Jay Bookman

By Brent

July 2, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

Jay, I can’t believe I’m saying this but I agree with you. These guys should shut up now and be happy with the decision the court made is was a huge win for Gun advocates and myself. This is just ridiculous though. This guy should be happy and move on. Don’t try to add fuel to the fire. Airports are one of the most secure places these days (except for maybe the men’s bathrooms). There are cops everywhere. I can understand feeling secure on Marta or somewhere like that but the airport. Come on.

By Believer

July 2, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

The Grumpy Old Potheads would appreciate it if you would kindly tone down the issue of firearms and the airport formerly known as Hartsfield. The plans to return the airport to its former name are progressing but they need to keep this matter as low key as possible until they are ready. It may not come as a shock to you to find that they believe the party will be truly awed by their accomplishment. However, most of their believers do not have your education and experience to draw on. In fact, most of them can’t even afford crayons much less paper with uncolored pictures. That’s why the finer establishments hand them out with every meal but I digress. So, let’s try to maintain appropriate boundaries for now and not paint this as something that it’s not. Not yet anyway. You just wait and see though. The history books will vindicate the Gloriously Overwhelming Plan. You just wait.

By Goldie

July 2, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

And I’m still wondering why our guns and other weapons are not allowed in our courthouses and schools — we can take them to other “places of business” according to our wise legislators. Why not our courthouses???

/sarc…

By ByteMan

July 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

@Goldie: you forgot to mention the metal detectors at the Gold Dome. Why do our oh so wise legislators think that we need guns everywhere but where legislators meet? Wasn’t the point of having a personal right to handguns about being able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government? You’d think legislators who were supposedly sticking up for the 2nd Amendment would really stick up for it and not hide behind a security screening.

By James

July 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

Last year Georgia lawmakers passed legislation ensuring only the state could regulate firearms to prevent confusing city and county ordinances. This year they provided licensed hangun owners additional common sense latitude regarding where they could carry. However, Mayor Franklin and Mr. DeCosta seem to be the ones lacking common sense as well as candor. Why didn’t they declare all airport property outside the checkpoints a “gun free zone” last week? TSA regulations allow you to take your firearm to a check-in-counter, fill out the proper form and place it unloaded in locked checked luggage. The ammo can even be kept in its magazine. How does that constitute a “gun free zone” when it takes about two seconds to load that weapon. This is grandstanding pure and simple.

By Taxpayer

July 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I’m with Goldie on this one. I think it’s MIGHTY PECULIAR for an elected official to target the airport for a showdown over gun toting. Instead, I say it’s OK to corral our elected officials under their metallic dome while our state’s gun-toting population display their weaponry and their proficiency with said weaponry. Fifty paces, anyone. Just more distractions for a voting population that suffers more from ADD than any fifth grader ever has. You folks do realize that we pay these people in government for these extraordinary examples of leadership, don’t you.

By RealityKing

July 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Or perhaps.., it is wise for city officials to push this new envelope of legality. In order to push finding a new happy medium as quickly as possible, legally.

By TW

July 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

this is more about symbolism than practical effect

That’s how the top 1% gets into office. If elections were about practical effect, the wealthy brain of the GOP would never win. By manufacturing pockets of divide, they automatically inherit half of that group. Do this enough times and they have a base…guns…gays…abortion…

Ever notice the half of the divide that sides with the GOP is always that half that’s quick to look down their nose at the higher education of the other group?

By Winslo

July 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Does anyone not realize James’ point above? You are free NOW under TSA regualations to make a reservation, carry your weapon and ammo into the terminal in a piece of luggage, have access to it to show the ticket clerk it is unloaded, fill out the proper form AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN load it and shoot up the ticket area at any time !! AND YOU WERE THERE LEGALLY !!

THIS IS MUCH ADO OVER NOTHING! POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING !

By Taxpayer

July 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Yes indeed. Our elected officials wisely avoid any issue that might actually have some value outside of an election year. They would not dare start up discussions that would expose them as humans — humans with human frailties. No. They have to maintain a persona — a facade — through yet another election cycle. Then, they can return to their usual antics of bickering over who has the best-pressed jeans or “my faux tax-relief plan is better than your faux tax-relief plan” or let’s pray that more tax breaks fall from the sky for select elected officials or we need more growth in order to justify our next raise or we need to prey on Tennessee since praying for rain did not work or if we raise property values again we can keep on claiming that we did not raise taxes, etc. And yet, none of this surprises me. It’s not like I have expectations of something better from our government. It’s just another “institution” that brings to light the conversation between the hooker and the john — “We’ve already established what you do. Now we’re just arguing over the price.”

By Redneck Convert

July 2, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Well, I was all set to go down there in my F-450 with my double-barrel to back old Bearden up. But then I realized with payday not ‘til Thursday I couldn’t afford the diesel to go. So, I went took my shotgun over to the Lanierland grass airstrip here in Forsyth County, but the manager Joe Ed just grabbed his rifle and we wandered off into the woods and shot some squirrels. Nobody came and arrested us neither. Seems like that Buckhead fellow ought to move up here. Got to go deliver some beer for the next DOT board retreat. Probably have to make two trips. Have a good day everybody.

