Ahhh, Georgia... you can't fix stupid. "Georgia Considers Vast Gun Law Changes"

[CurtEastPoint]

and here they are:


ATLANTA -- Georgia lawmakers could soon be considering vast changes to the state's firearm laws.

The proposals include allowing gunowners with permits to carry their concealed weapons at churches, school zones and college campuses. Lawmakers could also rewrite a provision that would allow licensed gun owners to carry weapons in parts of Georgia's airports.

SO... with any number of REAL PROBLEMS to deal with, our stupid stupid asshole legislators will deal with THIS for the entire session. Guaranteed. Assholes, all.

[jpak]

1. but...but...but...that uppity Obama wants to takes our'ns guns away from us'ns

:evilgrin:

[SteveM]

95. Oh, now, Georgia is making up for when they banned blacks from owning guns...

You are aware that Southern states, from ante-bellum times, through the Jim Crow era, and well into the 20th Century, kept blacks from keeping and bearing arms?

www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the Heller brief, submitted in that decision. A fine summary of the racist gun-control laws in Georgia and elsewhere (it didn't help if you were of Italian descent in NYC, either).

Jazz artists, Bluesmen and every-day black workers moved North for better conditions, we are aware. Few are aware that ol' Jim Crow hopped a train in the dark, just as it left the station. He looks "better" to some up North, now. Good clothes, cultured, erudite, emotionally sanctimonious. 'Guess it's because he's been hanging out with all those "liberals."

[Aristus]

2. Just another reminder, as if I needed one, to steer clear of Georgia, and never spend my

tourist dollars there.

If I want to visit a backward, unenlightened, primitive Third World country, I'll try Bangladesh instead...

:eyes:

[RebelOne]

4. It is not all backward and primitive.

I live in the Atlanta metro area and many people here are quite progressive. Come on down and visit.

[Aristus]

6. I've visited Atlanta several times, and it's a terrific city.

Why are the good progressives allowing themselves to be pushed around by the backwoods trailer-dwelling butt-scratchers?

Liberals tend not to play on the racist fears of the trogs, but if there was some way to point out to the gun fetishists that scary black people would also get to carry concealed weapons everywhere, would that make them change their stance? Having a situation in which EVERYONE is packing and just itching to unlimber won't alleviate fears. It will just cause already existing fears to grow and become worse...

[Callisto32]

87. Wow,

the vitriol dripping from that is astounding, even for the "gungeon." How very "progressive" of you to call people with a different viewpoint nasty names. Here I was, thinking that was bigotry, and it turns out to be progressive-ism, or what ever you call it.

[Pavulon]

93. When I took the CCW class there was about a 15%

section of the class that was black. almost 30% was female. That is about on par with the us population. These guys were, like me, productive working guys. Criminals dont take a ccw class, they just carry illegally.

We are progressive here friend.

[SteveM]

96. You asked a question about race. It's time for the answer...

"...but if there was some way to point out to the gun fetishists that scary black people would also get to carry concealed weapons everywhere, would that make them change their stance?"

No.

Now that we cleaned up that little mystery, you may wish to educate yourself:

www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the Heller brief and read an excellent summary of the Jim Crow laws regarding gun-bans. Guess who was banned from owning guns?

You should know by now that defenders of the Second Amendment are well-aware of these racist laws and have no problem with ANY law-abiding citizen owning guns. Got that?

You say "Liberals tend not to play on the racist fears of the trogs..." Bullshit, esp. when it comes to you. "He has become his own enemy in the instant that he preaches." (B. Dylan)

You are deeply prejudiced, and have no sense of irony about its expression: "Why are the good progressives allowing themselves to be pushed around by the backwoods trailer-dwelling butt-scratchers?"

Jesus, man, you don't see how bigoted you are? And in front of others? No wonder liberals suffer from an image problem.

