As someone who had to deal with those consuming alcohol, I vote no. We have enough people who drink all day at Keeneland, or tailgating, that we have to deal with, without adding to the problem. I have seen the issues that are created by alcohol sales at other venues, such as the Yum, and Assembly Hall. We just don't need that. If someone cannot stop drinking for a couple of hours, they have bigger issues.
Should sales of alcoholic drinks be allowed at SEC/UK sporting events?
- Thread starter TopCatCal
- Start date
As someone who had to deal with those consuming alcohol, I vote no. We have enough people who drink all day at Keeneland, or tailgating, that we have to deal with, without adding to the problem. I have seen the issues that are created by alcohol sales at other venues, such as the Yum, and Assembly Hall. We just don't need that. If someone cannot stop drinking for a couple of hours, they have bigger issues.
Also , is proof it makes fools out of many!
Actually I think people like you are the stupid one's. I don't remember talking to you to begin with. As far as my lack of political correctness goes you can kiss my AZZ... I am done with you too....
GBB
I have a lot of friends that are current police officers and retired police officers and most of them drink more than me when we go out. Not sure how they get home, but they drive to our get togethers. I love them all and respect the law. How do you know I drive after drinking? Maybe just maybe someone picks me up or I Uber. Most of the cops That i know drink so are you one of the few that don’t?
You Sir are FOS. You’re a perfect example of what’s wrong with our country today. What are you about 21? How’s that new green deal working out for you?
UK games at Rupp get too intense to have 3 or 4 thousand intoxicated fans in the stands. I am afraid what would happen if a call went against UK or the opposing team made a dirty play.
Games should be a family atmosphere. I will never forget my parents taking me and my brother to a Reds game when we were small. There was a drunk Cardinals fan directly behind us and her behavior that day totally turned me against alcohol being sold at sporting events. She was obnoxious, rude, and acting totally inappropriate around children. Surely adults can enjoy a game for a couple of hours without needing to consume alcohol.
Games should be a family atmosphere. I will never forget my parents taking me and my brother to a Reds game when we were small. There was a drunk Cardinals fan directly behind us and her behavior that day totally turned me against alcohol being sold at sporting events. She was obnoxious, rude, and acting totally inappropriate around children. Surely adults can enjoy a game for a couple of hours without needing to consume alcohol.
Almost every single NFL game I’ve been to has involved overly drunken fans trying to fight rival fans, constant loud horrible language & going home smelling like the beer of people around me who got too excited. Many games and 5 different stadiums to be exact. I haven’t had that experience at any college stadiums except UT, which is why I don’t take my kids to pro games and they don’t go to Knoxville.
I understand that you can’t protect them from everything but I also don’t have to purposefully expose them to those situations. All of which is why I would like to see college stadiums stay as they are. I don’t understand why others call people weird because they have a different opinion or experiences. Different people value different things.
Hahaha, don't go getting yourself all triggered :joy:.
What do guns and a green deal have to do with one another?
Aren't you the goofball who always claims to be committed in Eastern State Hospital?
500% yes. and I dont drink anymore. maybe then people will cheer without fearing they look stupid doing it. Other schools and pro teams do it and everything is fine............ it will be fine at UK too.
I've been to many STL sports games and I havent seen a drunk problem yet ..... have some faith in UK fans for f*** sakes ......... BBN is a lot like STL area fans... generally respectful even when they have a beer or two...... (who is drinking enough to get wasted on 15$ beers?)
I've been to many STL sports games and I havent seen a drunk problem yet ..... have some faith in UK fans for f*** sakes ......... BBN is a lot like STL area fans... generally respectful even when they have a beer or two...... (who is drinking enough to get wasted on 15$ beers?)
No longer Butch. I’m out and on the loose. You still living in the same place?
Hahaha, when you post on a public forum you are kind of talking to the public. Did you really not understand that? :joy:
Poltical correctness? Lol, wtf are you talking about? Where did I mention your political correctness or lack thereof?
You've said you were done with me like 3 times now.
I am not anti gun. I am fine with cops, military and FBI and so forth having guns. The avg citizens have no business with guns. It's proven time and again. If someone wants to kill or harm you bad enough your gun is not going to protect you. They aren't going to face off with you or give you an inclination it's coming. You are more than likely going to get shot, stabbed or so forth when you don't expect it and are unable to defend yourself. Unless you keep your gun ready, loaded and aimed at all times and can see out of the back of your head, it will do you little good.
