However, I’m not obsessed with what others put in their bodies, or for what reasons, although I wouldn’t accept it as an excuse for bad behavior. If you can be a productive citizen who causes no harm to others it’s none of my business what you may or may not be high on.

        • Alcohol isn’t metabolized as a food either which is why it isn’t classified as such, but rather as a CNS depressant drug. Alcohol is metabolized as a toxin. Everything else pretty much stops so your body can work on eliminating the alcohol because your body has no mechanism to store it.

          That’s why it can be very dangerous for people who are dependent on injected insulin to drink without eating to slow the absorption of the booze because their liver will not give them a shot of sugar if they go hypo since the liver is busy until all the alcohol has been processed and that process is the priority.

          Further, alcohol’s ability to be absorbed directly by the stomach and hit the brain within minutes is not found in anything else you’d regularly eat.

          So no, if you’re going to go with “it has calories” then it’s on the same plane as magic mushrooms.

        • So you admit that it has calories but deny that it is metabolized as food?!? How does that work? The fundamental difference is that the intoxicating agent in mushrooms is NOT metabolized as food and therefore has no calories. The alcohol IS the intoxicating agent AND it has calories, therefore it is a food that has intoxicating effects rather than a drug, or a food that contains a drug. And sure, I suppose your liver would prioritize metabolizing the intoxicating food over the non-intoxicating food. That would only make sense.

        • It’s not metabolized as food. Protein, fat, carbs, minerals, vitamins etc don’t shut down your liver so that it does nothing but process them until all of what you’ve consumed has been eliminated. That’s a major difference and it’s not one without a distinction.

          Your liver doesn’t do that for “food” it does that for toxins. It does it for alcohol.

          Counting how many calories it has means nothing. A calorie is a unit of energy and all chemical compounds contain energy in their bonds.

          Alcohol is not classified as a food or a nutrient. It’s classified as a drug with CNS depressant characteristics. It’s classed this way specifically because it interferes with repair and growth of the body which nutrients, that is “foods” do not.

        • Elephants like fermented coconuts, And once while fishing at night, caught a possum no sht trying to get beer out of the emptys tossed behind my back to be picked up later – – I think the possum copped a buzz because it got in my red ford pickm up and drove off. I got a couple dozen shots off but without tritium nite sites and the possum not turning on the truck lights I was just shootn in the dark Well that pissed me off so I grabbed my kerosene latern and give it a wing. It lit the road up pretty good but the possum must have found second gear. About that time the bait clicker started singing and in my rush with no light tripped over the beer cooler, busted my fishing pole, and fell in the lake. Ive decided, go drinking with a possum, it all turns to sht.

        • You’re conflating toxic with intoxicating. They may sound alike but they have completely different meanings. Anything can be toxic. Salt is toxic but if you don’t get enough of it you’ll die. Carbon dioxide is toxic but we breath out a lung full every 4 seconds. I heard about a stupid radio contest where whoever drank the most water without having to go to the bathroom won the prize. A woman died because as it turned out, drinking too much water is toxic. Yes, too much alcohol is also toxic. If your BAC is 0.08% it’s intoxicating, if it’s 0.4% it’s toxic. Your body needs to either metabolize it or extract it continuously because the bacteria in your own guts produces enough of it to kill you every few days. If your body doesn’t need the energy (nourishment) right away it metabolizes the alcohol into fat for future nourishment (ergo, the beer gut). The only substances your body metabolizes as food are sugars, starches, fats, proteins and alcohol.

          The same organizations that label alcohol a drug also believe that having a gun makes you either homicidal or suicidal and that mental disorders like gender dysphoria can be cured with genital mutilation (despite the fact that the suicide rate actually goes up after doing so). There is such a thing as an educated idiot. True, alcohol can be addictive and it can be destructive for some people and in that context it is similar to a drug, but it is in fact food. Gambling and pornography can also be addictive but they aren’t drugs either.

        • “Psilocybin and psilocin (as well as THC) are not metabolized by the human body as food,”

          They aren’t, but ETOH *is*, irregardless if that was the intent, or not. Hard-core alkies can go years without eating, surviving on the calories supplied by the liver metabolizing the alcohol. (Speaking from personal experience, years of drinking have shrunken my stomach, I’m incapable of eating large meals to this day, even though I quit drinking 15 years ago.)