[spin]

110. Hopefully, you don't fear "scary black people" carrying concealed...

but the tone of your post leads me to wonder if you are not at heart a racist. The basic concept of draconian gun control is to keep "those people" from owning or carrying firearms. The RKBA movement is a very progressive and liberal movement.

When you refer to those who support concealed carry as "backwoods trailer-dwelling butt-scratchers", you show at the very minimum an elitist uninformed view. Those who have concealed carry permits are a very diverse group well represented by ALL classes of society.

I personally know several "black people" who have concealed weapons permits. One was a co-worker that I introduced to the shooting sports and is an excellent shooter. When he took the concealed carry class he impressed his instructor so much that the instructor wanted to coach him for competitive shooting events. Another is my next door neighbor.

The pistol range I used to shoot at in the Tampa Bay area was open to all races. We welcomed everybody to the shooting fraternity. The shooting sports community is open and friendly to all people with the exception of the criminal element of society.

We live in a free country that allows citizens to own and in many areas to carry firearms (with certain restrictions). Firearms were important in the civil rights movement and helped to curb the racist activity of groups such as the KKK.

The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence.

It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.

***snip***

According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0102/0102monroe.htm

Even the NRA supports minority gun ownership.

As reported, the NRA has prevailed over the San Francisco Housing Authority’s illegal ban on gun ownership for those living in public housing. Previously, San Francisco Housing Authority had a lease provision banning guns in the public housing residences, but has agreed to remove the provisions and admit that such provisions are not lawful, in order to settle the lawsuit filed by the NRA.

First, the restoration of public housing residents’ gun rights is a good thing. Public housing tends to be one of the more dangerous places that an individual can live. This means that the law abiding people in public housing are often surrounded by a higher-than-normal number of violent criminals and gang members, who won’t obey a gun ban anyway. As a result, banning guns in public housing leads to a situation where the most violent and least law abiding people are still armed, while their law abiding victims are defenseless.

Secondly, I would like to point something out for those people who still entertain the utterly untrue and thoroughly disproven idea that the NRA is a racist group that is hostile towards ethnic minorities: Taking a look at the San Fransisco Housing Authority’s demographics, we can see that African Americans make up a full 41.6% of the public housing residents, followed by Asians at 26.8%. Indeed, only 10.6% of the public housing residents are Caucasian, yet the NRA has spent time and money fighting for the gun rights of public housing residents that are predominantly minorities. That doesn’t sound like the action a racist organization would take – but instead what the nations oldest civil rights group would do. And this is yet another reason that I’m proud to be an African American member of the NRA, just like many other African American NRA members.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/31/nra-wins-against-illegal-san-francisco-public-housing-gun-ban/

I’m a black gun owner who has been an NRA member for about as long as I’ve owned guns. During that time I’ve experienced exactly 0 instances of racism from NRA members, and have found them to be kind, helpful, and all around good people. Sadly, some people seem to think that the NRA and its members are racist. For example, I‘ve noticed an increasing number of people arriving at LearnAboutGuns.com after searching on Google for terms such as “NRA position on African American”, “black people NRA”, “racist NRA”, etc. I already wrote one article addressing the non-existence of racial problems at Chicago area gun stores, but it seems that it is time for this African American gun owner and NRA member to write another article addressing (the lack of) racism insofar as the NRA and gun owners in general are concerned:

The NRA’s Lack of Racism
Bluntly put, the NRA is not a racist organization, but instead one of the oldest civil rights groups in the USA. The NRA is a national organization with millions of members, and is dedicated to firearms training and the defense of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are NRA members of every race, religion, country of origin, etc. The NRA does not promote or condone racism, as it is comprised of reasonable people. Also, from a practical matter, it should be obvious that the NRA would not support racism, as to do so would give the anti gun lobby ammunition in their propaganda war, while simultaneously costing the NRA the support of reasonable people. Instead, the NRA has a proven track record of standing up for the rights of minorities. Many of the African American gun owners on the Black Gun Owners forum are NRA members.

