Posted on 11/17/2006 4:23:15 AM PST by rellimpank
ON SATURDAY, IT BEGAN.
I was sitting at a table in my favorite cigar bar, drinking a Duckhorn pinot noir, and enjoying a Bolivar cigar that was part of my recent haul at Cigar Aficionado's Big Smoke evening. The house band had just started up. Life was good.
And then she walked in. The Woman with the Dirty Looks.
Apparently, she'd missed the sign outside that identified the establishment as the "Havana Cigar Company." And the walk-in humidor with its hundreds of cigars. And the counter, where cigarettes, lighters and all manner of cigar
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegascitylife.com ...
Apparently, you never heard of the scourge known as "Prohibition".
The first time it was done, we realized it took a Constitutional Amendment, which was voted on and passed, as was its repeal.
This time, it was done by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
All the socialist, namby pamby, politically correct Californians that have moved here [NV] over the past 10 years have brought their left wing nanny state beliefs with them.
Check out #45 and #88.
No no no.. I know the textbook story of Prohibition and the 19th Amendment. I know "why", I want to know *how*, cause I don't believe it.
Yeah, what he said!
Here's another reason there will never be prohibition: If politicians raised taxes to meet the lost revenue generated by tax on cigarettes and booze, every last one of the a$$holes would be tarred and feathered.
Question 4 - Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statues be amended in order to prohibit smoking tobacco in certain public places, except all areas of casinos, gaming areas within establishments holding gaming licenses, bars and certain other locations? Yes___ No___
Question 5 - Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada aRevised Statues be amended in order to prohibit smoking tobacco in certain public places, in all bars with a food-handling license, but excluding gaming areas of casinos and certain other locations. Yes___ No____
To those who did not read their sample ballet with explanations, or who, like me don't automatically vote no to anything suggesting an amendment, what do you all think it sounded like. They voted for what appeared to be the least restrictive.
"every last one of the a$$holes would be tarred and feathered".
This is something I think we should get to work on right away.
I got a bucket of roofing cement. It's a start.
That's getting more common anymore. The World Series of Poker has been non-smoking for a few years now.
Which is a travesty, BTW.
Poker without tobacco (and booze) is like a day without sunshine.
Oh, come on now...any law AGAINST the free and open display of firearms carried around with impunity butts right up against what you call a "granted-at-birth
right". You're using the RKBA rhetoric, which I may agree with, but you would still need legislation to keep yourself from being arrested if you went out shopping at the A&P with a pistol in your holster, or tucked in your belt. These are not new arguments, either of them.
Point taken and I stand corrected.
Not where I live.......for now, thank goodness.
any criminal mind that would contemplate 'snatching' a gun from the side of a constitutionally protected citizen, would probably have the 'nerve' to already be armed...
and yes, the deterrent of having a third, fourth, fifth ad nauseum 'citizen' to contend with would definitely make said criminally minded perp rethink his behavior.
now, as a libertarian, i am for the 100% concealed carry ability, assume everyone is armed, be polite and watch everyone's six.
i have no problem with released felons owning handguns... no ones god given rights can be taken away. that is what inalienable means to me.
teeman
I know and recognize all of what you said on yr. belated post #115--I just like to re-state the usual reservations as they come to me. But I WOULD have a problem with a "released felon" being allowed to carry a handgun, whether it bolsters the "inalienable" concept or not.
Especially if his being a felon involved the use of a handgun in armed robbery,etc.---allowing him to carry would be like restoring driving privileges to a DUI who killed or seriously injured a pedestrian or other driver.
your problem should be with the lenient sentencing of such felons and not the fact that everyone has a right to defend oneself with the most effective means...
the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away... the second amendment says nothing about felonious behaviour for the state can and will define such to keep individuals under control...
violent felons should be kept in for longer times, agreed, but once out, their rights should be restored... a penalty cannot be so extreme that one must forfeit protecting oneself.
teeman
'shall not be infringed' means just that.
In Nevada, Arizona, and several other states open carry of firearms is virtually unregulated, perfectly permissible, and common.
Please stay away so as to not offend your tender sensibilities
#############
A right not exercised is a right lost, exercise your RKBA daily!
Swill. Besides, Pinot does NOT go well with cigars. I'll have a Warres' 1972 Vintage Port please, or at least some Courvousier.
Simple!
The state legislature did not pass this, Kalifornia transplants did, by initiative.
Kalifornia is an aggressive cancer, too many of it's former residents are invading cells.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.