          Tom in Oregon said it best, “There’s a sandwich (carbs) in every can”… 😉

        • liquid bread indeed.
          nothing but great northern porter for me since the 80’s, with a stint on duvel for a few years.
          does that make me a breatharian?

        • Geoff, there’s more to beer than just alcohol. As I recall a 4% light beer that typically has ~95 calories has 70 calories worth of alcohol. The rest is mostly unfermented sugars (dextrins – the molecular chains are too long for yeast to consume) and a gram or two of protein. Not sure if that constitutes a well balanced meal, but it’s probably not half as rough as surviving on pure alcohol alone.

        • I’m usually with ya strych but lets flip it.

          All guns are designed to kill! We know that is objectively false.

          So is all alcohol designed specifically to intoxicate? Doubtful. I don’t think a whiskey aged for 50 years was designed to get you blasted, I think there was something else in mind when that project was started.

        • ^^BOOM^^

          Matt stuns with room with boss-level logic, drops the mic, exits stage left. 🙂

    • a) I drink for the taste.

      b) Even if you are nowhere near ‘drunk’ you still receive the relaxing, therapeutic benefits of alcohol consumption.

      c) The bacteria in your own intestines produce on average, one full ounce of pure alcohol every day and in fact even your own (human) cells produce a small amount of alcohol as a byproduct of metabolism. There’s even a condition (often brought on by the use of antibiotics) where people have their internal biology out of balance resulting in being very intoxicated without ever taking a drink. The only way to abstain from alcohol is to die.

      • Tell me more about how one can produce more booze in their own gut. Inquiring minds want to know. For science of course.

      • People on the keto diet create their own acetone and piss it out… or get poisoned by it. That doesn’t mean that drinking it is a good idea. The fact that our body can regulate a toxin produced as a byproduct of something else doesn’t mean that substance isn’t a toxin.

        I don’t much care if people want to drink. I certainly used to.

        However I’m not going to delude myself into believing that it’s “for the taste” since the vast, vast majority of the stuff sold is garbage and the NA market is basically non-existent. People drink it for the feeling it provides. That’s why Budweiser and Coors outsell good beers.

        If you want to call that “therapeutic” then go ahead but chemically intentionally ingesting something to alter your consciousness without the assistance of a professional is, by definition, drug use. Hence why I say this is all rather strange. This also doesn’t alter the argument that alcohol is not sold as a “relaxation agent”. It’s sold for people to get fucked up. Were it sold primarily as a relaxation agent the manner in which it’s packaged would be different.

        Booze is meant to get you drunk the same way coke is meant to speed you up and LSD is meant to make you hallucinate. I’m not saying any one of those is a bad thing. I’m just not denying the fact that these things are meant to be intoxicating. That is their primary function. Unless you’re in Ohio and have an Rx for Everclear in which case it’s a sterilization agent.

        • ‘People drink it for the feeling it provides.’ – b)

          There’s are fundamental differences between booze and cocaine or LSD. First, alcohol is not a drug, it’s a food. It has calories (7 per gram). It’s not just fuel for your car, it’s fuel for your body as well. Alcohol, as I mentioned, cannot be avoided. It’s physically impossible to abstain from alcohol, something that can’t be said about cocaine or LSD. Then there’s the fact that alcohol is the most common traditional method of purifying drinking water. Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.’

        • You sound like people at their first AA meeting, rationalizing the thing to death. I know, I used to chaperone people to those meetings and then have to sit through them to make sure the people I brought there didn’t dip out and go do something they weren’t supposed to do.

          You can rationalize it any way you want. It doesn’t change the fact that alcohol isn’t something 99.99% of people drink for taste, and based on the way your brain functions it’s unlikely that you do either, though you may honestly believe it. People drink it for the psychoactive properties. It’s produced so that they can do this.

          Whether you’re a fan of Franklin or of Dionysus doesn’t matter. They were both willing to admit the truth. They’re drinking to be happy: that is they’re feeling the effects. They ain’t drinking this shit for the taste.

          Again, I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m just point out that it is what it is and that our attitudes towards it are odd considering how much Americans drink. Drinking something that’s meant to get you drunk, and getting the desired effect isn’t “alcohol abuse” any more than speeding is “car abuse”.