***snip***

Conclusion
The NRA is not a racist organization, and the same is true for other pro gun rights organizations, as well as the overwhelming majority of their individual members. As a black person who has spoken with and shot with gun owners from multiple states, I can unequivocally say that I have never experienced a shred of firearms activity related racism. It is offensive and saddening to hear ignorant forum posters ascribe racism to NRA members, as some of the nicest people I’ve met over the last couple of years have been NRA members. For example, when I first went trapshooting, an NRA member (who was white by the way) went to the trouble of showing my the basics, and letting me borrow one of his guns on 2 separate days. Other members of the same trapshooting club spent about an hour chatting with me after I was done shooting, and encouraged me to return. Lending of firearms, teaching of trapshooting, and entertaining conversation are what one can expect from an NRA member – not racism.
VN:F <1.7.9_1023>
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/25/racism-the-nra-and-gun-owners/

Your sad attempt to influence those you call "gun fetishists" is a failure because those who support RKBA are far more open minded then you. We don't oppose "scary black people" owning firearms or even legally carrying them as we don't see or view minorities as being scary.

We do oppose the criminal element owning and illegally carrying firearms. We support the right of all honest citizens to own firearms for self defense and sporting use.

I suggest you take the time to do a little research and educate yourself. As a start read this excellent article:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

[PavePusher]

48. Very elitist of you.

Pretty damned bigoted too...

[paulsby]

61. don't come to seattle or WA state then...

because our gun laws are similar. airports (non-secured areas)? yes

churches?
yes

school zones (yes, but not INSIDE the school buildings)?
yes

college campuses ? yes

[taurus145]

73. Oopsie!

Check the profile. (Aristus) That's a howler!

[paulsby]

76. keerist. that's CLASSIC. aristus better move out of WA state right away

there's people with guns at college campuses. school zones. airports. churches.

except not rednecks, like aristus despises. just mossbacks.

[RealityInSeattle]

119. Yes, Please Don't - we already have enough gun cheerleaders

[Hoopla Phil]

68. I'd imagine that that list of states to "not visit" is getting rather long. LOL

[taurus145]

71. How very inclusive of you!

Go be boorish and uppity somewhere else.

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. Awww... are you scared of a little ol' pistol?

Here's a clue... crimes are committed by criminals, not people who have passed background checks in order to LEGALLY carry a weapon*...

* There may be a case or two where a CCW permit holder has done something illegal, but they are few and far between.

Grow up some and quit living your life in such fear...

[EC]

7. Criminals have no record to check until they are caught

so that line of reasoning is no good...


Even Goitti Jr. would be eligible for a gun there...

[EOTE]

9. Funny how so many people forget this.

We're all "law abiding citizens" until we get caught. Plenty of gun crimes have been committed by people who were at one time a "law abiding citizen". I support gun rights to an extent, but at this time, there's certainly no reason to be expanding them.

[moondust]

18. In fact, EVERYBODY starts out as a law-abiding citizen.

Not a single person in the history of the world was born a criminal.

"Criminals" are obviously not some kind of separate class of people as the deluded gun nuts would have us believe.

[SteveM]

98. Sure. But some earn the distinction of being a thug...

When people "earn" the distinction of being a thug/criminal, they are most often quite the separate class -- as they themselves would readily admit. (Why do you think thugs refer to the law-abiding as 'suckas'? Talk about a vast class of people THEY don't like.) The only ones suffering delusions in this regard are those who would, variously, enable, romance or provide political succor to thugs. Thugs depend on this rather lurid acquiescence for their continued actions.

BTW, the vast majority of citizens are law-abiding. 95%+? What do you think?

[taurus145]

80. Gun laws don't need expanding

What they need is a deep pruning, let's say, back to 1925 - before firearms restrictions in direct contravention to the Second Amendment began being passed by state and Federal legislators.

[Euromutt]

89. You've left yourself quite some wriggle room there

Plenty of gun crimes have been committed by people who were at one time a "law abiding citizen".

