Opinion Talk

By Tony

April 10, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

Land of the scared, Home of the afraid.

By Willie

April 10, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

Well Jay was MLK shot by a legal permitted gun carrying member. No, I think not. You have shown that typical liberal view again. That is confusing law abiding citizens with the likes of whacko liberals—I mean criminals. Jay what circle do you hang out? Is there any desperate individuals in these locations. Of course not! You live in a safe selected environment free of hard core criminal activity. You had Marshall approve the right to privacy and I can not find that in the constitution anywhere; I can not find abortion rights in the constitution anywhere. I do find my right to bear arms in the 2nd ammendment. You liberals do have selected reading too dont you. From my cold dead hands Jay!!!!

By Stephen C

April 10, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Jay, Something tells me that you go every day putting on your seat belt in your car, yet you don’t exactly plan on getting into a wreck that day. Why? Just for that little bit of extra courage to allow you to drive on those dangerous roads of Atlanta? Same principle. Don’t be the one afraid of those who have the courage to take the defense of themselves into their own hands, rather than leaving it up to chance.

By Jay's a Loser

April 10, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Wow Jay, trying to steer the conversation are you? Do you want a discussion or just a panty waisted love in?

By Tom

April 10, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

This is funny. I’ve used my firearm to defend my home from a couple of thugs. I never had to fire a shot, which is just fine with me. Most of the time, the presence of a firearm will deter a criminal, so you don’t get statistics showing it was a justified shooting!

The languange in this piece is just plain insulting. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means being able to carry them. I don’t carry a gun because I have some fantasy about shooting and killing a bad guy. I carry a gun because I value my family’s life and know that the police can’t always be there to protect us. Do I think I’ll be faced with that situation again? Who knows. But as the Boy Scouts say, “Be Prepared”.

Instead of engaging in rhetoric insulting hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens in Georgia, maybe the author should actually READ the AJC and see the crime in today’s world. Then, they might understand a bit more about why we choose to carry. However, I somehow doubt folks like that will bother!

By Facts

April 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Quit your scare-mongering Jay. Whether a law abiding citizen decides to place his gun under his seat or in his glove box is nothing new. He ALREADY had the right to carry it in his lap, slung around his neck, on the dash, next to him IN the front seat or anywhere else in plain view. If you’re going to try to make hay with thls lame argument you should try to do at least an 8th grade job of it. You are a professional aren’t you?

By Fred

April 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Good news! Charlton Heston’s hands are now cold and dead. Time to get prying.

By Normal

April 10, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

I have no plans to carry a gun but I am a law-abiding citizen and I want to be able to carry one should I decide to. If you are so against it don’t do it. It is that simple.

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

Jay, On MLK day I was listening to a story of MLK being beaten in the face on stage during a speech. He didn’t fight back as he was in the midst of his campaign of non-violent reform. I have to admit I got a little teary as I thought of having to explain to my 4yo daughter why people are so cruel to each other. I like to think I am a compassionate person.

After regaining my composure I thought some more and remembered that same cruelty and violence some choose to direct at others is exactly why I have a firearms license and carry anywhere I can legally carry. Thankfully the state legislature finally realizes the need for this too.

You stated this new law will have little effect on people’s behavior. I agree it won’t affect the behavior of criminals, they don’t follow the law anyway. It will affect my behavior. I am a law-abiding citizen. I choose to disarm in places I currently can not legally carry my firearm.

I don’t have to have a gun everywhere I go, all the time. I only have to have it that ONE time I need it. Until you can guarantee me when and where that ONE time will be, I choose to carry everywhere, all the time.

I don’t want to be a hero. I want to be a father and husband. I want to live. I am not out looking for a dragon to slay.

Sorry Jay, I am not out to save you. I am only out to save myself and my family. If I can help a few others at the same time, great. However, that is not my main concern.

Respectfully, Kevin

By matthew

April 10, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this

Those of your ilk wishing for no carry laws should use some statistics that matter.According to FBI statistiics (which you seem to pick and choose) PRIVATELY held firearms are used 2.5 million times year to STOP crimes that would have otherwise occurred. As for being un-armed and “courageous…ask the citizens of Wahington DC how that worked out for them. DC was the murder capital of the US 14 of the last 20 years.If you plan on using statistics…use them all.Intellectual honesty does not seem to be trait common among anti-gunners.

By .45 ACP

April 10, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

“Bad Guy pulls a gun and starts blowing innocent people away; Good Guy pulls his own gun and kills Bad Guy, saving lives and becoming a hero.

In real life that rarely if ever happens.”

Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

• Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

• Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

• As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”

• 74% of felons polled agreed that “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”

• 57% of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

By Ben

April 10, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Well, whatever you say everyone has his own opinion about guns and has made up his own mind when it comes to their use and carrying them in public. I carry guns in my vehicle and on my person when I go out in public.

I have no “Rambo” fantasies, I just grew up with guns; I’m comfortable with them and also using them. My grandmother used to “pepper” cows and other stray problematic animals when they invaded her property. This is as it should be; and any invader of private property should be vigorously expelled using whatever force necessary.

So, if you don’t like guns and the people who use them, that’s okay but don’t try to tell me where and what I can personally use to defend myself and my family with. The police are not mandated to protect people; that they do is incidental.

By Willie

April 10, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

By Fred April 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this “Good news! Charlton Heston’s hands are now cold and dead. Time to get prying.” Be my guest FRED! Go ahead and you pry his cold dead hands. Boo! Look at FRED run. Run FRED Run!

By jd

April 10, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

Guns do two things that may be fatal - they make you feel invincible - and right. My law-abiding neighbor always carries. He’s a paranoid know-it-all - and the perfect example of who shouldn’t have a gun on them. EVERYONE feels like they are the perfect model for a gun-carrying citizen.

Didn’t the Old West finally realize unchecked guns weren’t the answer?

And Seatbelts? If walking down the street was as dangerous as driving a car, we would all carry pre-emptive grenades!

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

I believe the only reason Bookman submitted this is to stir people up and get them involved. The numerous insults he hurled at people serve no other purpose. Mr Bookman is apparently willing to make himself look foolish to motivate people to participate in this discussion. We are all participating so it worked.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

AJC headline this morning: Man Shot To Death Protecting Mother What normal person wouldn’t rush to the aid of their mother in danger (other than Jay Bookman)? Once he saw the criminal had a gun I bet the young man wished he had one too. I believe there is a MUCH higher probability he would still be alive now. But if there were a ban on handguns everything would have been OK, right? Because of the ban, the criminal wouldn’t have had one either, right? Because criminals are going to follow the law, right?

By James

April 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Jay, I’m not so blind as to think that the police will be there to protect me and my loved ones when we would need them the most. It’s not a knock on them it’s just a fact, you read it all the time, or watch it on the news, how the police are there taping off a crime scene while others are being hauled off in an ambulance. The police will be there to take the report…find clues and hopefully find the bad guy, if he hadn’t turned the gun on himself by the time the police showed up.