By Abundant Pundit

July 2, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

I’m an NRA member for 47 years now. This concealed weapons law was passed because I helped lobby for it. My appeal to lawmakers was simple: either vote FOR this new gun law or vast resources will be used to swiftboat your next election campaign. Have a nice day.

Conservatism 08: not a hand-out, but a handgun.

By Redneck, wrong blog

July 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

Didn’t you post that exact same posting on Wooten’s Blog??

By Redneck Convert

July 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Yes, I did. But does a comedian tell a joke in New York and not in Philly? No, he tells the same thing to as many audiences as he think it will work. In fact, the post is exactly copy and paste the same, misteaks (get it) and all.

By Redneck, Too

July 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

So where exactly is Lanierland Airstip, I assume you were refering to that that redneck airstrip across the street from Laural Springs or the Redneck Golf Club, Countryland?

By hillbilly ragger

July 2, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

RC @ 11.23

Philly…misteaks (get it)

oh man, you should be severely beaten for that one.

By ron

July 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Now the courts get to decide if airports outside the security zones are actually constitution free zones.We await the decision. No,Jay,It is not a bad idea to push this legislation.It is necessary for future clarity.

By Abomi Nation

July 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

You can carry a gun in an airport.

How about at a public park? Yes, ok how about at a public park during a President Bush speech?

By Abundant Pundit

July 2, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

Handguns. They’re beautiful, aren’t they? I remember loving them as a child. We were poor. But one day my family visited a house and had dinner. There was a little boy, my age, 5, who had three or four toy pistols that must have been exact duplicates of the one Wild Bill Hickok used in his television series which always opened with him in full gallop, firing toward the camera at some bad guys, with his sidekick loping behind, yelling, “Wild Bill, Wait for Me!” (andy devine).

Anyway, the kid and I bonded over recounting how much we loved wild bill hickok, the lone ranger and roy rogers. He lent me one of his pistols. I didn’t tell my parents, but of course they smelled it before we got to the car, (I must have been broadcasting my concealed weapon with every step), and they insisted I return it. My parents should work for airport security, I thought.

Then a miracle happened: my new friend’s parents insisted that their son had plenty of guns and my parents relented and off we went.

The next day, I had forgotten all about the gun, until the Wild Bill Hickok show came on. “Blam! Blam! Wait for me, Wild Bill!” I remembered that I put the gun on the couch next to the television and easily grabbed it, dove behind the couch, popped up and fired back at wild bill. I fired several times in rapid sucession, accurately, cleanly, and with the precision and professionality of a marshall or a sheriff. The gun came apart in my hand. It broke. It just fell into three pieces. The kid had given me a broken gun with a mickey mouse fix. No wonder he had been so generous. Now I was in deep trouble. If my parents saw the broken gun, they would assume that I broke it. So I hid it in the garbage can downstairs outside the captain’s barracks at Lackland AFB in San Antonio Texas in 1956. I placed it cleanly on top of garbage piled to the very top of the can, so that all anyone had to do was open the top and there would be the evidence of my crime.

When I look back at this now, I cant believe my dad asked me where the gun was the next day at dinner. “I lost it”. He was furious and demanded I leave the table and look for it. He was going to see his friend the next day and wanted to return the loaned gun. How a captain in the airforce would bother with a child’s loaned toy bewilders me to this day, and it’s the sole reason that I’m gay, I’m sure, (just kidding).

Well I pretended to look for it. I even opened the garbage can. There it was. I considered coming clean to my dad, but there was no way I was going to acknowlege that I broke it, or try to explain that his friend’s son was a rat who set me up.

So, my dad bought a new gun that was out of sight, an amazing state of the art true-to-life, one calibre equals one calibre, exact scale model of the very pistol Wyatt Earp had used during the entire run of his show. And I had to give it away for that broken POS.

Well, the time came for our ransom exchange; my parent’s honor for the cool gun. My parents had forbidden me from touching the bright shiny toy so it was still pristine in it’s packaging. It broke my heart. The kid didn’t even really look at it, he was such a spoiled little brat.

I still hate that kid.

By Redneck Convert

July 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

There is no Lanierland airstrip I am aware of. This is theater of the mind, to pilfer a phrase from a godawful Chattanooga talk radio host.

By Ben Skott

July 2, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

The law is the law and Frankling is breaking it. Whether the law should be the law is a totally different question, and as far as I’m concerned, the legislator in question is doing his job to find clarification and gets fine points settled.

Or we can go Bookman’s route, have a law on the book that says one thing, and in reality follow something different. That makes no sense. What’s the point of having laws if you just ignore them on a whim, or because you and the mayor think a law doesn’t make sense?

I don’t think our drug laws make sense, but that won’t get me out of prison if I’m caught with a crackrock. I wish I had the leeway to ignore lawws that our Mayor does, but I don’t think anyone, especially an elected official, should be able to ignore laws.

Bookman, why do you attack Bush for fudging on FISA and related issues, but have no problem with our Mayor ignoring laws? Seems like you don’t have much respect for the law itself, it only matters what you agree with and don’t agree with.

By JW

July 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

The good news is that this is how the founders wanted our government to function. Each branch of government keeps the other in check. Laws are made, enforced whether correct or not, case goes to court, court decides. If the ruling is not accepted, you start over again. Eventually you find the common ground. Its happening with abortion, civil rights, guns, etc.