The above statement is inarguably true. However, criminological evidence indicates that very few people go directly from being a "law-abiding citizen" to committing a violent crime with a firearm. Some 90% of homicides in the US are committed by people who have previously "been in contact with the police" (to use the British euphemism), i.e. they have prior convictions, been arrested multiple times (even if no charges were pressed or convictions secured), had the cops round on "domestic disturbance" calls, what have you.

I do need to point that I don't accept your assertion that "we're all 'law abiding citizens' until we get caught." The fact that, say, a mugger or burglar has managed to avoid capture, or even just being convicted, doesn't negate the fact that he has committed multiple offenses, and can therefore hardly be considered "law-abiding." And while such a person might pass the background check required to get a CCW permit, acquiring such a permit also involves submitting one's fingerprints to the FBI and state law enforcement, which is not something a criminal smart enough to evade capture is likely to be willing to do.

[gorfle]

106. Funny how so many people forget THIS.

We're all "law abiding citizens" until we get caught. Plenty of gun crimes have been committed by people who were at one time a "law abiding citizen".

The simple fact is that of the 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, 98% of them don't commit violent crimes. Even if every single violent crime tracked by the FBI were attributed to a firearm owner, that would only account for 2% of firearm owners. Even if you assume there are twice as many unreported violent crimes, it still means that around 93-96% of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crime - there just aren't enough violent crimes being committed to make much difference in the percentages.

Thus there is plenty of reason to be expanding gun rights. First of all, the vast majority of firearm owners are undeserving of having their rights restricted. Second of all, firearm crime rates continue to trend downward.

Steve

[eqfan592]

108. Actually, it's much rarer....

...for a person with no previous record to suddenly decide to kill someone than for somebody with a previous criminal background.

And nobody forgets the fact that we all get our start as law abiding citizens. What you're forgetting is that we can't treat people AS criminals until they commit a criminal act, which is what some here seem to be in favor of.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. You are claiming that all of us are really violent felons who haven't been caught.

Bullshit. There aren't that many violent crimes committed. And it is well known by criminologists that a small percentage of criminals commit the majority of the violent crimes. Read up a bit on violent crime before you expose your ignorance again.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. "Even Goitti Jr. would be eligible for a gun there..." No, you're wrong..

Please feel free to try again, though...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Is that the future crimes division you work for?

You can't deny access because of what you think someone might do.

[Naked_Ape]

11. agreed

There is plenty else to worry about. Most CCW states allow carry in the unsecured area of airports. In general CCW people aren't the ones you have to worry about. If it makes 'em feel warm and safe, well, go ahead. I like CCW in as much as it makes people go through a real background check and gives them a little more sensible training than they get from TV.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. Too many people here confuse criminals with law abiding citizens for some reason or another...

I think two of those reasons are fear and hyperbole... they would probably shit their pants if the actually knew how many people around them, every day, are carrying concealed weapons.

They act like someone who gets a concealed carry permit is suddenly going to have their brains fall out and then lose all their morality and become deranged killers


Welcome to DU, Naked Ape...


Peace,

Ghost

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Love that last sentence..........

it fits.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. Thanks... they are words to live by, imho... n/t

[depakid]

34. "Grow up some and quit living your life in such fear.."

:rofl:

Irony impairment runs deep with the gun crowd.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Mental impairment runs deep in the gun grabber crowd..

Reading some of the posts by uneducated gun grabbers proves that. Nothing but nonsense, denial of facts and hyperbole...

Most law abiding citizens don't carry out of fear.. they carry because they want to exercise their constitutionally given/protected rights.

Gun grabbers are in the same league with the fascists who wish to strip us of other rights...

Please excuse yourself from conversations that you have nothing intelligent, or relevant, to add to...

Thanks,

Ghost

[depakid]

43. "Gun grabbers are in the same league with the fascists who wish to strip us of other rights.."