          Also, the fact that a we’re evolved to deal with small amounts of alcohol produced by bacteria with which we have a symbiotic relationship means literally nothing. In the days of yore it was nearly as difficult to avoid ergot if one’s diet contained rye. Does that mean that if the dose of the ergot was high enough to cause noticeable effects (which varied depending on the strain of ergot and therefore the ratio of alkaloids ingested) you’d fully support selling LSD, processed lysergic acid, as an analog to selling heavily processed alcohol in the form hard liquor?

        • Not arguing that the ‘effects’ of alcohol aren’t an inherent part of the appeal, but if nobody drank alcohol for the taste, then beer wouldn’t exist. Especially not light beer. Why on earth would someone drink 4% alcohol beer to get drunk instead of 40% whiskey or 75.5% rum? Or perhaps some people enjoy the taste and the mild effects of moderate drinking. Or excessive drinking. Who cares? If you show up ready for work every day and don’t drive drunk it’s nobody’s damn business why, or how much you drink. Making it your business just makes you an arrogant, judgemental prick.

        • Because beer is, and historically has been, cheap to produce in time and components. Wine was more expensive but for a long time still pretty cheap because it also doesn’t require distilling.

          Distilling has been around a long time, like a few centuries after Christ at least and maybe longer in India, but beer and wine were around long, long before that and really distilling is harder, requires more stuff and more knowledge, it’s more expensive and… really wasn’t well/widely known until at least 1000AD.

          You’re also quite right to mention Franklin about it. In some cases “water purification” could be done by creating low-alcohol hard ciders and low alcohol beers that had just enough of the fermentation process to kill off parasites, bacteria and viruses that caused disease. That’s part of how Johnny Appleseed made his fortune. (For a really interesting history on that I recommend The Botany of Desire documentary).

          Regardless, the main attractant isn’t the flavor of any of it. It’s the effect of either not making you sick from nasty water or getting you drunk, and mainly it’s the latter. It always has been.

          Again, I’m not against the whole thing. IMHO, humans naturally chase altered states of consciousness. There’s good evidence to support that assertion. As long as the chasing is done with a reasonable amount of responsibility then there isn’t an issue. Many of our current problems with drugs and alcohol stem, ultimately, from a denial of what we are as a species and our odd views on things like addiction.

        • If there’s one thing I hate it’s getting sick on nasty water (I’ve been to Mexico).

          There are many things that are unique to humans, however enjoying the intoxicating effects of what yeast do with sugar isn’t one of them.

        • “In some cases “water purification” could be done by creating low-alcohol hard ciders and low alcohol beers that had just enough of the fermentation process to kill off parasites, bacteria and viruses that caused disease.”

          Barrels of ‘low beer’ made trans-oceanic voyage by sail possible…

        • “However I’m not going to delude myself into believing that it’s “for the taste” since the vast, vast majority of the stuff sold is garbage and the NA market is basically non-existent.”..and that’s nothing more than you projecting your beliefs onto others. I can’t consume alcoholic beverages for taste so you can’t possibly consume alcoholic beverages for taste. Congrats on becoming a “progressive”. What’s up for the afternoon matinee, “I don’t use cheap revolvers so no one should be allowed to use them? Seems like a sequel I’d rather just skip.

        • “People on the keto diet create their own acetone”

          Yes, they do. Acetone is a ketone. But alcohol breaks down into acetate, which is not acetone.

    • This country has a strange affinity for prohibition. There are still lot of states where you can’t buy alcohol at certain time, like Sunday morning. Special licenses to sell alcohol. Special stores that sell only alcohol.

      Empty beer can on your car floor is a no-no. In most places on this globe it doesn’t matter how many bottles you have in your car, open or full, as long as the driver is sober. You can have a beer keg party on wheels and if the driver doesn’t partake, everything is fine and legal. My dumb brother even got a DUI while not driving at all. He was sleeping in his parked car.

      In most countries you are considered an adult when you reach certain age, with all rights and responsibilities. Germany recently lowered the legal drinking age from 18 to 16 for beer and wine. Only here, in the land of freedom, you can vote, drive, and even die for your country in armed forces, but you can’t have a drink on your own wedding if you are under 21.

      Weird relationship to alcohol for sure.