By ihateobama

July 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

How many of the 9/11 terrorists used guns to hijack the planes? 0… Yeah I thought so.

By bubbatech02

July 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

Does the ajc actively hire the most factually ignorant opinion writers in the united states? Is is just that the good ones have left? Does the AJC have any choice because it can’t afford good writers.

the constitution does apply at the airport, moron. The supreme court has specifically laid out in case law, which you obviously have not read, how a person’s rights vary depending upon the situation, which include the right of privacy and free speech.

If you had read the supreme court opinion, which you obviously did not because even you would have felt stupid writing this piece of junk article, you would have realized that the right to arms is not absolute.

Go AJC - making us proud of Atlanta one wrong fact after another.

By Kevin

July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

Bubba,

How about stating an opinion without peppering your comment with slams and unnecssary jibes. You sound like a typical schoolyard bully— which I feel certain you were/are.

But I dare not cross you! You’re probably one of these people who carries a gun to feel big and empowered and, by damn, you will use deadly force on me if I question you.

By Dusty

July 2, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Did Redneck insinuate that he told a joke? A JOKE? When was that? I must have missed it.

By hillbilly ragger

July 2, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

bubba @ 1:35: No, the the ajc does not actively hire the most factually ignorant opinion writers in the united states, but I often believe it attracts the most factually ignorant commenters on the Intertubes.

Did you bother to read Jay’s piece? I know it was five whole paragraphs and had some big words in it, but it’s not that hard to figure out. Jay said that he wasn’t comfortable with the notion that the Constitution didn’t apply at the airport. In other words, he’s actually on the same side, or at least generally sympathetic, to the rights of needy little gun-nuts who have to pack their little security blankies with them wherever they go.

His point, which you and several others in here are too thick to grasp, is that public opinion probably isn’t on the gun-nuts’ side.

You want to change that, you might start by being less nutty.

By George Hussein Washington

July 2, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

I take it this state clown is a short little runt who needs a gun to feel like a man. I believe Randy Newman wrote this song with Senator Gun-in-Panties:

“Short People got no reason Short People got no reason Short People got no reason To live

They got little hands And little eyes And they walk around Tellin’ great big lies They got little noses And tiny little teeth They wear platform shoes On their nasty little feet

Well, I don’t want no Short People Don’t want no Short People Don’t want no Short People Round here

Short People are just the same As you and I (A Fool Such As I) All men are brothers Until the day they die (It’s A Wonderful World)

Short People got nobody Short People got nobody Short People got nobody To love

They got little baby legs And they stand so low You got to pick ‘em up Just to say hello They got little cars That go beep, beep, beep They got little voices Goin’ peep, peep, peep They got grubby little fingers And dirty little minds They’re gonna get you every time Well, I don’t want no Short People Don’t want no Short People Don’t want no Short People ‘Round here”

By Jimbo I

July 2, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Jay, the situation you mention, that Americans view the airport as a “no-rights zone” is a cause for grave concern to me.

I don’t just support the second amendment of the bill of rights, I support the other nine too.. after that it gets sort of hazy but the 14th is a good one, the 18th is a terrible one and the 21st is a great one compared to the 18th.

I’m not a big fan of the 16th and the jury is still out on the 19th for me.

Anyway, the erosion of all of our rights lately is something we should all be a little touchy about. If laptops at the border aren’t still protected by the 4th amendment what’s the point? If I can be forced to surrender my password wouldn’t that be a violation of my 5th amendment rights? The fourth amendment is getting trampled pretty hard these days with the ridiculous FISA business with the Protect America Act and the USA PATRIOT act was a travesty that BOTH candidates voted for.

The erosion of rights isn’t just a partisan problem, it’s an AMERICAN problem.

A problem for which I have no solutions.. since voting doesn’t help.

By bubbatech02

July 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Kevin,

First, you are right, I should have pointed out glaring errors in Jay’s writing. For that, I am sorry. Second, I am/was not a school yard bully. Third, I believe in gun rights, am a conservative, and hate the darn things. Will not carry one on me.

First error (actually was pointed out): the constitution does apply in airports. your rights are limited depending upon the situation. you can be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre but not for yelling it in your own home. that is the issue i often have with left wing nutcases like jay. they only see things in absolutes. either you have unlimited rights, or you have no rights. as one example of why the constitution does apply in the airport security line, any law that says you need to strip down naked in front of everyone will likely be struck down.

second error: airport security zones are federally regulated, which means the city could pass all the laws they wanted to, but it doesnt matter. If federal law says it applies, it applies. mayor franklin is a bone-head for thinking her little battle is anything more than a media circus. her advisors, the same idiots that got the city into financial trouble, probably didnt teach her about constitutional law. too bad. she looks stupid.

error #3: what is the “gun lobby”? oh yeah, when left wing nutcases cant argue against a real organization, they make one up that suits their purpose. how many times have you hear, “some people say”? same thing.

do i need to continue? here is one big, glaring issue. jay makes up people and organizations to symbolize a general argument, just like all his itty bitty insignificant writers at the AJC, then argues against that made up organization. which gun lobby, jay? what gun advocates? just this one?

imagination…just like the AJC being a real news organization.