:rofl:

Pananoid and pathetic as any teabagger. Maybe moreso, since the gun obsessed don't care who their behavior hurts- or the fact that they endanger their own families through their irrational fear of the goberment and "bad guys."

Tick toc 'til the next mass shooting, family killing and workplace rampage.

[Taitertots]

72. Except the number of guns is increasing and murders are decreasing

Who is my behavior hurting? Name one person adversely effected by my firearms ownership. Endangering my family? If anything the recreational benefits from my firearms has a net positive gain for my family.


Wow "Tick toc 'til the next mass shooting, family killing and workplace rampage."
You do realize those events are of such a low probability that you have near nothing to ever worry about. Much less probable from the CCW crowd, a disproportionately peaceful group.

[PavePusher]

49. Ah, so you DO recognize that phrase... n/t

[SteveM]

99. Slept 9 hours last night (.5 hr. above normal). What am I supposed to fear...?

Dying of a heart-attack (I'm 61)? House burning down (hoo-WEE it's old and decrepit)? Someone breaking in my back door? Actually, I fear the first possibility, but don't really worry about it.

You know, depakid, it is the gun-controllers/prohibitionists which always broach the topic of fear and (but not in your case, here), penis-length, etc., trying, I suppose, to create a fait accompli by merely saying it over and over. It doesn't work; in fact, it reveals more about the posters of such droll, bis repetita.

[Orsino]

44. Completely misses the points raised in the OP.

Not only does Georgia have much more serious issues to worry about, working on this right now is completely tone-deaf.

We should ask, rather, what the hell some Georgians are so afraid of that they think a little ol' pistol will protect them?

(Rhetorical question; I suspect that this is just another distraction for the Lege, and an attempt to avoid the hard work.)

[paulsby]

62. god forbid georgia should expand civil rights

i mean, the NERVE

[gratuitous]

5. Can you carry in the state legislature or in the state courthouses?

I wonder why those places are singled out for special consideration and restriction of a certain reading of Second Amendment rights?

:think:

[PavePusher]

50. Depends on the State.

Some places (VA, NH, possibly more, that's what I can remember off the top of my head), our Civil Rights do NOT end at the doorway to the governmental Puzzle Palace.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Its a safety issue for schools

To ensure that our children are safe in High Schools and Colleges we should arm them all, especially drunken frat boys.

[rubberducky]

10. + 1

[SteveM]

100. - 1. quack

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Children are legally barred from firearm possession. Duh.

[PavePusher]

52. Make that "unsupervised firearm posession"... n/t

[PavePusher]

51. Who has advocated that?

Cite, please...

[paulsby]

63. ah, the "arm them"

canard. didn't take long.

not to mention anti-frat bigotry

a twofer!

[rd_kent]

74. Yes, specially the drunken frat boys!

That has to be the biggest douche-bag statement, ever.

[taurus145]

81. Just a damned minute!

Douche bags serve a useful purpose.

[rd_kent]

102. Sorry, I meant no disrespect towards douche bags. My bad.

:)

[armueller2001]

126. Just for the record, dipshit

at many schools throughout the country, fraternity houses are off campus. So, the "drunken frat boys" can already be legally armed. Doesn't seem to be a problem now, does there?

[defendandprotect]

12. GOP/NRA Wild West America . . . ??? Or are these Dem/NRA legislators?

[CurtEastPoint]

14. The GOP rules Georgia.

And YES, I live in the metro ATL and it's a great, diverse, place but we are surrounded and controlled by knuckle-draggers.

[PavePusher]

83. If you were half a smart as you imply...

"knuckle-draggers" shouldn't be a problem.

But I suspect the problem is not those with calloused finger-joints...

Elitism and bigotry all in one sentance, well done!

[PavePusher]

53. Where is this Wild West you speak of?

Chicago? D.C.? L.A.? Ooo, ooo, I know, BALTIMORE, right!!