Hunt with a bow and arrow if you need to hunt so bad. It takes more skill and does less harm to the meat.
Umm, I am going to have to call you bluff on your little story. Mexico has stricter gun laws, but private citizens are allowed to own them. They are just harder to get. So either you story is made up or really innaccurate.
Also, if it were so common for people to have guns to shut up villages, what would stop the people from being shot up to aquire similar guns? Even if they actually were illegal. We have legal gun ownership in this country and if you pay attention to the news, mass shootings are pretty common here. So mass gun ownership doesn't seem to be preventing the issue.
No, I really won't. Again, if someone wants me dead bad enough, me having a gun won't prevent it.
Would like to see NASCAR require drivers to drink a six pack in the drivers meeting, two shots of Tequila before coming off pit road for the pace lap, and then 2 shots of Tequila at every pit stop. It would make for a far more interesting product than what they have now.
As for the SEC venues, I'm torn. I drink beer. I like to have an ice cold beer or three when I'm at a minor league game with nachos or brats on a hot summer evening. When we were at the Liberty Bowl in my avatar picture, my wife and I had 3 beers each at I believe $7 a pop, which I thought was outrageous. There were three dudes behind us who kept chugging from the opening kickoff and I'd guess that they had 8+ each. They weren't obnoxious or anything, but when the game was over I wondered how they were getting out of there. One of them was asleep, one looked like he was ready to blow his groceries and one who was standing was really unsteady on his feet. Hopefully they were going to call a cab, because we were catching a shuttle back to the Peabody and you had to make damn sure you were on the right shuttle. I couldn't imagine those dudes being able to do that and they damn sure didn't have any business driving.
Most people who want to get hammered will do so at a tailgate or sneak a flask in for football. Basketball doesn't lend itself to tailgating, so maybe if you sell it inside the arenas, you could get a wristband and have it punched when you buy a beer, and have a cutoff of 4. I'd probably be ok with it for all sports if they cut people off after 4.
My little story is not made up unfortunately for the citizens of Mexico, where my guys come from Zacetecas and Durango they are not allowed to own guns. I dont want to hunt with a bow and arrow I want to hunt with my gun. I agree that anyone that really wants to kill you can make arrangements to do so, but only the gun free zones are where this happens on a large scale you are not going to win that argument that being without guns makes you safer. Those that seeks to kill another greatly prefer someone that won't shoot back, I will keep my guns thank you very much.
Lol, well Mexico law disagrees with you, but hey, I'll take the word of an anonymous guy in the internet with zero evidence to support. :joy:
Also, 70% of the firearms in Mexico came from the US. So if we did not make them so accessible, Mexico would have much less of an issue. You literally just provided more evidence to my point. Our ridiculous gun laws have literally contributed enourmously to the gun violence in Mexico and South America.
Real men hunt with bow and arrow.
Which gun free zone are you refering to? As has already been pointed out, Mexico is not a gun free zone. Citizens all over the country are allowed to own guns, they just have a longer/stricter process. If you are going to make these claims at least provide some evidence to support it.
It's been proven time and time again that guns make no one safer. In fact, they only increase the likelyhood of sever injury and fatality. I have read multiple stories just in the last few weeks of gunmen being taken down by unarmed citizens. You don't hear about as many being defeated in a shoot out, unless it's with law enforcement. Why do you think that is?
If you need a gun to defend yourself, I feel very sorry for you and those you are trying to protect.
I have not looked it up on the internet, my guys told me they would be put in jail if found with a gun, you may be right on that point there may be a process to go through that is difficult. I dont know what to tell you if you cant read your history books and see what has happened to people that were disarmed such as the jews in Germany during WW2 and what is happening all over this world now to those disarmed in places as they are in Mexico. Are you saying that a person cant kill another with a bow and arrow, what right have you to tell anyone they cant bear arms when our constitution upholds it, I feel sorry for anyone depending on you in a time of need.
tv
we grew up with a lot of UL fans...many wouldn't need alcohol sales to spark their problems, or need to act like fools
I mean if they owned it illegally perhaps, not sure why they would tell you they can't legally own one. Seems odd to say the least.