Pathetic.

By Jimbo I

July 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

The gun lobby is not made up, the gun lobby is where you wait for a lane at the shooting range.

….sorry..

By bubbatech02

July 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Jimbo I

HA HA! that was good.

By Winslo

July 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

To Obami Nation:

You can carry a gun legally in a public park in Georgia when a President is speaking as long as you stay outside of the security area set up by the magnetometers which is usually slightly beyond handgun range.

Next question/comment?

By Winslo

July 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

O.K. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME (THIRD IF YOU COUNT JAMES). IF NO ONE ADDRESSES HIS POINT, THEN YOU ADMIT FRANKLIN, ET AL ARE WRONG ………

Does anyone not realize James’ point above? You are free NOW under TSA regualations to make a reservation, carry your weapon and ammo into the terminal in a piece of luggage, have access to it to show the ticket clerk it is unloaded, fill out the proper form AND THEN, AND THEN, AND THEN load it and shoot up the ticket area at any time !! AND YOU WERE THERE LEGALLY !!

THIS IS MUCH ADO OVER NOTHING! POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING !

By hillbilly ragger

July 2, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Um, Bubba? After you’re done clutching your pearls and dealing with the vapors on account of Jay’s use of the term “gun lobby,” you might want to check this out. Particularly that quote from well-known gun-grabber Ron Paul.

And there’s this.

And this.

By Abomi Nation

July 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

What do you mean Winslo? You mean I can’t use my God given right to carry a hand gun in a public park?

What about my well trained militia. Don’t you think we should have the right to take our guns into the park? You know, in case the President says something tyrannical?

Haven’t you read the Constitution?

By Fred

July 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

I think Shirley just needed a grandstand to distract from the budget fiasco.

By latter_day_hippie

July 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Jay, I appreciate your personal feelings about guns in airports. I really do. However, the “showdown at the airport” isn’t about how anybody feels about the “guns” issue — it is about the law, and the obligation of every person (from the rank-and-file to the highest level of elected official) to obey the law.

Mayor Franklin’s and Mr. DeCosta’s proclamation yesterday was an explicit statement that they choose not to obey the law. The “public gathering place” argument on which they based their illegal proclamation is the same one Mayor Franklin attempted to use to justify the City’s illegal ordinance preempting state law regarding the carry of handguns in City of Atlanta parks. That argument was tried in the courts and found lacking, and the City of Atlanta was enjoined from enforcing their illegal ordinance. I expect the outcome will be the same here, with even more of the taxpayers’ money wasted on Mayor Franklin’s personal political agenda.

The Mayor’s and Mr. DeCosta’s actions are driven by the same ill feelings you (rightfully) share regarding guns at the airport. However, while you have shown yourself to be a law abiding citizen in the past in your writings and in your actions, they have chosen to put themselves above the law by disregarding it.

While I am certain it was not your intention to do so, the tone of your article suggests you implicitly approve of their illegal actions. Please consider clarifying this so as not to confuse your faithful readers — including those who respect but do not always agree with you.

By Tailgunner

July 2, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

In the wake of Sept. 11, the public has come to accept airports as a no-rights zone, a place where their expectations of privacy and legal bans on warrantless search have been magically suspended. The Constitution just doesn’t apply there.

OK, Jay - when did the Constitution become void where prohibited by law? The Constitution “just doesn’t apply there”? The Constitution must apply everywhere, or it applies nowhere.

Will you howl when the Constitution “suddenly doesn’t apply” to your right to put into the newspaper what you think? (first amendment)

Will you cry when the Army suddenly decides to force you to put up soldiers in your home? (3rd amendment)

Will you scream bloody murder when the IRS kicks in your door and seizes any and all papers they feel like taking? (4th amendment)

Will you wail when you are forced to testify against yourself in a court of law? (5th amendment)

Will you bemoan being thrown in jail for an indeterminate period, never having been told what your crime is, and have no idea how many months or years it will be until your trial? (6th amendment)

Of course you will - in each and every one of these cases. So why do you single out the Second Amendment as a “so what” when it gets violated?

The purpose of the first amendment, a.k.a. freedom of the press, is to allow you the freedom to keep the government in check, not to make lame excuses for the government trampling other Constitutional rights. The purpose of the second amendment, other than a God given right to protect yourself and those you love, is there in case the government forgets about the rest of the Bill of Rights.

You either believe in the Constitution or you do not. Picking and choosing what you wish to have “allowed” by the government as it relates to the Bill of Rights is dangerous - for tomorrow someone else may decide that you do not have the right to freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

James, buddy, I hate to bust you on this, but given that I’ve done this in the past to others in the interest of honest discourse, you leave me no choice.

It appears that you and your friend Winslo are posting from the same IP address.

By Jimbo I

July 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Yes, that could mean they’re the same person.. or it could me they’re behind the same natted router.. That natted router could be a 4 port linksys router/switch in a dorm room.. or the front end of a large organization that doesn’t like to display it’s internal IP addresses.