[SteveM]

103. "Wild west" canard. It's a TRIPLE! (nt)

[KamaAina]

13. Exactly what airports need. More guns.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

54. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Tucson, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Manchester (N.H.).... n/t

[paulsby]

64. and Seatac (Seattle Tacoma Airport)... nt

[oneshooter]

91. Or at Bush Intercontental, Hobby airport,

or in airports in Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio, just to name a few more.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

101. They are already there. But you knew that, right?...

A lot of folks who are gun-prohibitionists like to "cover up" their beliefs by attempts at "sarcasm." It doesn't work, and only calls into question the depth and authenticity of their "beliefs." Not that I am against sarcasm, but it has to resonate with some truth.

As for airports, most all allow, and have allowed for generations, the possession of firearms before entry is made into the security check-points and secure areas beyond. After all, how do folks with firearms transport them by air? The usual procedure is to carry the encased firearm (FAA-approved hard-shelled containers), to the ticket counter and declare the arm. The arms is inspected to make sure it is unloaded, and goes into checked-baggage. Upon arrival at one's destination, the firearm is retrieved -- still in the airport, mind you. Been going on for many years.

I'm glad I had the opportunity to enlighten you in these matters.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Jeez, just what we need.........

[RC]

16. If CCW is so wonderful, why not let let them board air craft with them. Maybe one or more could

have shot the crotch bomber before he lit up? Huh, ya think? Makes as much sense as any other excuse for CC.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. So you think you are as likely to face a deadly threat on a aircraft as you are anywhere else?

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

55. Why not?

Why should people be stripped of self-defense tools just because they are on an airplane?

P.S., I've been in military aviation maintenance for 19+ years, so don't try to bullshit me about "explosive decompression crashing the plane" or anything else of that ilk...

[Hoopla Phil]

69. Sure. The only proviso is that the CHL holder have frangible ammo.

[PavePusher]

70. Why? Won't make much of a difference. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

113. For the same reason that Air Marshals use frangible ammo.

[PavePusher]

115. Non-frangible ammo...

is not a great risk on a plane.

[rd_kent]

75. Another cowardly hit and run hyperbole rhetoric by RC. Thanks.

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Maybe TPTB are hoping we'll kill each other.

.

[goldcanyonaz]

20. I have no problem with teachers, principles, etc having concealed weapons.

Perhaps the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings could have been thwarted had some been carrying guns.

[Glorfindel]

21. Isn't that nice? Considering that Atlanta has the world's busiest airport

The prospect of unlimited renecks and hillbillies slouching around in the baggage-claim area (or wherever) clutching their concealed weapons does not fill me with delight, and I'm a native Georgian currently residing in (believe it or not) the more enlightened state of Mississippi. God help us all.

[PavePusher]

56. Nice bigotry on display.

Why is this not a problem elsewhere? (See post #54)

[paulsby]

65. bigotry is ok here if it is against white southerners

as that post proves...

[taurus145]

82. I'm a white southerner, my roots are in MS, GA, and SC

born in Virginia, living in Kentucky. I guess I just got smeared again.

I'm waiting for the anti-Irish league to show up and fill my boat.

[SteveM]

104. Oh, hell, now you did it. I'm an Irish Cracker male; worse, from Florida! (nt)

[virginia mountainman]

84. What a bigot.....

Allowed on this board?!?!

[John7878]

22. Gun Free Zones

Its about time they got rid of the 'gun free zones'. Does no good to have CC and then stop people from going anywhere with their LEGAL firearm.

25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[oneshooter]

92. Gun Free Zone= Target Rich Environment n/t

[The Straight Story]

23. Criminals don't carry guns now to such places out of respect for the law, now they will?

Not sure I understand....

[johnaries]

24. In TN they legalized guns in bars. But the bar-owners just banned

them from their bars, themselves. Tells you who the sober ones are, huh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. How many bars did that? How many deaths have there been in the ones that allow guns?