By zeke

April 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

What a liberal idiot you are, Jay! Study the FBI statistics on crime, especially in areas where gun laws are friendly to honest citizens! There are no lax gun laws, all are unconstitutional and the only lax part is the failure of a liberal justice system, afraid of anarchist activist, that will not enforce gun ownership or gun crime laws that are already in place! The Constitution guarantees as a right the personal ownership of guns, not only for protection, but to prevent a tyranical government from enslaving us all! It also did that by limiting the power of government until all you liberal idiots decided that the Constitution was a living document and started changing it to suit your agenda! Look what that got us! A powerful central government that far exceeds it’s Constitutional authority and browbeats the states to it’s will! That is not how the Constitution sets up our government, but, to the contrary, severely limits the power and authority of the central government, leaving all other powers and duties to the various states! It is time to go back to that, NOW!

By Freedom

April 10, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

Wow. What a truly pathetic fantasy you have cooked up here. I suggest you get to know some GFL permit holders and find out for yourself what they believe, instead of making up fiction. Horrible journalism….. really!

By Jay Bookman

April 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

There is no FBI study reporting 2.5 million defensive gun uses, or anything even close to that. None. Furthermore, it is a sign of great weakness in an argument if you have to make up facts to defend it, which is exactly what is being done in this case by gun advocates. In fact, the federal government’s position on this was stated quite clearly in a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt). That study concluded that estimates of defensive gun uses ” are far too high” and even “absurd.” Go look it up yourself.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Wow I see the Bible belt “turn the other cheek” gun fanatics are out in full force! Oh wait, this gun mentality is in direct opposition to Christ’s teachings, and we’re in the land of Christ worship?

What is the deal with the South these days? Hypocricy, idiocy, ignorance. Bookman’s piece is DEAD on.

The Constitution gave MILITIAS the right to carry guns, when people lived in log cabins and slept on hay. Get a grip, folks. This is 2008.

By Adam

April 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

JD wrote-“Didn’t the Old West finally realize unchecked guns weren’t the answer?”

Actually JD, you’re living in a fantasy world that you observed on TV. :) The “Old West” was not dominated by shootouts, but violent crimes were almost non-existent because everyone had a gun. ;)

By Matt

April 10, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

couple of questions:

How have tight gun laws help the UK with gun crime?

Second, out of all 10,000 homicides how many of those legally purchased a gun?

By ron

April 10, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Jay,You have to be Cynthia Tucker’s sister to have written this column.Why didn’t you borrow her line that everyone in the NRA wants to own a howitzer?I’ve used a legally carried gun twice to deter criminal activity.Once in my own home and once on the highway where I extracated a couple of young girls from a sticky situation.No shots were fried either time.Just the presence of a firearm was enough to make a gentleman coming at me with a tire iron change his mind.

You’re wromg on this,Jay.Anytime any of you go after a law abiding citizen’s right to carry a firearm ,you’re wrong.Concentrating your efforts to remove firearms from the hands of criminals is where the savings are.Make life very difficult for people committing crimes with guns.When a person picks up a gun with the intent of robbing someone or killing someone for profit or revenge,that person does not belong to the same society that I do.He,she needs to be removed from society,sometimes on a permanent basis.

By Police Officer

April 10, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

I know it has already been pointed out but it is worth saying again.

The number of people “legally killed” is not the only way that guns are successfully used in self-defense. The mere display of a firearm has stopped many more crimes from happening.

We shouldn’t measure the success of concealed weapons programs by how many people are legally killed. We should measure it by how many crimes were successfully stopped and how much an area crime rate has dropped.

If you look at those statistics, you’ll find that concealed carry is very effective.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Jay quotes “There is no FBI study reporting 2.5 million defensive gun uses, or anything even close to that”

This is what disgusts me about the NRA and you folks. You lie to promote your ridiculous fear based gun toting agenda, which completely discredits all of you.

By Sig Bloom

April 10, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Old army saying; ‘It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.’ In the case of needing a firearm, when you really need one, nothing else will do. This decision is coming about because people want it. They vote; write legislators, and ask for things. And when enough ask for the same thing, it comes about. Remember that to carry a firearm anywhere, ya gotta get the carry permit. That is not easy. All this does is allow people to carry their firearms in public places. May never need them and hope we won’t, but again, when you need a gun, a rock or chair will not do. And you can do something else; GROW UP. You are not going to get your way on some things and this is one of them. It has been building for years and now has come to pass. And it is not because of Rambo; it is because of some of the folks he removed. Get the picture?????

By BigJohnson

April 10, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

It is a shameful day when the most well known public media source in Georgia attempts to attach fear mongering of firearms with the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Georgia’s most famous civil rights activist. “…the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” Martin Luther King, Jr. As a law abiding firearm owner in this state, I take very seriously the right to protect my family from violent physical attack. I do not live in fear yet I do live prepared. I carry an umbrella in my vehicle every single day, not that I expect it to rain daily but I want to be prepared in the event it does. I carry a firearm on my person every single day, not that I expect it will be used to defend my life but I want to be prepared in the event I have to. I have undergone numerous background checks and have never had any altercations with Law Enforcement. I live a normal life and to the outside world, they would never know that I am licensed to carry or that I exercise that right unless I am forced to use my firearm to protect them or myself from a life or death situation. This media frenzy regarding “Right To Carry” is only a marketing stunt to generate more revenue for this publications financial well being, we need not cave in to their desires and feed the beast. Research the background of “Right To Carry” and soon all will see that life continues on as it normally does, less a few victims of crime due to the deterrent of licensed firearm carriers.

By Tom

April 10, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Jay,

Answer me this: What, in your mind, constitutes a successful use of a gun in self defense?

Because I define it as any time a gun stops a forcible felony, either by being fired or not. The FBI data you quote (and I haven’t quoted statistics of any type) say that less than 200 people were killed in a justifiable homicide. What about those who were shot but didn’t die, instead stood trial for their crimes? What about those who ran away when a potential victim was armed?

While I’m not familiar with the 2.5 million people number personally, you have only chosen ONE set of numbers to illustrate your point. However, there’s a lot more to the story than what you have looked into. You’ve chosen to take one set to statistics and twist them to prove what you wanted to prove.

Here’s some more questions regarding your statistics: How many of those killed were in a position to defend themselves but couldn’t? Now, how many of them were murdered while unarmed?

You’re supposed to be a professional Jay. Look at the whole story!

By Steve is Jay's Beeatch

April 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Steve, if you don’t want anything to do with guns then don’t have anything to do with guns. Just keep your unwise opinions off of my rights to follow the law.

By Ben G.

April 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

If jay bothered to look around online, he would find that Clayton Cramer has done the job of compiling the daily news stories from around the country about citizens defending themselves with firearms.

This is FAR from a rare occurrence.

Here is the link to Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.

We should all thank GeorgiaCarry.Org and the other pro-rights groups for getting this important legislation passed.

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Want to point out:

“In percentage terms, 98.1 percent of the time a private citizen kills someone with a firearm, the killing is not justified. Yet because of the power of the Rambo fantasy, we write laws as if that remaining 1.9 percent of gun killings were the majority.

And even that 1.9 percent figure is a vast exaggeration of how many times the fantasy comes true.”

So Bookman uses stats to make his point then calls his OWN stats an EXAGGERATION!!! THATS HILARIOUS!!

By 40 cal

April 10, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

just 195 homicides were reported as a citizen killing a person in the act of commiting a felony. how many did the cops kill? ans. - far less. moral of the story - count on yourself not others for your defense.

By ub

April 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Jay- Why are you such a pusssssssy. If you do not want to carry a gun that is fine by me. But who are you to critize me for wanting to protect my family?