By KCJ

July 2, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

I have a concealed weapons permit but I still completely agree with the mayor. The airport should be off limits. My family is there at least a couple of times per month. Removing your shoes is annoying, measuring make-up in zip loc baggies is aggravating, searches can be embarrassing but I say go for it if it helps protect travelers. We accept the airport as a “no rights zone” in order to help protect ourselves from 9/11 disasters…maybe we all need to see footage of the planes smashing into the trade centers again.

By CJ

July 2, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

James said: “Last year Georgia lawmakers passed legislation ensuring only the state could regulate firearms to prevent confusing city and county ordinances.”

James Winslow has a point here. In fact, let’s amend the Constitution to ensure that only the feds can regulate firearms to prevent confusing legislation among the various states.

Good observation James…uh, Winslow. Even so-called conservatives can add to the discussion sometimes.

By James/Winslo

July 2, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

To Jay from James & Winslo:

May I ask why you did that? It’s the only way I can sometimes get people to debate the POINTS ! Most of them just rant, call people (and YOU) names and supply DRIVEL ! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT ON YOUR BLOGS ? By getting a conversation going between me and “Winslo” it sometimes draws them out and forces a debate ……………

Good example ………….. No one will reply to the TSA regulations allowing weapons & ammo to be checked in luggage AT THE AIRPORT. NOT EVEN “YOU” HAVE ADDRESSED THAT.

Good grief - it looks as though I am wasting my time on “reasoned debate” with you. I have always given you credit when credit was due and even went to bat for you as “James” when it was warranted.

I guess I will just have to take you on as is from now on ………………….

(or you can use your POWER to cut me off)

Really disappointed……………………

By CJ

July 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

James/Winslo: “May I ask why you did that?”

That’s great.

Of course, Bookman can speak for himself, but until he does, I’d refer J.W. to the portion of Bookman’s post that says: “…in the interest of honest discourse,…”

I suspect that the word “honest” is key.

By Ben

July 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Not sure why KCJ brought up 9/11, seeing as there were no guns involved. But you can damn well bet that things would be different if a few passengers had been packing heat. Not that I support guns on airplanes, but 9/11 is completely irrelevent except in that security measures were increased following the attack.

9/11- No guns used by terrorists USS Cole- No guns used by terrorists 1993 WTC attack-No guns used by terrorists Madrid attack- No guns used by terrorists Attempt at Heathrow- No guns used by terrorists Suicide bombers in Israel- no guns

So don’t bother bringing up terrorism as an anti-gun thing. It doesn’t fit.

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

To James:

I have no problem with people posting under various noms de plume. But I do think it’s misleading to use your alter egos to create a false impression of support for your point.

When others have done that in the past, I’ve noted it just to keep the discussion honest.

By Jimbo I

July 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

Yes CJ, let’s finish the decline of states rights that started with reconstruction.. let’s invalidate the bill of rights by setting the precedent that if we don’t like a right or it’s TOO HARD.. we should just give it to the feds. You say “no no, just the second amendment” but once you start eliminating the core rights of the citizens you set a dangerous precedent that’s already being pushed too hard. The courts should be trying HARDER to protect the bill of rights, not rolling over and giving it to the legislative or executive branches wholesale.

Talk about your unforeseen consequences.. or are they.. to me, people like you are the MOST dangerous because you would trust the government over the people and cede your rights to them, all of them, to seal the deal.

If you think stuff like this is a conservative issue you need to take a closer look at the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century and how they used arms to defend themselves from pinkerton men and in some cases state militia.. You need to look to reconstruction and the Jim Crow era where blacks were unable to protect themselves because they were banned from possessing firearms or their firearms rights were limited. You can’t look out for the common man or the rights of the little guy without an armed populace, I never understood the “liberal” attitude towards guns because it secures the other rights. The government is not to be trusted, this was the case in 1787, it was the case in 1867 and it’s the case now and Mao said it best, “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.” If Mao knew this, you should know it too.

By Abomi Nation

July 2, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

Hey James, if what you said at 4:22 is correct then why did you answer my 12:09 post as Winslo instead of James? That post of mine that you responded to as Winslo had nothing to do with your previous argument.

What is the criteria you use when your different personalities respond to different posts?

I think your Winslo character is meaner than your James character. James would never respond to me like Winslo did. Shame on you Winslo for calling me “Obami Nation.” Shame, shame, shame. James would never show that kind of disrespect. I think your Winslo character is guilty of some of that DRIVEL himself. Winslo is male isn’t he?

Also I think your James character should be ashamed of himself for pretending to be a Marine.

I also would like to know if Winslo is writing a book like James is.

It’s kind of ironic that James is most likely not even eligible for a concealed gun permit. I think his mental illness disqualifies him, multi-personalities and instability . Shameful.

Really disappointed…………………………….

By Taxpayer

July 2, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

What Mr. Bookman says is true James. He has never called me out for my use of multiple identities. Then again, I’ve never struck up a conversation with myself. Or, have I?

By Taxpayer

July 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Just to keep from being called out, I’m disclosing now that I posted this on Wooten’s blog earlier today:

Well, you see, your honor, it happened like this. I was just standing in line minding my own business like any other day. Then, out of the corner of my eye, I caught a glimpse of what looked just like an AK-47. I know now that it wasn’t but it sure looked real enough then. Anyway, I instinctively…

OBJECTION. Your honor, we’ve already established that the defendant has never been an Officer of the Law and has no so-called instinct to rely on…Sustained.