[NashVegas]

28. Drawing Lines In the Sand Because It Worked So Well In Tennessee

People are still pissed off.

Last week, some yahoo brought a modified AK-47 to a local park where a lot of people go hiking. He was spotted and rangers were called. They let him go because he had a carry permit, just like our new law says, for a handgun and the AK-47 qualifies as a handgun. I shit you not.


http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091225/NEWS03/912250328/Armed-man-startles-Radnor-Lake-State-Park-hikers

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Please read more carefully. It wasn't a modified AK-47. Get a grip.

[NashVegas]

41. D'Oh!

I can see you have no trouble with it, but the overwhelming majority of hikers are pissed off to see their playgrounds become political battlefields, all to please that 3% of the state that needs its *ego* stroked by some protector fantasy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Seeing people with firearms doesn't scare me. I obviously does you and that's okay.

[paulsby]

66. our parks do not belong solely to those hikers that are anti-RKBA

i suggest you listen to a little woodie guthrie and get back to me

[NashVegas]

105. I'm So Sorry You Still Don't Get It

This is not about your right to carry and it never was. This is about drawing lines in the sand to divide people.

[paulsby]

107. there is a natural division

between those who respect the constitution and those who don't

i side with the former

hth

[Callisto32]

88. You have no right to not be pissed off.

The "you" is collective.

[oneshooter]

94. If it was originally built as a pistol it is legal.

If it was originally built as a RIFLE, and them modified to a SBR without the proper paperwork and permits being issued from the BATFE, then he is eligible for a free 10 year vacation at Club Fed.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Dappleganger]

29. Criminals take guns wherever they want and don't ask for permission

from legislators who are more concerned about making laws them making the ones in place actually work.

[Doctor_J]

39. Actually, they don't take them into airports

so far...

[PavePusher]

57. Not into the "secured" areas.

Elsewhere, who can say?

I know that in most of the airports I travel through, I can guarantee at least one legally armed person in the non-secure areas. :-)

[Xenotime]

36. What kind of fucked up shit is that?!?

[PavePusher]

58. Ah, profanity without reason.

Very persuasive. NOT.

[rd_kent]

111. What is fucked up and what is shit?

Other than your entire post?

[marmar]

37. Why stop there? Let's arm all the toddlers at day care.....

..... if another brat takes their Tickle Me Elmo, KABLOW.....

[PavePusher]

59. Ah, hyperbole.

Also incredibly NON-effective.

[paulsby]

67. ah, the arm them canard

yup.

again

[rd_kent]

77. Hahaha! Thats like something from a robot chicken episode! Funny hit and run, marmar.

[aikoaiko]

79. Usually, you simply post articles without stating your opinion -- now I see why.

No one is talking about arming children.

ALL person's with a GA Firearms License are at least 21 years of age, go through a special GA Bureau of Investigation background check, submit finger prints to check with the database for past and future latent prints taken from crime scenes, and there is usually a waiting period.

[Doctor_J]

38. While most amendments are being grossly curtailed, the 2nd continues to swell

too bad we don't have a billion-dollar 1st amendment lobby - like the NRA for free assembly

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. So you've never heard of the ACLU. Interesting.

[Euromutt]

86. Unfortunately, the ACLU doesn't have anywhere near the capital the NRA does

The ACLU had a lot of money tied up in investments that got wiped out in the past 18 months, so they're struggling financially.

[rd_kent]

112. Wow. What reality are YOU living in?

Because you got it wrong....

[proteus_lives]

42. Good.

When I was a college student I carried on campus. I had a CCW, fuck the university.

Gun-free zones are pointless.

[PavePusher]

47. Has any of this been a problem...

in places where it is already allowed?

No?

So quit your whining, there are much more important "REAL PROBLEMS" for YOU to be worried about.