Please show me some links to articles that show registered concealed permit owners blowing away innocent people. Can you come up with any JAY?

IF not then here is a spoon so you can eat my arse you F*******.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not adopted to provide a right to have a gun for personal use, according to the U.S. Supreme Court; rather, the Second Amendment was adopted for national defense. (Gun rights currently stem from state laws.)

The NRA position that restricting access to guns causes more crime (because then only criminals will have guns), is not supported by evidence at a national level. In countries where guns are greatly restricted, such as Great Britain or Japan, deaths from guns are very rare, especially compared to the United States. In fact, the USA is a world leader in the rate of homicides from guns.

By Matthew Kuhl

April 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Pardon me, but someone before mentioned a “love-in.” So far the comments section here appears to be one great love-fest for pro-gun people. I happen to think the new law is idiotic, and I happen to agree with Jay on this. I’m fine with some gun uses. But you people out there who claim that the Second Amendment allows you unlimited usage of guns, you are wrong. The rights protected by the First Amendment, which protects things that are physically less dangerous than guns, are not unlimited. Words and the practice of religion generally do not physically harm anyone. Guns, on the other hand, can. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me.”

By ahl

April 10, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

“The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.”

By Ben G.

April 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Jay, here is the study that found 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year:

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

By Stephen C

April 10, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Steve, besides slandering my good name, you’re also wrong about what a “militia” is. If you read the 2nd Amendment, which obviously you haven’t, it says that the militia is necessary for the security of the free state. What is the militia? Well, when it was written, it was every able-bodied person in the states. In order to keep that militia viable, the second part of the 2nd Amendment comes into play: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Those people, every able-bodied person, had to have a firearm in order to be a useful member of the militia. So, any infringement on the right to own and carry arms reduces the strength of the militia. That in turn weakens the security of the free state, because at that point the people are powerless against a possible tyrannical government. This is the exact same reason the colonists were fighting against England. If they had been restricted by England against firearms ownership, the war would likely have been lost and we’d still be subjects of the Crown. But apparently you enjoy the thought of living as a subject.

By Ben G.

April 10, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

For those lookgin for the FACTS about guns and gun usage (good and bad), that info can be found at:

GunCite

No BS, just the facts.

By UB

April 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Matthew Kuhl wrote:

“Words and the practice of religion generally do not physically harm anyone”.

This is the funniest bullsh.it I have ever seen. Gee Matt would the whole middle east be a good example of religion harming folks?

Any links to 9/11 and religion?

Do your parents let you use forks and knives? You are that damn stupid.

By 45 ACP

April 10, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

“Oh wait, this gun mentality is in direct opposition to Christ’s teachings, and we’re in the land of Christ worship?”

What did Christ tell his disciples in Luke 22:36? “if have don’t have a sword (weapon of the day) sell your cloak and buy one”

Your turn…..

By Tom

April 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Common Sense,

If you look at the overall crime statistics for those same countries, you’ll see that ALL their violent crime rates are lower than the US, not just the gun crimes. It’s not the guns that make the US more dangerous…it’s the criminals.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Again, despite the NRA’s spin and lies, the 2nd Amendment is about MILITIAS.

Gun control is real, needed, and necessary. Nobody is saying that we should take your guns away from you, but I don’t want to live in a society where Bubba decides he’s going to start firing his gun next to me while I eat my pork BBQ because someone in the restaurant “looks” like a criminal to him.

By Ryan

April 10, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

“This media frenzy regarding “Right To Carry” is only a marketing stunt to generate more revenue for this publications financial well being, we need not cave in to their desires and feed the beast. posted by BigJohnson.

Yes, BigJohnson, you hit the nail on the head. According to my research, 85% of the people that participated in the AJC poll regarding HB 89 were in favor of it. I am tickled that close minded biased people like Mr Bookman are in a very very small minority and are not in charge of making decisions for LAW ABIDING permit carrying citizens in the state of Georgia.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Stephen,

Do you realize that this is 2008? Do you honestly think that the concept of a “militia” is valid, today? That we could take to the streets with our handguns and take on the US military, nuke weapons and all?

Are you living in reality?

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

The constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.

The Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

But these are all big words that you probably wouldn’t understand, would you?

By The Gecko

April 10, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Wow Jay! You should buy your ‘Depend Undergarments’ at Costco since you wear them every day. There is a sale right now for a 4 pack at $49.95. Hurry!

By notPC

April 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Jay, there is evidence that legal guns can deter crime. Take a read at http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf which is a copy of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30 #2. I’ll cut to the chase and ‘splain it to you. The study was done across global statistics on gun ownership vs. murders and suicides. The conclusion, paraphrased, is that the study does not support the argument that more guns equals more deaths, and less guns equals less deaths. In fact, verbatim, “those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world”.

Further, the same study asserts that when Professor Centerwell of the University of Washington conducted a statistically sophisticated study comparing parts of Canada and the United States and the effect of Canada’s stricter policies on criminal violence the findings were surprising…there was a “negative” finding (translated: more restrictive laws=more criminal violence).

As others have so astutely pointed out, lets not quote one small statistic without exploring all the facts, and numerous studies, that shoot down the liberal gun-control mantra arguments.

When seconds count, 911 is only minutes away.

By Tom

April 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Steve,

Have you ever read anything the founding fathers ever wrote? It’s clear from the writings of the day that they considered the militia to consist of every able bodied man, and those men would arm themselves.

And as for your BBQ story, it doesn’t hold up. Licensed toters in many other states can carry in restaurants now, and there haven’t been any outbreaks of “Bubba” shooting someone because he looks like a criminal. Even Jay doesn’t think that will happen.

By Jay Bookman

April 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

To 40 Cal: That’s a bad misfire. You allege that cops killed far fewer felons than citizens, and you are very much wrong. Again, making up facts is a sign of a very weak argument. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, law enforcement officers killed 376 suspects in 2006, almost twice as many as private citizens killed.

By SonsOfLiberty

April 10, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

I for one am sick and tired of folks not knowing their history. Either they are too lazy to learn it, or they have fallen prey to the anti-gun propaganda. They are too ignorant of their own rights protected by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted so that government could NOT infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ALL of the first 10 amendments guarantee INDIVIDUAL rights…. not “militia rights”, not “states rights”, and certainly not “National Guard rights”. (The National Guard did not even exist back then!!) They are INDIVIDUAL rights, one and all. If you choose not to exercise that right, fine. But how DARE you tell anyone else they do not have that right. Who are you to make that decision? Are you a petty dictator in the making? This is the home of the free…. not the oppressed.

By Bo

April 10, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Wait a minute! Quote: In 2006, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, guns were used in a total of 10,177 homicides. Of that enormous total, just 195 homicides were categorized as justifiable, defined by the bureau as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”

Nobody caught the absurdity of this logic? What does one number have to do with the other? You are basically lumping criminals who enter a home and kill someone into the same statistic as a homeowner who happens to have a gun and shoot the criminal in his house. Considering that guns are a taboo, for your logic to make sense we would have to assume most homes that the homicides happened would have armed home owners and they were only justified in shooting 2% of the time.

So, what happens to all the times when a criminal breaks into someone’s house and runs out when he is confronted by a homeowner with a shotgun? How’s that precious life saving moment make into that statistic?