Mr. “I know my Rights,” You may proceed.

Anyway, I drew my Glock while simultaneously pivoting in the direction of the perp, I mean, in the direction of the gun that I thought I saw. It was then that some ABSOLUTE IDIOT in the crowd just yelled out “HE’S GOT A GUN” and everyone just started going crazy. Of course, my reaction was that the AK-47 was spotted by others and they all just got scared. Little did I know at the time.

That’s OK. That’s enough. I think you’ve answered my question.

Do you wish to cross examine? Yes, your honor. Let’s pick up where you left off, shall we.

Anyway, after that IDIOT yelled out, people started dropping to the floor and others started running and screaming and I lost sight of my target. There was someone speaking over the loudspeaker and all of a sudden there was total silence. I looked down at my shirt to see what the glimmer of red light was that caught my eye and that’s when I realized that I was in the sights of a whole lot of guns — big guns — big guns with lasers. I knew at that instant that my very life was hanging by a thread your honor and that’s when I learned what it really means to bend over and kiss your rear end good bye. Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

By CJ

July 2, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

James I: “…people like you are the MOST dangerous because you would trust the government…”

James I,

You missed my point (entirely your fault, I’m sure). I was highlighting the contradiction between being a so-called conservative while supporting state restrictions on local control with regard to gun rights, as J.W. appeared to be doing @9:44. His comment was yet another illustration of hypocrisy among people who label themselves conservative—things are best decided at the more local level, unless the decision hurts conservative interests.

FYI, the government isn’t a seperate entity. It’s you and me. If you don’t trust the “the government”, then take a look in the mirror.

By James

July 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this

To AbomiNation:

As usual - you crack me up !!!

By James Winslo

July 2, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman:

1) I stand by my original statement.

2) A good 75% of what takes place on your blogs is either drivel, rantings or name calling (especially aimed at you). Unfortunately, it involves conservative bloggers as well as liberal. If you discourage my attempts to improve on that then so be it.

3) “You” still are ignoring my point about Federal regulations that still allow weapons at the airport (hanguns, M-16’s, Hunting Rifles) and the ammo for anyone wishing to transport them to their flying destination. Happens everyday by the hundreds, right there at the ticket counter God forbid ! If you don’t wish to address or debate the point that this shows the mayor is “grandstanding and demagogueing” then so be it.

By Jim Reinebold, Jr.

July 2, 2008 7:15 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman;

Your claim that the public will not accept civilians with concealed weapons at the airport has no foundation.

Mayor Franklin and the Atlanta City Council are violating Georgia law and the basic concept of a citizen’s right to self-defense. Once again, in declaring an airport or any other location “gun-free”, we are inviting criminals to prey upon the citizenry.

Perhaps DNR should investigate the Atlanta Police Department for ‘hunting criminals over a baited field.’

By Bullet Pulpit

July 2, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this

All this will be fine and dandy until the first yee-haw vigilante accidentally fires a bullet through a child while coming to the assistance of a college student whose skis were being stolen at the baggage carousel.

Who are you all so afraid of anyway?

By For The Record

July 2, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this

My weapon of choice is by far the Taser. There’s just no comparison between it and a handgun — except for Eastwood’s automag, perhaps. I also like to carry several ancillary weapons because I have found that there is much better shock and awe potential in a diversified suburban-warfare arsenal. That said, I like to keep both a 16-ounce holster-contained grizzly bear pepper spray and a 4-ounce keychain size spray. Further, I keep a air-pressure-actuated fog horn in order to both limit the audio sensory receptors of any wanna-be assailant and alert nearby law enforcement officers, and a 24-volt lithium battery powered strobe light with quartz halogen flasher for the assailant’s visual impairment. Enough of that though — I can’t give away all my secrets. Now, back to the Taser. I especially like the new design with the hair-trigger high voltage activator. Every time the assailant makes an unwanted move, just a touch of the trigger and he’s just hopping around like an energizer bunny on 48 volts. It’s a riot. I just can’t wait for the next trade show. I hear rumors that there’s all kinds of new technology coming out thanks to all the advances made while fighting in the streets of Baghdad and the hills of Afghanistan. There’s nothing like a good war to really stimulate new and exciting weapons designs.

By James Winslo

July 2, 2008 10:03 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman:

“LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles Times plans to cut 250 positions, including 150 jobs in the print and Web news departments, amid a continuing industrywide slump in ad sales, the paper’s editor said in a memo Wednesday.”

Due to the “predominate” drivel vs. serious reasoned debate content of your blogs and the almost total liberal slant of your newspaper you guys are probably next. It’s really a shame as I have been a paid customer of yours for almost 30 years. You should have seen the “writing on the wall.

If it comes down to you or Wooten ………… well ……….

By Taxpayer

July 2, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this

Well. That does it for me, Mr. Bookman. I want to get paid to be your customer too. What do I have to do — advertise for the AJC on my car or on my forehead, post a specified number of times per day or week, what, what?

By James Winslo

July 2, 2008 11:12 PM | Link to this

By Taxpayer:

As usual you substitute comedy for debate. Anyone can make a typo (I meant “paying”). But this proves my point. This blog is not about serious debate.