[paulsby]

60. so, the laws would be similar to WA state

where (non-LEO) citizens can carry at airports (non-secured areas), churches, school zones (but cannot enter school buildings with them), and college campuses (e.g. UW etc.)

you may think it's a waste of time to expand civil rights. others may differ

[aikoaiko]

78. As a GA resident, a univ worker, church goer, & often one's ride to the airport. I support this bill

I support this legislation. So called gun-free zones without security checks are impractical.

Here is the bill I think the article is referring to: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/pdf/hb615.pdf

I agree we have many other problems to deal with so let's get this signed into law ASAP and move on.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Aside from School Zones, Washington State already has all this. No blood running in the streets here

[benEzra]

90. Gee, Georgia might become like a whole bunch of other states, many of them blue.

Oh the horror. Be very afraid.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, are you this pensive about Vermont or New Hampshire?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

97. Terrible Law... This gets rid of the Preemtion.

That means cities and counties could enact different laws more restrictive than the state laws... creating a confusing patchwork of laws that could ensnare unknowing innocent people. Cities could enact thier own AWB and ban carry altogether. It's a poison pill.

No sane gun owner would vote for this and likely even the NRA wouldn't back this.
It would be a great bill if it did not strip preemption.

[rrneck]

114. ...you can't fix stupid...

But you can write your own material.

[east texas lib]

116. Well run for office in your beloved state and set it all right.

Wouldn't that be PEACHY!:o

[Tim01]

117. You can't fix stupid anti-gun people.

In spite of piles of evidence. Anti-gun people remain, ignorant, uneducated, irrational, hysterical, fear mongering zealots.

[RealityInSeattle]

118. Gun permits apparently cure alcoholism, anger and depression

Because magically, as soon as someone is granted a gun permit, they are cured, either now or in the future, of ever being capable of committing a crime just through the magical properties of being issued a gun permit.

It apparently lets you never get mad, never get drunk and never get depressed, and no matter what happens you will always obey the law and be rational every day for the rest of your life. Even though you have a .50 calibre 15 round hand gun that can shoot through the engine block of car.

Wow, those are some magic pieces of paper.

[X_Digger]

120. Get someone to explain carts and horses to you..

I know, I know, you have a serious problem confusing causation and correlation. You screw it up when talking about guns and crime (more guns=more crime!)

Here's a hint- the 2-3% of people who get permits are between 8x and 20x less likely to commit a crime than the general public, depending on the state and crime. That doesn't mean that permit holders are incapable of committing crime, just that it's rarer than even cops committing the same crime(s).

A subset of people who _by definition_ have to have a clean record, submit their fingerprints, and register with their state are not as likely to break the law.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. .50 Caliber and 15 rounds. Who makes it? Where can I get one?

It can't be a revolver. The Desert Eagle is 7 + 1 rounds. What gun are you talking about?

BTW - Such handguns as the Desert Eagle are popular only in the movies. In the genuine real world, the military, law enforcement and criminals don't like such hugh handguns. They have a heavy recoil and limited magazine capacity and are really only suitable for use against large animals, such as bears.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. As usual, you have it backwards.

You first (In most states) have to prove that you have excellent temper control, are sober, psychologically stable, a good shot, and are very law-abiding BEFORE the state will grant you that permit.

The way that one proves that is by pointing out a lifetime record of doing exactly those things. I have gone for 60+ years without problems in those areas. Do you really think I am going to flip out now? The FBI has done a background investigation of me, and I passed. That is also true of the other five milion CCW holders.

All you have to do is take a look at our record, of being several times safer than the general public. It is our record that lets us get that piece of plastic.

[SteveM]

125. Baloney! (But they did improve my breath.) (nt)

[spin]

123. Why not carry in a church?

Sounds good to me. I do (on the rare occasions when I attend church).

As far as I know, God doesn't put a bubble of safety around a church.

[GreenStormCloud]

124. In Texas, you can.

Unless the church specifically has a "no guns" policy.

Some years back, there was a mass shooting in a Sunday School. The legislature responded by removing churches from the list of restricted places.