Considering that your whole article is dependent on this one statistic, your argument is seriously flawed, logically.

By Stephen C

April 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Steve, it’s working pretty well for the Iraqis and Afghans, isn’t it?

Do you really believe our government is nothing but a benevolent father figure here solely to protect and nurture us?

At what point is it OK to just stop taking personal responsibility for your safety and freedom?

By Walker

April 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Wow, the ignorance in this article is stunning. I have carried a firearm for the last 20 years, both as a police officer and a civilian, and have never though of myself as the “Rambo” type.

I carry a firearm for the same reason that I wear a seatbelt and bought a car with airbags. It is unlikely I will be involved in a life-threatening crash, but if it happens I want every chance of walking away alive.

In a dangerous world, the firearm provides the best chance of walking away alive in a dangerous criminal encounter. The statistics in the article are fatally flawed. In citing the ‘195 justifiable homicides’ number, the author ignores the 2 million plus times a year a firearm is used defensively without a hot being fired, or where one is fired but it does not result in a fatality.

It seems the author is the one indulging in cultural stereotypes, if he believes a firearm is some kind of all-powerful death ray.

By notPC

April 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

It’s actually kind of funny. Liberals, like Jay and some others posting comments here, resort to name calling and derogatory references such as “Rambo”, and “Bubba”, except that it seems most comments on the “pro” side are fairly articulate and factual.

Here’s question for you. You probably walk by, eat, or drive next to someone who is carrying a gun legally every single day. You’re not dead yet…why is that? Face it, your fantasy of shootouts in the streets over the “evil eye” has not ever happened, nor will it ever.

By Matthew Kuhl

April 10, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Someone earlier mentioned a “love-in.” So far this comments section seems a bit like a pro-gun love-fest. But allow me to share with you a few facts.

One last note. I am not against all use of guns. Just to get that out of the way. I am fine with hunting, target shooting, all of that. I just think that this law is a trifle idiotic.

By Ben G.

April 10, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Jay said: “According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, law enforcement officers killed 376 suspects in 2006, almost twice as many as private citizens killed.”

So, whose bullets should the rest of us be worried about dodging? The cops…or “bubba”?

By Idiotas

April 10, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

This column was stupid and pointless. What does MLK have to do with a bill that allows registered gun owners to carry guns in 2008? As usual AJC is trying to stir the racial pot.

The simple fact is that a majority of the gun related murders in the US are done by people who have a gun illegally. What does me being able to carry a gun gonna do to those numbers? Nothing

Steve you’re a Dil.Do. Move to New Hampshire

By KS

April 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

I’m sure Jay lives in a gated community with a security guard (that carries a gun). For those of us that live in the real world bad stuff happens to good people- remember all of those home invasions in Norcross & Duluth? three of them were less than a mile from my home. I don’t want to play Rambo, Rocky, or any other silly Stallone fantasy. I DO want to protect my family- in my home, in my car, in a state park (from some old insane guy), or wherever we go. When I can live and vacation in all gated communties (like Jay and Cynthia do) where other people carry guns I’ll think about giving up my gun.

By KS

April 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

I’m sure Jay lives in a gated community with a security guard (that carries a gun). For those of us that live in the real world bad stuff happens to good people- remember all of those home invasions in Norcross & Duluth? three of them were less than a mile from my home. I don’t want to play Rambo, Rocky, or any other silly Stallone fantasy. I DO want to protect my family- in my home, in my car, in a state park (from some old insane guy), or wherever we go. When I can live and vacation in all gated communties (like Jay and Cynthia do) where other people carry guns I’ll think about giving up my gun.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Jay, this article reads like it was written by a seventh grader. Please put more effort into it next time.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

The Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual’s right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

Nobody is trying to take your precious guns away from you, but we need common sense here - regulation and control needs to be strict.

If MADD can tighten up on drunk drivers, the rest of us can tighten up on potential dufus gun owners.

By notPC

April 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

We won’t have to wait too long to have the collectivist vs. individualist argument settled on the 2nd. Amendment. The SCOTUS should clarify some of that when they rule on the Heller v. District of Columbia case this summer.

If anyone wants an education in American history you should read all the briefs…very interesting indeed. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

By Steve

April 10, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Let’s look at the big picture, shall we?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

“Since the Second Amendment… applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual’s right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm.”

— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual’s right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

By militias

April 10, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

“The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.” [emphasis added]

Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law.

By Brad

April 10, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

While the Founding Fathers may have supported the ownership of slow, expensive powder-loaded rifles, it’s doubtful that they would have been able to conceive of shotguns, assault rifles, handguns, and other contemporary weaponry.

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

The Second Amendment makes no sense without the prospect of civilian militias, as it is clearly a propositional statement. If I were to say that I’m always hungry after dinner and so I eat dessert every night, and then one night I turned out not to be hungry after dinner, then it would be reasonable to assume that I might skip dessert that night.

If you really want to overthrow the government, bearing arms probably isn’t enough in 2006. You’d need aircraft to take the skies, hundreds of tanks to defeat ground forces, and a full navy. The only way to reform a powerful government in this day and age is through nonviolent means.

What the majority of Americans believe about the Second Amendment is unsurprising, because a majority of Americans have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment accomplishes and how federal courts have traditionally interpreted it.

By notPC

April 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

add “dufus” to the derogatory terms used to describe firearms license holders.

Man, the insults keep coming.

By Fred

April 10, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

What part of “well-regulated militia” is causing the confusion, gang?

A lot of folks seem to be screaming that ANY regulation of gun ownership would be unconstitutional. Exactly what constitution are they reading—the United Federation of Planets?

By The Constitution

April 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

First, although the 2nd Amendment did create a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” it did so only insofar as private arms were needed to maintain a citizen militia. The basis for the right is the collective, republican concept of the citizen militia, and the primary objective of enshrining the militia in the Bill of Rights was to guard against the dangers of a standing professional army. Moreover, the phrase “keep and bear arms” had distinctly military connotations leading up to and including the founding era, and there is remarkably little evidence of an individualist right to possess guns, even in the anti-federalist literature. The “right of the people” was intended to vest the ownership and possession of arms in the potential militia members—(white male) citizens.

Second, because the citizen militia withered away as an institution long ago and has no contemporary successor, the conditions for the right to keep and bear arms, even as an individualist right, no longer exists. The local militia was already giving way to the vastly superior – in terms of training, preparedness and fighting ability – professional army at the time of the Revolution. State militia were replaced by volunteer state guard and, eventually, National Guard units, that were gradually co-opted by the national military. Today, the National Guard is equipped by the government and in virtually all respects serves as an adjunct to the professional army. Nor are there any other plausible substitutes for the extinct citizen militia that would serve to animate the 2nd Amendment. Police forces are, for the most part, full-time, government-equipped professional organizations. Private citizen militias, according to the authors, are a threat to the founding era collectivist notion of the militia rather than a legacy of that tradition. Therefore, as a matter of constitutional law, the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant today. To the individualists, who read the Amendment as a personal right to possess firearms, rather than merely a collective right to organize into militias, the message is not quite the typical “you are wrong,” but rather “you were right, sort of, a long time ago, but today you’re wrong.”

By HB-89

April 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Hmmm… okay, so now we progress from “You do not have an individual right to bear arms” all the way to “Okay, okay….so you CAN bear arms…..but only of certain types!”