By swolf4810

July 2, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this

I got to disagree with you on this one Jay. “Aunt” Shirley and “Uncle” Ben ought to be arrested if anyone is arrested under their idiotic directives!

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 12:39 AM | Link to this

To Taxpayer:

No one else will bite (even Mr. Bookman, the fair and balanced news provider) so I’ll try you. Let’s see if you wish to have reasoned discussion.

1) What do “YOU” think about the “transportation” of guns at the airport. In other words, citizens are allowed right now to drive to the airport (or take MARTA) with a rifle, shotgun or handgun (if they have a handgun carry permit) with ammo, park the car in an airport lot, walk into the terminal, report to the ticket counter, show an airlines employee that the weapon and ammo are packed and stored appropriately, fill out the form, put the form in the container, lock the container, place it in checked baggage and then get on a flight. At any time they could break bad ! This happens “hundreds of times” a day at the world’s busiest airport especially during hunting season and regarding flights to cities hosting shooting events or gun shows.

2) Based on the above is the phrase from the mayor that we have a “gun free zone” at the airport true or not?

3) If the mayor was so worried, why didn’t she declare a gun free zone days, weeks, months or even years before 7/1/80? Licensed gun carriers have been at the airport during all that time with nary a problem that I can recall. The only difference under the new State law is that they could arrive by MARTA instead of just driving and they could eat in the restaurants. They always could just “hang out” in the terminal and wait for arriving flights.

4) Is is possible that the major is “grandstanding” or “demagogueing” this issue because she doesn’t like what the State Legislature did? Is that respect for the law?

I really would appreciate your response to each of these four questions. Please number your responses so others can follow your counterpoints.

By Taxpayer

July 3, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this

Good morning, James.

i. Hey, I’m opportunistic so I took advantage of your altered sentence meaning to poke fun at Mr. Bookman/AJC. After all, don’t I write a few things that are at least interesting to read.

ii. I don’t know why you would want the opinion of this old (even though my wife thinks otherwise) retired (but not if Bush has his way) geezer (that’s what my daughter thinks but it’s a generation gap thing) but I’ll take a shot at it. I warn you ahead of time though that I reserve the right to be obtuse, funny, serious, or other, in my comments.

If you are going to uphold the literal meaning of the Constitution and allow folks to bear arms, then you just gotta let them carry them around, i.e., transport them to where they may be needing to “bear” them. Planes, trains, and automobiles fall into that category of “transport” so I guess I have to go along with the crowd that votes in the affirmative to toting guns in the airport. However, that is entirely different from toting a loaded gun in a public place with the intent to use it if and when you see the need. What kind of insurance should this person be required to have in order to provide justice to the unintended consequence of this person’s action. That’s just for starters. On the other hand, I’m all for non-deadly-force vigilantes. Take my post under the label, ForTheRecord, at 7:48, for further information on that topic. By the way, I mixed humor in with opinion to help make a point of just how preposterous we humans can be at times.

That’s a legal issue between the Fed and the State.

It’s called Grandstanding.

Why do politicians do half the things they do? Short answer: Attention. I personally think that she has bigger fish to fry with the budget, infrastructure, taxes, retirement funding, etc. Then again, if I had all those really serious issues to deal with, I just might choose guns to talk about too. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

By Taxpayer

July 3, 2008 7:04 AM | Link to this

Hey!. What gives? I numbered those bullets. I did, James. Really, I did. Anyway, they (the bullets) were numbered sequentially, in ascending order, starting with “1”, from top to bottom — just in case there is any confusion.

By Jimbo I

July 3, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

CJ,

But do local controls reflect local interest? If I get your meaning you’re saying that the state shouldn’t be able to create anti-pre-emption laws (mouthful) because matters such as gun control and similar issues are best decided at the local (city/county?) level.

If that’s the case then I would say in most cases the government, even local government fails in that regard which would make your point moot.

As for the government being you and me? That a red herring. The government is a collection of special interests and corporate lobbies and their proxies. We vote for who they give us, on what they give us, when they give it to us. The only real way to effect change is for something to go terribly wrong and we get the chance to start over, or at least clear out some cobwebs.

The issue of governance is obviously complicated because I want there to be federal oversight to what the states are doing to ensure they aren’t screwing with me and I want feds to back off when something isn’t there business. I don’t think it’s something you can apply in a blanket sort of way because some things (the bill of rights) (should) severely restrict the power of the federal government and leave those power to the states (not cities) but other things (the articles of the constitution) pretty much give the states no say in what the feds do.

It seems like a lot of people on here are arguing against the self determination of the average citizen. I’m not forcing anyone to carry a gun. Meanwhile people are trying to remove my ability to carry and in some cases own a gun.. Lord knows people are trying to remove my right to privacy and my right to free worship (I worship Zardoz!… no, not really.) and those people are congressmen and a**holes who don’t get what the bill of rights actually mean.

For the record, I’m not a conservative in the common sense that people are conservatives these days. I’m not much of a liberal either. Both of them spend most of their time making me wish there was a country I could move to that made any sense at all. Unfortunately there isn’t so I’m saving my pennies for an island.. an island with appreciable highlands and fresh water that sits in international waters somewhere.