      • ‘There are still lot of states where you can’t buy alcohol at certain time, like Sunday morning.’

        There are still counties where you can’t buy alcohol at any time. Ever.

        The prohibitionist ideology stems from the marriage of the evangelical Christians (or at least those who suppose that Jesus was a sinner for turning water into wine) and the Darwinists. Both believed that they could force us heathens to be better people against our wills. Be it in the name of God or science it’s the same mentality that lead to the gulags and concentration camps.

        • “The prohibitionist ideology stems from the marriage of the evangelical Christians (or at least those who suppose that Jesus was a sinner for turning water into wine) and the Darwinists.”
          Wow. Never heard anything even close to that level of assumption before on the matter. Also never even heard anyone ever even suggest that Jesus was a sinner for turning water into wine, which is a super-titanium-level oxymoron of the dumbest degree. That, and your assumption that “Jesus was a sinner” Christians teamed up with the “we evolved from monkeys” Darwinists to tell us to stop drinking that wine with our meal.

        • ‘…super-titanium-level oxymoron of the dumbest degree…’

          I agree. Claiming that drinking alcohol is un-Christian is pretty stupid. But that’s what they believe.

      • In some places they don’t even have a DUI law unless you crash. Make it home without hurting anyone or damaging property and you’re good to go.

        • You’ve just triggered a mass-migration to wherever that is.

          So, where is it? Intoxicated minds want to know, ‘for a friend’… 😉

        • I’m having trouble understanding why that would be a bad thing.

          I dont drink much, but I drive a whole lot. I’m far more concerned with bad drivers, than drunk drivers that are driving well.

          If there are states with no legal blood alcohol limit, I dont see the problem.

      • “This country has a strange affinity for prohibition.”

        Puritans. Defined by H.L. Mencken as “someone who is desperately afraid that, somewhere, someone might be having a good time.”

    • I drink beer and coffee and drink it because I like it. Not for the associated drug. I drink decaf coffee and if there were good tasting NA beers I would drink them also. Unfortunately most NA beer tastes like Budweiser.

      • the euro na’s have some hops goin’ on.
        i just saw an artois commercial portraying a motorist winking at a cop from behind the wheel and raising his na in toast. gee whiz, the man can only shrug!
        there are so many soda pop lookin’ beer can designs now you no longer need the can wraps (remember pespi?). genessee cream ales always had that ginger ale looking container thing happenin’. now in 30packs! progress.
        and chicago pretty much is that elusive place mentioned above.

        especially if your the supernintendo of popo.

        • “…there are so many soda pop lookin’ beer can designs now you no longer need the can wraps…”

          That’s just the beginning of it. Look at how the alcohol companies market ‘crossover’ alcohol products, designed to look and taste like sodas and fruit punches. And don’t get me started on ‘vapes’ with nicotine flavored like sweets.

          A solid case could be made that these ‘drugs’ are being marketed to those underage…

    • What you describe is a “binge drinker”, one who drinks to excess just to get falling down drunk. The rest of us have a beer or two with our pizza. And we don’t drink while carrying, that’s illegal.

      • drinking without carrying requires straws.
        i was cornfused when the gal in the lane adjacent to me said she liked that bowling alley because you could drink while you bowl. before i responded she hurled her ballo downrange while chugging deeply.
        indeed. she won my heart.
        naturally of course that establishment burned down.

      • “And we don’t drink while carrying, that’s illegal.”

        That varies by locale.

        Know the law, where you happen to be…

  3. JAMA is just another Globalist Elite supported Unscientific hoax.

    JAMA supports Big Pharma in the common administration of SSRI and SNRI drugs that are implicated in MOST (90%+) of mass shootings. Follow the money.

    • A quick lesson in fractions. If a million people use SSRIs and one of them initiates a mass shooting event that does not implicate the SSRI in mass shooting events. It’s all in the denominator.

      Just as if there are a million gun owners and one of them initiates a mass shooting event it does not implicate the other gun owners, or the guns.

      Follow the logic.

      • Ok, I watched it. Here’s my problem.

        Do doctors overprescribe medications, especially psych meds? Yes
        Is it a problem? Yes
        Does it solve every issue when patients have depression or anxiety? No
        Can it cause more harm than good? Sometimes
        Does it cause mass murderers. No

        Notice the arc there? Saying something is an issue doesn’t make it ok to then blame it for everything.

