imported post
Your position derives from a mindset which is instinctively statist.
Everything in life entails risk. Any number of things can be turned by an unscrupulous prosecutor into "evidence" against an accused.
Seriously, if you're that worried, you shouldn't carry a gun. Guess what a prosecutor is going to say about that if you're ever charged for defending yourself?
As Grapeshot discovered, admission of consumption of a single beer hours prior can prompt unscrupulous prosecution. Yet such consumption isn't illegal, and while it may be "risky", huge numbers of Americans choose to live free and consume reasonable amounts of alcohol before they drive, simply because life isn't worth living in the claustrophobic space carved out for each of us by the State.
And the problem there isn't those free Americans, its the statists who insist they shouldn't incur the "risk" of behaving in a responsible manner because the state's insistence on arbitrating the consumption of alcohol and the living of life makes those Americans a target for state aggression.
Go on, advocate a terrified populace of armed sheep.
I'll take the tempestuous sea of liberty over your calm waters of tyranny.
No hyperbole intended.
Edit: With that said, everything in moderation.
Further edit: Consider the ramifications of the argument.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a given that one is, because he wants to enjoy his life, going to consume that beer. Now, imagine that, while consuming that beer (say at lunch with his family), he and family are attacked by an armed, murderous psychopath.
At this point, tell me: which is the greater risk? Which will cause more harm? The beer-drinker being disarmed, and forced to watch his family be murdered before he himself is? Or the alternative, him shooting the psycho, but later having to argue in court that his judgement wasn't impaired when he stopped the murderous psychopath after consuming a beer? Seriously, which risk poses the greater harm should it in fact occur?
Clearly, the death of one's family is the greater harm. Clearly, if one is going to consume that beer, better to be armed. At this point, your argument boils down, essentially, to "don't drink, ever".
That's fine. I kind of imagine you don't. Some of us do. Some of us trust our judgement enough that we know we would never go to a firearm after consuming alcohol (or ever, for that matter) unless we're truly faced with an alternative that is worse than going to jail.