Then you guys can do whatever the hell you want with this place.

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

To Taxpayer:

Excellent points and excellent debate! Those of you who constantly provide drivel, etc. please take notice of Taxpayer’s remarks and try to improve your imput.

2, #3 & #4 we somewhat agree on. 1 You don’t uphold the literal meaning of other amendments and neither should the 2nd be that way (i.e., the “fire in a crowded theater example”). It’s always what is “reasonable”. There are many gun regulations out there that are “reasonable”. However, the mayor is being unreasonable in this situation because she is “grandstanding”. She didn’t care about the “gun free zone” the day before 7/1/08. Bottom line, due to the new state law AND the recent Supreme Court ruling I believe it is “reasonable” for a LICENSED gun owner to have his/her weapon anywhere outside the secure area (as they do when they bring it for transport). They have done it for years with no problem.

Finally good to blog with someone who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Finally, following are two editorial letters that I sent this week to the AJC. They have obviously chosen not to print either of them. Their right.

1) “Last year Georgia lawmakers passed legislation ensuring only the state could regulate firearms to prevent confusing city and county ordinances. This year they provided licensed hangun owners additional common sense latitude regarding where they could carry. However, Mayor Franklin and Mr. DeCosta seem to be the ones lacking common sense as well as candor. Why didn’t they declare all airport property outside the checkpoints a “gun free zone” last week? TSA regulations allow you to take your firearm to a check-in-counter, fill out the proper form and place it unloaded in locked checked luggage. The ammo can even be kept in its magazine. How does that constitute a “gun free zone” when it takes about two seconds to load that weapon. This is grandstanding pure and simple.” 2) “The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment has certainly created a lot of hysteria. For those of you who think the ruling will turn law abiding gun owners into crazed cowboys let me aprise you of a few facts that we already know. First, whether in war, law enforcement or personal protection, shooting someone is an extremely traumatic event. Second, your every action and motive will be scrutinized by police and a grand jury. Third, no matter how justifiable the shooting you can be sure the family of the perpetrator will find an attorney to sue you. The great majority of gun owners know that a wise course of action is to get a good description and call 911 and that deadly force should be used only when all other options fail.”

By MC

July 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Just what kind of person would want to bring a loaded weapon to the airport, anyway?

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

To MC:

For example: Someone who has to drive to the airport (or ride on MARTA through some bad areas at night especially) and park their car way in the back of the farthest lot at night. Then they go to the terminal to meet an arriving relative. Then they go back to their car and drive to their home which also happens to be in a high crime area. They would like to be able to have that weapon on airport property outside the security area without violating the law as the state law currently reads.

Need I go on? Next question.

By John C

July 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Can anyone name a single gun control law that will stop a criminal or a terrorist from coming onto airport grounds with a gun? All these laws do is stop the law abiding citizen from being able to defend themselves or even stop the criminal or terrorist. While you might believe that this is the job of the police, I can tell you as a police officer that we can’t be everywhere and the Supreme Court has ruled that you have no individual guarantee of protection by the police.

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

To John C:

You know they can’t but that is beside the point. Liberals don’t like guns (for reasons I don’t have the time or heart to go into now) so they don’t want us to have them. It’s basically the sheep/sheepdog thing. Anyway, don’t forget the terrorist can make a reservation and get his guns out (or explosives, grenades, etc.) right there at the ticket counter as he checks his luggage !!! All TSA approved !!

By MC

July 3, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

The gunners will lose the airport case. Remember the El Al incident at LAX? That one took place at the ticket counter. The courts will never side with the gun rights advocates when it comes to airports.

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

To MC:

1) Your logic truly astounds me. Assuming L.A. Airport was a “gun free zone” then, would you please tell me what the code section was that kept the terrorist in the El Al incident in 2002 from bringing his weapon to the airport?

OF COURSE HE BROUGHT IT ANYWAY !

And had a citizen had a weapon they might have prevented him from killing the two people there. The only reason he didn’t kill more is that Israeli security was there and they don’t fool around like some of our people do.

2) Also, a) you didn’t answer me regarding the response I gave to you above on “what reason would a person have to bring a gun to the airport” and b) you have made no comment regarding the hundreds of people each day that transport their weapons and ammo through the Atlanta airport per TSA regulations ?

I’m waiting ………….

P.S. Did you see my “vent” in the paper last week ……….. :o)

“Due to a common sense, original intent ruling on the Second Amendment, “Old Glory” will shine a little brighter in my front yard this July 4th !”

By James Winslo

July 3, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

For a city in dire financial condition, how much money will Mayor Franklin waste defending the airport gun suit when the State legislature, the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have already spoken.

By zjlyuh xmqvp

November 13, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this

rvfezxsj dgmretc pqexmws wuvsy onkzdvi ysoie zqcobs

By zjlyuh xmqvp

November 13, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

rvfezxsj dgmretc pqexmws wuvsy onkzdvi ysoie zqcobs

By zjlyuh xmqvp

November 13, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

rvfezxsj dgmretc pqexmws wuvsy onkzdvi ysoie zqcobs

By zjlyuh xmqvp

November 13, 2008 7:30 AM | Link to this

rvfezxsj dgmretc pqexmws wuvsy onkzdvi ysoie zqcobs