        In your world those last two questions are a yes, in my world they are not. I happen to be a physician who prescribes SSRIs to children, but not in a haphazard approach. Our practice policy is they have to go to therapy first, make some lifestyle changes, and then we add medication on top of it.

        The kids who end up needing the medication, need it, and are not just using it as a crutch without doing anything else. But to dismiss everyone/everything because some doctors are overworked and don’t have time to do things right (and just throw meds at problems) seems the wrong way to approach it.

        I don’t get paid or bribed by the pharmaceutical companies, I wish I did, but I don’t. I could sure use the income. If I got even a tenth of what people think the vaccine companies bribe me I could retire this year 🙂

        So that’s my opinion as a doctor: medication works when used appropriately, and it does not cause mass shooters.

        Obviously people have their own opinions, and while I respect their right to have one, I don’t have to respect the opinion itself.

        • You’re making assumptions about my opinions and my “world”. It was an interesting interview, pull from it what you want. Don’t make assumptions what I pulled from it. Ok? As a doctor you should know better.

    • Agree on JAMA.
      They only publish that which their sponsors approve. I have been to conferences at which medical researchers have complained it has become difficult to have research published if the results of that research are not aligned with the advertisers.

  4. And another group added to no buy lists for life. Eventually overdue cable tv bills will be a disqualifying factor.

  5. What is being suggested is that JAMA is an outlet for P.R. Firms rather than reputable scientific findings. Who knew?

  6. These people wanting to take guns from non-felons are dangerous and need to be carefully watched. And slapped down by the correct politicians.

  7. Does this mean the kennedy clan can’t own guns?
    Drunk driving.
    Drunk driving and swimming.
    Drunk flying and crashing.
    Drunk driving while congress isn’t is session. (claiming to be on way to do congressional duties at, like, 0300.)
    Would like to see a study re dims drunk while legislating.

  8. They’re all for suicide, provided that it’s doctor prescribed, but if you do it on your own, it’s a “crisis.” And if you use a gun, it’s an EPIDEMIC!!1!

  9. Pretty sure that would include Bloomberg and all the rest of the old guard leftists as anyone over the age of 60 remembers when literally everyone, and I mean everyone used to drive drunk.

    • My wife is a little younger and we were watching “Bad News Bears” the other day, and she was aghast at Matthau’s car being filled with empty beer cans as he’s driving the kids around. She was more aghast when I told her that wouldn’t have warranted a second look at the time.

  10. Once the so called “prohibited person” class was invented, it was given that it will continue to grow. First felons, then those dishonorably discharged from military, then those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor, restraining order subjects, stalkers, DUI drivers, reckless drivers, jaywalkers, those who fart in elevators…it never ends.
    Gun grabbers will never stop to push for increase of the number of prohibited guns, prohibited ammo, prohibited places and prohibited persons.

    • It is *exactly* as I have predicted, months ago.

      If we win big on gun rights (like NY Pistol), the Leftists will do everything they can to make as many people legally prohibited persons as possible.

      Get into shouting match with a jerk at work? Someone who can’t control their temper should have no business owning a gun. Careless driving conviction? If you can’t be trusted to operate a motor vehicle safely, no gun for you!

      This is just the tip of the iceberg, and it’s gonna get worse. The real question will be, what limits on crap like that will SCOTUS put up with, before declaring them unconstitutional?

      Will ‘strict scrutiny’ put a limit on that bullshit?

      • “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15s, your AK-47s!”…

        – former failed Presidential candidate Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke

        “They shouldn’t say in advance what they’re going to do. They should wait to get elected, and then take the guns…”

        – failed TV talk show host and bobble head Joy Behar

  11. Some people obviously have a problem with alcohol, I don’t it works great for me. I drink it, it makes me drunk, see no problem.
    Speaking of drinking and driving. I remember the soberity test of yesteryear. It was a three parter. First, upon leaving the bar, could you find where your vehicle parked itself. If so you passed one third or .33 1/3 percent. Second, could you get in or on the vehicle and get the engine started. (This is where more than a few failed.) Third, could you get the vehicle in gear and out of the parking space and lot without hitting anyone or anything. (Again lots of failures of the last part) Now, having passed the three requirements you were good to drive anywhere, including the next bar.
    As drinking and shooting. A lot of street lights got shot out, and in an emergency like nobody had a church key (bottle opener on one end, can opener on the other) no pop top cans back then (we had a very primitive life style) you could always shoot a hole in the can, but somebody had to hold it, or it would take off like a fifty cent balloon blown almost to bursting when the knot slipped. Didn’t leave much beer in the can if you finally caught up to it, before it got run over by some damn drunk.
    Yeah, I can see why rich people would want to take away the guns from the little people. They are afraid someone with a