Okay, let's pretend your 1 sentence revisionist version of histrory was accurate, how would guns have protected the "jews" against bombs, tanks, chemical warfare. What about when they ran out of ammunition fighting one of the largest military powers with an essentially endless supply? How would owning a gun protect you against drones and other artillary that militaries utilize today? They will literally turn you and your guns to dust in seconds if need be.
What places in the world is this happening? Please tell.
Sure they can kill them with a bow and arrow. Hell, people can kill with their barehands. Which does more damage? Which fires the most shots per second? Which is easier to reload and aim? Which would you rather go against? Which do you feel you would have a greater chance of surviving? Which do you think victims of gun violence would have prefered to have dealt with? Do you think Stephen Paddock kills 52 people in Vegas with a bow and arrow? Do you think Dylan Roof kills 9 people with a bow and arrow? Do you think Nik Cruz kills 17 people with a bow and arrow? Do you think we would have the same endless news cycles of shootings and gun violence if people were using bow and arrows instead?
The constitution was written in 1789, at a time when guns could fire 1 round and took about 30 seconds to reload. It was not written with todays firearms as a thought. It was also written at the time because citizens were the militia.
I don't surround myself with dependent people, so not an issue.
I was hoping that you caught the humor with the emoji's. I was just ribbing you some. No I don't drink at all. I can't stand the stuff....any of it. I really don't like to be around it either, to be honest. But, I do love to shoot my collection of guns! Fortunately, I rarely had to shoot at anyone in my 30 years but I did arrest a lot of people who were loaded in more ways than one.
I called Arturo on my way to town tonite and asked if it was illegal to own a gun in Mexico he said yes it was illegal...due to your vehemence I decided that you did know that you could obtain a gun in Mexico, so I asked can a person obtain a permit to get one he said yes but it is virtually impossible to get one of those permits and he didn't personally know anyone who had one.
On your history point the internet is full of photos of the nazis holding pistols to peoples head and shooting them, most of these people were rounded up under the pretense of being moved to a place of holding. Yes of course it would be difficult to fight a army with a handgun or rifle, I was referring to defending your home against thieves and gangs if they ever decide to venture into the countryside.
The better question is where in the world is it not happening? Every time I turn on the TV or pull up the news they are showing christians being beheaded or massacred where have you been the past 25 years did you miss the airplanes flying into the twin towers? Are you saying that we should just turn all our ability to defend ourselves over and then those type things will cease, that because we dont have firearms they would just leave us alone.
You are the big bad bow and arrow man that can protect with that, are you saying that those things wouldn't happen if guns were taken away, that the bad guys would just go running and turn their weapons in, heck Chicago is supposed to be gun free and there are more killings there every week than anywhere in the country....all these mass shooting occur where people are defenseless at church at concerts anywhere they can get off multiple shootings with little to no chance of getting shot back at. The bible says how do you enter a strong mans house unless you bind him first.
The constitution was written to protect us from people like you... You would dictate to those that have firearms and are not using the against anyone to surrender those because you know more than us and you want to "bind us". That is the big problem with your whole narrative no one is trying to force you to do anything but you are trying to force your way of thinking on us.
As far as not surrounding yourself with dependent people I can see that I would imagine there aren't too many people that would feel secure with you as their protector.
Wait, so you called a person from Mexico who said it was illegal to own a gun in Mexico, but then when prompted said it was legal? And it's not virtually impossible, it is just harder because they have stricter gun laws. However, since the US has much looser gun laws they are just coming here to get them. 70% of the guns in Mexico are from the US. Not only are we causing gun violence in out country at record rates, we are now aiding it in others.
In the initial stages it was because they were surrendering themselves, which guns would not have prevented. However, overtime of learning the tortures they endured, many homes and villages were destroyed by heavy artillery fire in search of Jews and others. Again, guns would not have really aided.
Most thieves aren't going to rob you while you are home unless they are stealing a package off a porch or something, and most aren't trying to harm or kill you. Are you really going to draw a gun and shut them over that? If they aren't threatening you it would be illegal to shoot them in most places. Also, you are pretty likely to know most home intruders as they will often have a comfort level with that home. If so, they likely already know you have a gun and either don't care or have planned for it. If someone wanted to break into your house with the intent to harm or kill you, I would highly suspect they would be catching you off guard and unprepared (if not I would question why you would be expecting a violent home break-in or attack). It would take several seconds to react from the initial shock and attempt to retrieve your firearm, thus not leaving much time. But hey, maybe you are John Rambo or something. If so, I am fine with you having a gun with the military experience and all.
