Why I won't allow guns in Keefer's Restaurant

[Bazinga]

175. What was hypothetical about my argument?

It is currently the case in all jurisdictions that allow citizens to carry weapons that private property owners may require guests/patrons to disarm while on their property. Can you think of a city where a business or home owner is required to allow weapons on their property?

If you were referring to my characterization of your argument, would not a law requiring certain businesses to be weapon-free constitute a limit on who may and may not be a customer there?

Hopefully you realize that claiming I should be "resisting tyranny" by opposing other restrictions on CCW instead of focusing on guns in bars and restaurants (and only in this thread at that) is almost perfectly analogous to the actual NRA talking point that since the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, why bother with an assault weapons ban. Both arguments are specious and weak.

Personally I can't remember the last time I was in a bar, and I don't drink, so I can assure you that if I ever did go to a bar with my buddies I would most certainly only drink water, but since we're now talking hypotheticals, let's play this out.

Suppose I decide to be a DD for a group of friends. The bar disallows weapons so I leave mine locked in the car. During the course of the evening some other drunk idiot decides to get aggressive. By no fault of my own I get cornered in a bathroom or on my way to my car. I am not a particularly big guy, and I have zero fighting experience, so I know physical confrontation could only result in my severe bodily injury or death.

Would I be justified to threaten then use potentially lethal force? Absolutely! Would I be able to? Absolutely not.

Obviously the odds of this occurring are negligible. This probably has never and will never happen. But what if it did?

What if the law you support disarms someone who needs a weapon? "If it saves one life it will be worth it," right?

I believe in allowing adults to make decisions for themselves and holding them responsible for the misuse of that agency. Business owners get to decide whether or not their business will be weapon free, customers get to decide where they do business, everyone gets to decide what they eat and drink, those who decide to carry a weapon while drunk get prosecuted and lose all rights to further use of firearms, and those who misuse firearms go to jail for a long, long time.

I know you'll dismiss this whole post as an "NRA talking point" or "right-wing drivel," but since I have taken the time to respond to every concern you have raised, I would think it courteous for you to at very least respond to the two questions I have posed thrice already.

Why is "no guns while intoxicated" not enough?
And what is your definition of threatened (or in other words what level of threat justifies the use of lethal force)?