If I am not mistaken, HB-89 does not contain language regarding bazookas, nuclear weapons, or laser-guided bombs.

By Tom

April 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Jay Wrote:To 40 Cal: That’s a bad misfire. You allege that cops killed far fewer felons than citizens, and you are very much wrong. Again, making up facts is a sign of a very weak argument. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, law enforcement officers killed 376 suspects in 2006, almost twice as many as private citizens killed.

Jay, you still haven’t answered MY question about your twisting of the fact. You say less than 200 people killed someone else in self defense. Yet you still seem to be missing any information on how man people deter a crime without having to fire a shot, or who wound the criminal, rather than killing him.

You take just one little tidbit of data, and use it to justify your entire agenda.

Something else I ask you to consider. What if one of those people SAVED by those weapons was yourself? Would you still think the same way?

By J Long

April 10, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Common Sense - I doubt that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right in the sense you are using it…which is as a state right. The Bill of Rights very clearly refers to “State” when it means State and “People” when it means People. The portion of the Second Amendment that refers to “State” is clearly not the active portion of the amendment. That is the portion that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A simple way to think about this is to figure out which portion of the Amendment can actually stand on its own as an amendment - does, “A well regulated Militia, being neccesary to the security of a free State.” work as an amendment? Or does “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” work as an amendment?

Not to mentiont the fact that your interpretation would be out of place in the Bill of Rights and would already be taken care of in number 10.

By Stephen C

April 10, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Common Sense, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

The definition of infringe: 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate. Source: www.freedictionary.com

The definition of keep: 1. To retain possession of.

The definition of bear: 1. To hold up; support. 2. To carry from one place to another; transport. Source: www.freedictionary.com

So:

The right of the people to possess and hold/carry arms shall not be trangressed or violated.

Is that clear enough for you? I see no room for “reasonable regulation and control” there.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are

21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.

Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

By notPC

April 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Again, the 2nd. Amendment arguments have posted…by people with far greater intelligence than you or me. Wait until summer, it’ll be settled then.

In the mean time, the state of Georgia has recognized that I have an inalienable right to defend myself and have removed state imposed restrictions to that end. My name is not Rambo, Bubba, or Dufus. You wouldn’t know if I was carrying a gun or not, and I avoid altercations at all costs. Why do some comments here take me (and all other GFL holders) to task and call me names because I choose to defend myself? To my knowledge, a GFL holder hasn’t killed an innocent person during a shootout. Anyone? Jay, you work for the AJC, why not check out the archives for us and find the articles.

By Jonny

April 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

As a firearm owner and permit holder, I’m bothered by some of my fellows in arms with their violent rhetoric. Using a firearm on another human is, or should be, the very last resort.

In my neighborhood, there are some folks moving in that think the beginning, middle, and end of conflict resolution is at the end of a barrel. The peacock strutting only serves to invite danger and challenges. I’m equally bothered by their rhetoric.

But we must remember that the big mouths are the minority. I carry just about everywhere and few people know it. I believe I am representative of most permit holders.

I carry because I’d rather have a pistol and not need it instead of the other way.

By 45 ACP

April 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

“The Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.”

ever heard of “….shall not be infringed”?

BTW - I never saw an ammendment on the right to own a car. Apples & oranges.

By GaLiberal

April 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Jay doesn’t go far enough in his well-reasoned argument. He failed to point out that guns NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER save lives. They have one purpose and that is to kill. Yes, you may kill someone that is trying to do you harm, but they are still dead. You are more likely to kill someone in your own family or a neighbor than an actual bad guy. Here are two examples. A man in FL killed his son who was coming in the basement door because he forgot his keys. A man in the metro area killed his next-door neighbor when he saw someone “stealing” his tools when she was just borrowing a hammer. In both cases, both of these people shot first and asked questions later. In both cases, two people were killed needlessly. In both cases, neither were charged with a crime; it was an “unfortunate” accident. More guns is not the solution because gun owners are generally irresponsible and ill trained. In GA, all you have to do is make the bare statement that you felt threatened. Their victims don’t get to tell their side of the story because they are dead.

The other aspect Jay fails to mention is the overt racism of these laws. People wrongly believe there are people carrying guns on MARTA because the majority are black. They believe that wherever there are black people, they have guns and will rob, beat, rape, or kill so you better be armed to protect yourself. This is typical of the Rethuglicons who like to make false claims about ‘the race card’ or ‘reverse racism’ or some other KKK/White supremacist justification for their own racism. It just demonstrates how low these people will sink to get legitimatize their message of hatred and intolerance. I’ll remember in November.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And these gun laws are living proof.

By Kennesaw

April 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Our crime rate didn’t drop here when we were forced to own guns…

By I'm Educated

April 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence, a place where:

• More than 38,000 people died from gunshot wounds in 1991 ¾ more than 100 men, women, and children for each day of the year.[3] [Page 59]

• An estimated 222 million firearms are in circulation in a population of 260 million.[4]

• One handgun rolls off an assembly line every twenty seconds, and someone is injured or killed by another handgun once every twenty seconds.[5]

• Six states have already seen firearms surpass motor vehicles as the leading cause of death by injury, and if the current trend held [Page 60] in 1994, gun deaths have already topped annual motor vehicle deaths.[6]

• Thirteen children are struck by bullets ¾ “stray” and not-so-stray[7] ¾ each and every day.[8]

• Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death of African-American males aged fifteen to nineteen.[9][Page 61]

• The second most dangerous consumer product on the market is also one of the least regulated.[10

By Seth

April 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Common Sense,

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (emphasis added)

Neither the United State nor Georgia Constitutions provide a guarantee for people to keep and bear cars. If you truly want to suitable comparison, I suggest you look at the other rights guaranteed by those documents.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Would you support a government program that requires you to obtain a license before posting your comments in a public forum such as this one? Would you support licensing of those like Mr. Bookman who wish to publish articles? How about if the government establishes a list of the religions it deems appropriate?

The language of the Second Amendment is quite forceful, arguably more so than any other part of the bill of rights. What would be the constitutional basis for using a lesser standard in applying the Second Amendment than the First?

By Jay Bookman

April 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

To Tom, who wrote; ” You say less than 200 people killed someone else in self defense. Yet you still seem to be missing any information on how many people deter a crime without having to fire a shot, or who wound the criminal, rather than killing him.”

Yes, I am missing that information. So is everybody else, because no good information exists. Gun advocates propose the laughable number of 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, falsely attributing that to the FBI. As noted above, federal experts say such numbers are vastly inflated. We do know for a fact that 10,000 people are killed each year with firearms, and that fewer than 200 of those killings are justifiable, because we can count the bodies. It’s an easy statistic to collect. Hard data.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Ignorance in here is ASTOUDING.

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today’s equivalent of a “well-regulated” militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today’s militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.

By Tom

April 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal,

Do some research on the origin of Georgia’s gun laws. They came about because of the white people’s desire to disarm blacks. In fact, Georgia’s “public gathering” clause was in response to the Camilla Massacre.

Before you throw around comments about racism in relation to gun politics, do some research first. You’ll sound more intelligent.

Oh yeah, all pro-gun people aren’t Republicans, so stop making yourself look foolish.

By quotations

April 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

• Zachariah Johnson 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

“To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

“The great object is, that every man be armed.”