There is violence happening, but you were citing governments and dictators attacking citizens like Hitler. Violence has existed long before guns and will continue after. Guns do nothing but increase the ease and ability for it to happen. In the beheading cases you are talking about, people are abducted as survivors from attacks. Guns would not aid them against the weaponry they are facing in the attacks. Christians are being attacked in Churches when it is least expected, a couple of of which have had armed guards present. Guns would not have aided these people. Guns were an still are only allowed as checked, unless you are an official. They would not have been of aid then. The attackers didn't even have guns.
You have zero ability to defend yourself now. If someone wants to kill you or attack you, they will; regardless of whether you own a gun or not. More than likely you will never know it's coming to even be prepared with your gun. Do you keep it locked and loaded on you at all times? Are you so prepared you can draw, aim and fire and take out your assaulter within 2 or 3 seconds? That is all the time they need to have fired multiple shots at you. How many times in your life have you had to defend yourself? How many times have you used your firearm to defend yourself? Are you only confident in defending yourself with a firearm? Do you not have the confidence to beat the **** out of someone, hit them with a bat?
You can, people did it for centuries before guns existed. It's what wars were fought and won with.
They will have different weapons that people have far more of a chance against. Much less rash decisions and mistakes made. I would much prefer to fight someone with their fist, a knife or so forth than a gun. If I was being shot at by someone, I would much rather it be a bow and arrow than a gun. How about you?
Chicago is not gun-free. Can you please provide proof of this? Chicago and Illinois in general has stricter gun laws such as longer wait periods and required permits. Most people just go to Indian or Chicago has also been one of the most violent cities in the country for decades. Diminishing the amount of guns in the city would likely reduce the gun violence. That is jst common sense.
More than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns. This is why we need comprehensive federal gun reform and not individual state laws.
No the constitution was written almost 250 years ago when things were very different. You could own slaves , women could not vote and were essentially property and most of the country as we know it did not even exist when it was written. You had a musket that could fir 1 bullet a time before needing several seconds to reload. Somethings have to be updated from time to time. The constitution and gun laws are 1 of them. Or do you just ignore all the amendments that came after?
No, I am trying to keep you safe from guns and yourself. You have yet to provide any valid reason for needing a gun. I don't mind you having a musket or even a revolver, but I don't think non-military or law enforcement citizens needs to have them. There is no need other than a false sense of security you can sadly only seem to get from a firearm.
Most people tell me they feel quite comfortable around me. Wonder why that is?
Yep. That poster using the words "gun free" to describe Chicago is beyond ridiculous.
Chicago's stricter gun regulations are utterly meaningless. Why? Because the Indiana border is right there next door, and there's gun shops galore in that spot along the Chicago/Indiana border (because, of course, businessmen know where the demand is).
Stricter regulations don't mean a damn thing when you only have to drive 15 minutes to buy from a place without those regulations. Chicago is positively drowning in guns. "Gun free" is the last thing it is.
No I didn't calll Mexico while on my way to church I called him he lives in my back yard as he works for me as I had already pointed out to you, I think we need to just agree to disagree. I could go down every one of your points but am through.
So you didn't call a person from Mexico, but you did call a person a from Mexico? Lol, what? That literally made no sense.
If you could go through them that easy I am sure you would. The problem you seem to be having is providing any evidence to support your conclusions. You are just throwing **** at the wall hoping it sticks. You have been manipulated into believing you need a gun to be safe or defend yourself, when in fact, that gun is actually decreasing your safety in more ways than it increases it.
You can tell the news outlets some people utilize just by the talking points they promote.
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. He is just reverberating things he has heard without ever researching for himself.
You are very eloquent in writing your paragraphs and I was just thinking the very same thing about you and the news outlets you are brainwashed by, through you whole deceptive oratory, you have never once addressed why you have a right to disarm me. Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation you can look that up for yourself, I as a Kentuckian do not have the right to carry my guns into Illinois. I would love to see you go to the gangs and tell them to disarm themselves it doesn't matter where they get them.