    • dancing a jig while juggling three oranges and reciting “magdalenacatalinarubensteinerwobblediner” has got to be up there.

  12. gun and a jug of muscatel might not be inclined to take their shit, just their money.

    (Hit post too soon)

  13. Last I checked, you still have a God given right to self defense, even if you happen to be enjoying the fruits of God’s little yeasty gift to mankind.

  14. . I see nothing wrong with getting drunk, tear assing down the red dirt blowing stop signs to hell with your shotgunm

    • You forgot “and forgetting where that deep-ass chuckhole was and getting launched into the ditch…” 😉

  15. Without an injury, the first few DUI/DWI/DWAIs aren’t felonies in most states. You need a record of a few minor/major intoxications in a lifetime before they start charging felonies for major intoxication (.08 or .1% depending of state).

  16. This sums up the agenda…get a DUI, keep driving and they take your guns away. Not too obvious, is it?

  17. U drank 2.5 drinks 1 time & u lose ur rights 4 life…yet smoke all the weed u want & take all the drugs ur Doctor gives u do some blow & ur cool….cops only ck 4 alcohol.

    I am for freedom to take what ever u want as long as u don’t hurt other people.

    If u don’t have a family to support ….snort a pound & drink a few gallons of 151 if ur @ home & not driving…..

    Freedom to do what u want if it does affect others is freedom so leave us alone!

    If ur too dangerous to be out walking around near my family straight to the rope…..the founders did not have a million massive prisons full of bad people! They got rope!

  18. In Ma.,where I regretfully live, if you are convicted of OUI, your gun rights are gone forever. You are not EVER allowed to own a gun, yet there are lawmakers in MA. right now that are trying to change the laws so that prisoners convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of a parole, can get a parole after 25 years or so. They also want free education for illegals, free drivers license, welfare cards, food stamps and all sorts of stuff but zero forgiveness for a man who decades ago may have been convicted of drunk driving once in his life time. Actually Ma. has a list of very minor offenses that make one unable to ever own a gun.
    If your a 2nd amendment person, stay the hell away from Ma.

  19. In Texas, it is actually possible to be convicted of a DWI without having consumed any alcohol. Anybody who wants to argue that point, go argue it with a Texas defense attorney. And it’s one of the easiest charges in this state for a prosecutor to get a conviction, especially with the “on or about a given date” clause. Hell you don’t even have to have been on a public road while actually intoxicated to be convicted.

  20. I dont want to be rude, but Strych9, you come across as an arrogant know it all. Alcohol is treated by the body as an energy source. It’s metabolized in humans as a sugar. In fact, it started out as a sugar, and was then modified by yeast metabolism into an alcohol. Which is still molecularly similar to a sugar. It is metabolized preferentially, before glucose and fructose.

  21. I drink coffee in the morning with breakfast and sometimes after dinner if I have a desert.
    I drink beer or wine with every other meal.
    I drink water all day but not with meals. I l like they way beer complements spicy food and wine with fish or pasta.
    I drink beer socially or bourbon to unwind at the end of the day.
    That’s all I drink. No ice tea, no lemonade, and no sodas.
    Taste definitely matters. I am selective about the beer style I like and I prefer bourbon to scotch. NA beer has a weak taste but I would still prefer it over water to wash down a cheeseburger.
    I don’t get intoxicated very often but when I do have too many, 8-10 drinks in under 4 hours, I just get sleepy.
    Just had dinner at Outback, 10 oz ribeye medium, sweet potato and mixed vegetables. I had a 22 oz Spacedust IPA while waiting on a table and another one with the steak. That’s 44 oz of 8.7% ABV and I didn’t even get a buzz. But that’s just me.

Comments are closed.