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible. “

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!”

“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”

— Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

— Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to society; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

— Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”, 1792-93

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

— Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942

.. a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…

— Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

— Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.

— Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

By Brad

April 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a “well-regulated militia.”

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own “militia” - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was “well-regulated” in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The “militia” was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III’s troops fresh in their minds, many of the “anti-Federalists” feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

By Tom

April 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal,

Do some research on the origin of Georgia’s gun laws. They came about because of the white people’s desire to disarm blacks. In fact, Georgia’s “public gathering” clause was in response to the Camilla Massacre.

Before you throw around comments about racism in relation to gun politics, do some research first. You’ll sound more intelligent.

Oh yeah, all pro-gun people aren’t Republicans, so stop making yourself look foolish.

By Seth

April 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Jay, You write: “Yes, I am missing that information. So is everybody else, because no good information exists. Gun advocates propose the laughable number of 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, falsely attributing that to the FBI.”

You can you suggest that no “good information exists” and then turn around and state that the proposed 2.5 million number is “laughable”? Those presenting that number offer a basis for thier argument? Where is yours?

By Old Kennesaw

April 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Kennesaw, are you sure??? Me thinks you fib.

By anonymouscoward

April 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

You all crack me up. So dogmatic!

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

I agree! The militia shall not be infringed. But several of us have already PROVEN to you that this concept of a militia is NO LONGER VALID.

What about that don’t you understand?

Regulate guns, period. This is common sense, it’s backed up by facts, statistics, and good data (not NRA lies and spin).

You people really need to learn your Constitution and US History better before spouting off nonsense.

Oh wait, this IS Georgia, where our public education is what 49th or 50th in the nation?

By Brad

April 10, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Words were not wasted in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There are no extraneous sentences or phrases. Thus, A well regulated Militia is a very significant part of the 2nd Amendment. This is not about each individual person maintaining his or her own arsenal; this is about the individual states maintaining militias.

Further, the phrase being necessary to the security of a free State clearly refers to the states having militias, not to private militias

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

The NRA and its supporters claim that a well-armed citizenry deters crime. Does it?

According to the latest crime-rate statistics from the FBI (2004), the murder rate in the U.S. — with weak and ineffective gun-control laws — is 5.5 murders per 100,000 population.

According to the latest crime-rate statistics from Statistics Canada (2004), the murder rate in Canada — with very strict gun-control laws — is 2.0 murders per 100,000 population.

The latest reported rate (2002) in England — another nation with strict gun-control laws — was 1.6 murders per 100,000 population. The latest (2000) reported murder rate in France is 1.7. In Australia (2003), it’s 1.7.

No, guns alone don’t kill people. It’s people with guns that kill people. The high rate of murder in the U.S. may reflect the fact that too many people in the U.S. have guns.

29 January 2006

By Tom

April 10, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

The Supreme Court will rule soon enough on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right (and with a conservative court, I’m suspecting it’ll be ruled an individual right), so you can stop your posturing about it being collective. The word will be passed down soon enough.

By IAmNotAMilitia

April 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The ‘to keep and bear arms’ is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

By Chris

April 10, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Typical of a left leaning liberal. Jay has no idea what he’s talking about, nor would he understand. I’d like to see how you change your point of view if you or your family was assaulted.

Stop giving law abiding citizens a bad name. it’s the thugs and gang bangers out there that are killing each other, these “private citizens.”

You can take my second amendment as soon as you give up your first.

By 45 ACP

April 10, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Hey “common sense”,

Do you think the Supreme Court “knows their history”?

let’s see how they interpret a militia…

By Riverpirate

April 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

I personally am not worried about “Bubba” sitting next to me shooting me. I am worried about “Tyrone,” “Jamil,” “or “Lacrishus” the thugs coming in to rob the place and shooting people in the mean time.

By Seth

April 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

Common Sense,

Every amendment to the Constitution has the same effect today as the day it was ratified. The right to keep and bare arms has no more expired than the prohibition against slavery or the right against self incrimination. The Framers created a means by which to change the meaning of the Constitution; that is the purpose of the amendment process.

As to your argument that the Second Amendment refers solely to military forces sanctioned the State, I would disagree and am far from alone. Mr. Dellinger, in arguing on behalf of the city of Washington D.C. before SCOTUS, would not even dare make that argument you have; he gave testimony that was quite the opposite in fact.

WALTER DELLINGER, arguing DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 3/18/2008:

Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that the phrase “the people” and the phrase “the militia” were really in — in sync with each other. You will see references in the debates of, the Federalist Farmer uses the phrase “the people are the militia, the militia are the people.”

By Jared

April 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Nice way to start the blog, Jay, by somehow tieing this into a racial/MLK issue.

Anyways, the 2nd Amendment, like the first, third, fourth, and so on, is a guarantee of INDIVIDUAL rights.

For people who want to kill, no gun law is going to stop them. It is not the law-abiding citizens who choose to take the proper steps in getting a license that you or I need to worry about. Gun laws were on the books in Blacksburg, Va. They were on the books in Omaha. They did not stop those murders from taking place and they haven’t been stopping any murders in their entire existence.

Time for a change, right?

By Stephen C

April 10, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Common Sense, you have yet to explain why the Second Amendment is outdated and obsolete, when the whole point of it was to prevent another tyrannical government from rising up and destroying the Free State.

Are you saying that our government, the source of the Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, is incapable of becoming tyrannical and We the People should trust it 100% with our Freedom and Security?

By RealityKing

April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Being locked and loaded in a Rambo fantasy is a good thing if you’re not an elitist living in an elite neighborhood.

By demwit

April 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jay. All guns and gun owners should be rounded up, they’re not needed anymore.. We have Bush to protect us now!

By factjack

April 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

I’ll bet Mac Mayer’s mother will no longer be listening to Jay Bookman..

By Police Officer

April 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

I think it is funny that “Common Sense” criticizes the pro-gun crowd for not knowing their Constitutional history. Why do I think it is funny?

I think it is funny because if you research the history of the Bill of Rights you will find that several of our founding fathers argued against including it in the Constitution. Why did they say it was not necessary? They said that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were endowed upon man by the creator. Therefore, they were already rights that could not be taken away from the people. Since they could not be taken away, there was no reason to include them in the Constitution.

Since the founding fathers felt that any right mentioned in the Bill of Rights was irrevocable, they obviously felt that included the right to keep and bear arms.

However, let us also look at it from the militia argument….

The founding fathers felt a citizen militia was important to the country. However, they knew that they couldn’t have a militia without weapons. Therefore, they guaranteed people the right to keep and bear arms. The militia is dependent upon the right to keep and bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia. Therefore, whether or not the militia is still needed, the right to keep and bear arms remains.

Common Sense, maybe it is you who should brush up on Constitutional law.

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Kevin, maybe you should actually read the post, and not just get angry when you start reading. It appears to have clouded your judgment. He’s saying that the 1.9% figure for number of justified homicides is probably too high. “Open mouth, insert foot.”

So he is calling HIS OWN stats inaccuraute. Why use those stats at all if he is going to dispute them????

By retired federal agent

April 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

There are two kinds of people in the world which is sheep and sheepdogs. Jay is a sheep who is going to be in situation one of these days with a mad gunman that is randomly shooting people for what ever crazy reason and he is not going to be armed. Then what happens, we watch Jay’s funeral on TV. On the other hand, the sheepdog takes care of the sheep. The sheepdog carries a weapon at all times and can take care of the crazy gunman and save all the sheep. Then, we can watch the crazy gunman’s funeral on TV. It’s a very simple theory. Good luck all you sheep.

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Being locked and loaded in a Rambo fantasy is a good thing if you’re not an elitist living in an elite neighborhood.

Sharon Tate lived in a pretty high class elitist neighborhood but that didnt stop Mansons family from killing her. Everyone should protect themselves regardless of class. Of course if people like Bookman are incapable and bad things happen to them then they are to blame for being afraid of responsibility.

By Jay Bookman

April 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

How nice of RiverPirate to come along and elevate the conversation.

And to RealityKing and KS, I live in a run-of-the-mill house on a city street in downtown Atlanta. In fact, your fantasies of “elitism” are pretty darn funny.

By Filster

April 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Gotta love Bookman’s use of statistics. I’m surprised he did not use Emory’s Arthur Kellerman’s “statistics” that if you keep a gun in your house yuo are something like 42 times more likely to die by gun violence than if you don’t have a gun in your house. Sounds like a strong argument against guns until you analyze Kellerman’s “statistics.” What city do you think he used for his analysis? Detroit? DC? Miami? Any other large city with a well-deserved reputation for gun-related violence? Nope! Kellerman used King County, Washington, home to Seattle and, as any informed individual may know, King County has the higest suicide rate in the country and of course, Kellerman included suicides in his “statistics” of gun-related violence. Misleading? Sure as heck is, but people who hate guns can’t be bothered with little old things like accuracy and unbiased figures. And I wonder what Bookman thinks about Kennesaw, with itws mandatory gun in the house regulation and a ridiculously low crime rate.

By Test it

April 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

If you think law enforcement officers are there to protect you (they cannot be everywhere) just try this simple test. Call 911 and see how long it takes for help to arrive. I did it because of a burglery last month and it too 14 minutes. A lot can happen in 14 minutes… So hide, cry, beg and plead you “sheep”. If trouble arises I will be ready to protect my family - legally or illegally.

By Kevin

April 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

I do not care if Bookman owns a gun or not. Considering the tude its probably best that he dont. Bookman has no say as to whether I have. His opinion is meaningless. The vast majority in this country favor gun rights. Bookman just wants some attention and we are giving it to him.

By MCBUCK

April 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Wow….lots of legalese, and spin talk from the left, but if you refer to “quotations” remarks there is point to be taken…All of those forefathers understood what the authors of our constitution meant. “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” meant just that to them. You can twist, spin, and get any horde of modern day english professors or attorneys and judges you like to give you their individual interpertation of that phrase, but the bottom line is it says what it says and who of the present day educated elite can say with any accuracy more than was said by those great men of old….Who of the modern leftist ‘gun grabbers’ is bold to challenge the rights given to me by men such as Jefferson, Adams and the like ? Do those who wish to prevent me from exercising my second amendment rights have the audacity to stand on the toes of the founding fathers ? If so, then now I know why I am given those rights to keep and bear arms. Shame on those timid sheep who wish to become herders.

By MCBUCK

April 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Wow….lots of legalese, and spin talk from the left, but if you refer to “quotations” remarks there is point to be taken…All of those forefathers understood what the authors of our constitution meant. “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” meant just that to them. You can twist, spin, and get any horde of modern day english professors or attorneys and judges you like to give you their individual interpertation of that phrase, but the bottom line is it says what it says and who of the present day educated elite can say with any accuracy more than was said by those great men of old….Who of the modern leftist ‘gun grabbers’ is bold to challenge the rights given to me by men such as Jefferson, Adams and the like ? Do those who wish to prevent me from exercising my second amendment rights have the audacity to stand on the toes of the founding fathers ? If so, then now I know why I am given those rights to keep and bear arms. Shame on those timid sheep who wish to become herders.

By RenaP

April 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Its funny how everyone in Georgia always talks about how much power God has. I always hear stupid things like when someone is hit by a car - oh, it must have been his time. God was ready for him. Or when someone survives being whipped around in a tornado - Oh God must want me here to carry on his work. Why don’t they feel that way when someone gets robbed and shot? Do you really think God wants you to have that gun to shoot the criminal? Maybe it was just the victims time to go.

They want to leave everything up to God except when they think that THEY can do a better job than God.

By Roy

April 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Anyone who cannot see that the Bill of Rights are individual rights are not too bright to begin with. I’m willing to bet that Jay Bookman was beat up a lot as a kid because of his know-it-all attitude and his wussyness. Hey Jay, put a sign in your front yard that reads “There are no guns on this property.”

By MCBUCK

April 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Wow….lots of legalese, and spin talk from the left, but if you refer to “quotations” remarks there is point to be taken…All of those forefathers understood what the authors of our constitution meant. “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” meant just that to them. You can twist, spin, and get any horde of modern day english professors or attorneys and judges you like to give you their individual interpertation of that phrase, but the bottom line is it says what it says and who of the present day educated elite can say with any accuracy more than was said by those great men of old….Who of the modern leftist ‘gun grabbers’ is bold to challenge the rights given to me by men such as Jefferson, Adams and the like ? Do those who wish to prevent me from exercising my second amendment rights have the audacity to stand on the toes of the founding fathers ? If so, then now I know why I am given those rights to keep and bear arms. Shame on those timid sheep who wish to become herders.

By Wuzzy

April 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

Don’t clutter up a liberal’s mind with facts.

By Roy

April 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Only the uneducated would think that the Bill of Rights are not individual rights. Do you think Mr. Bookman would put a sign in his front yard that read “There are no guns on this property.” ? Bookman was probably beat up a lot as kid for his know-it-all attitude and his wussiness.

By BS

April 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

How about a different spin? Before anything else was passed, one could carry a gun un-concealed. You could drive with it in your lap - how’s that for easy to get to? And how many shootouts did we have by law-abiding citizens? Not to many (actually, none that I can think of). This whole column is a bunch of BS. So law-abiding citizens (with a CCL) can legally carry their concealed weapons into a few more places - big deal. Just be patient, watch the news, and wait for the huge increase in gun violence that never materializes.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

All of the arguments from the “right” have been emotionally based.

From the “left,” we offer facts.

Fact is, and you can spin this all you want:

The Constitution CLEARLY talks about militias, and our NATIONAL GUARD is our CURRENT MILITIA.

Try to rise up against our govt now, fools.

Good grief, did any of you people even graduate high school?

By Boomer

April 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Bookman (intentionally you have to assume) fails to point out that permit holders can carry their guns into any number of restaurants already. Those would be any restaurant that doesn’t serve alcohol— from Micky D’s to Ryans. Being as many of those establishments cater to children, the angst and hand wringing over the dire consequences of HB 89 seem so —so— contrived.

The AJC and its writers will never point out that tens of thousands of Georgians are already legally carrying guns into tens of thousands of restaurants all across the state.

By Brad

April 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

This sums it up nicely:

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, simply says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

With the meaning of the words “shall not be infringed” on their side , why have anti-gun control advocates limited their battle to the halls of Congress? Why have they not challenged gun laws as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the well regulated militias of the states, not individual citizens, to keep and bear arms.

And, when it comes to regulating the militias of the states, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives that authority to — The United States Congress:

“to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” — Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution While advocates on both sides of the gun control debate often cite dozens of cases, the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling on the 2nd Amendment comes from a single key 1939 case — United States v. Miller.

By Steve is Jay's Beeatch

April 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Steve, get Jay’s teat out of your mouth and pipe down - you’re embarrassing yourself.

By Common Sense

April 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Can’t get much clearer than this:

While the Court’s 1939 decision specifically upheld a federal law requiring registration of sawed-off shotguns, it also issued a legal definition of the scope of the Second Amendment as it applies to the constitutionally conceived militia that still stands today.

In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that a “well regulated militia” did not require sawed-off shotguns to properly carry out its constitutionally defined duty.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” — U.S. v. Miller (1939) The statement above establishes the government’s right to limit what types of firearms the public can legally “keep and bear.”

For a federal gun control law to be successfully challenged as violating the Second Amendment, it would have to be proven that the law adversely affects the states’ ability to raise and equip a militia.

By GA_Tiger Fan

April 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman is a joke and he never ceases to amaze me by his comments and articles. What a wus!

By Brad

April 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

The “Militia” In the Miller case, the Court also takes the opportunity to define the “militia” considered by the Founding Fathers in creating the Second Amendment.

“The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” — U.S. v. Miller (1939)

“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” — U.S. v. Miller (1939)

“‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’” — U.S. v. Miller (1939) No Effect On the States No matter how the Second Amendment is interpreted, it does not prevent states or local governments from enacting and enforcing their own gun control laws.

By Brad

April 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

now for the clincher…

So, What Good is the 2nd Amendment If the Supreme Court’s opinion in U.S. v. Miller limits the Second Amendment’s scope and authority to laws affecting the states’ ability to raise and equip militias, what good does the 2nd Amendment do for the individual firearms owner?

First, what are some federal gun control laws that would not affect the states’ ability to maintain public militias and thus, could not be challenged under the Second Amendment.

Registration of all firearms Licensing of all firearm owners Prohibiting private ownership certain types of firearms Requiring “trigger lock” devices Requiring gun buyer background checks at gun shows Enhanced penalties for gun-related crimes Requirements for trigger locks, background checks at gun shows, and increased penalties are all part of H.R. 1501 - The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, now being considered by a joint conference committee of Congres

By Wuzzy

April 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Steve, why don’t you take the time to read USC Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13 § Ch. 311. Militia: composition and classes?

It is current Federal law and reads as follows:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you read that little part there under (b)(2) which clearly states that the unorganized militia consists of members who are NOT MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD…

So, what was that whole thing you were saying about facts? Might want to check yours chief.

By THE TRUTH

April 10, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

Jay you ignorant slut.

It rarely if “ever” happens? Do you read or have you been in a coma for the last 100 years? Victims have fought back and saved lives all over this country as recently as this month!!

Stop lying trying to convince other ignorant “sheeple” that your leftist panty waste lies are truths.

Rarely if ever? Give me a friggin break. What a lie.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Let’s clarify this “unorganized militia” myth, shall we?

the intended militia system is utterly defunct nowadays (whatever archaic laws there are around). It never worked very well, but ironically it was really killed by RIGHT-WING militarism, which created a large standing peace-time army, something the Framers were utterly against (this is very rarely mentioned, as it’s not something that’s politically convenient). A private armed group in camouflage togs is much a militia as a gang in blue colors is a police force.

To try to get around this problem, the militia advocates have seized upon the phrase “unorganized militia” in the US regulations. The subtle rhetoric trick here is to claim the “unorganized militia”, (a term simply meaning eligible citizens) is the same as the “organized militia” (a term meaning near-army) - EXCEPT when it comes to any State and Federal controls. They thus try to have it both ways, all the good things about the term (military connotations), without any of the restraints implied (government authority). However, it’s very much an invention without any basis in fact. They just hope no-one in the audience knows enough history to call them on it, and they’re often right.

But the propaganda here has it exactly backwards. The whole “unorganized militia” aspect was a much later legislative maneuver for people to GET OUT of the real (i.e. “organized”) militia, akin to say getting out of the draft by being shuffled into a “reserve draft” category. It was for people to escape the conscription-like service requirements, not a license for private paramilitary groups. The structural details of the militia system were concerned with the extremely difficult task of funding and running an effective military without having a large standing army, and had nothing to do with individual gun rights. “Unorganized militia” in modern terms was more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

More myths debunked:

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997. TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. “The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent.” (from Chapter 6- “Violent Crime in England and Wales” of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file)

By steve

April 10, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Myth #2 Debunked:

MYTH:”Guns don’t kill, people kill people” is a good argument against gun control. TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that “glasses don’t see, eyes see” is a good argument against wearing glasses. Glasses are a tool which help people to see just as guns are a tool that help people to kill and injure others. Empirical research indicates that firearms increase the chances that a crime will turn deadly. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. “The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide.”

By Steve

April 10, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Gun Myth #3

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns. TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying “If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns” is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.

By Riverpirate

April 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Jay, I was not intending to elevate the issue since you started it off in a racial light and then someone threw the “bubba” issue in it which was obviously directed at white rednecks as if white rednecks are the only ones shooting people. Fact is I turn on the news every night and the majority of the crimes shown are black on black with the next being black on white. It’s rarely rednecks shooting people. At least with this new legislation the rednecks can better defend themselves.

Some how liberals feel the need to make every issue a rascial issue. I think they feel they can divide and conquer that way. Nothing could elevate your story since it was written the way it was.

By Jthompson

April 10, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Your argument has a logical problem. 98% of the time when a gun is used for self defense, it is NOT FIRED. Please read “More guns, less crime” for the PEER REVIEWED research. Many many times - it so common that the news does not report it, the gun appears, and the perpetrator decides to leave the area. Self defense accomplished.

By Roy

April 10, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Dang! Is this Steve guy a looney ultra-leftist (just like his buddy Bookman)or what? They will never change, even if they become a victim of a criminal with a gun. They just don’t have the brains.

By Roy

April 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Dang! Is this Steve guy a looney ultra-leftist (just like his buddy Bookman)or what? They will never change, even if they become a victim of a criminal with a gun. They just don’t have the brains.

By Dufus

April 10, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Top 30 Reasons to Oppose Gun Control

James Madison wrote, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” (Federalist 51). John Jay explained, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” (Federalist 2)

By Brad

April 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Interesting - looks like the facts are eluding the knee jerk guns go bang bang crowd.

Not surprising. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in this country, and their lies, when repeated often enough, tend to be convincing…

By Steve

April 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Roy,

We “loony libs” don’t want to take away your guns. We just think that the facts show that gun control is necessary, period.

Statistics are clear.

MYTH: The 1976 handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime. TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year (source) Gun control has saved lives. Let’s look at a graph that displays information about the homicide rate in the District of Columbia a decade before the ban and a decade after. There are random fluctuations in the crime rate from year to year so it’s best to look at homicide data from many years. In the decade preceding the ban, the homicide rate exceeded 35 per 100,000 4 times. In the decade following the ban this happened only once. The average homicide rate of the ten years that followed the ban was lower than the homicide rate of the previous decade. Was this part of a general decrease in homicide that would have happened without the ban? If that were so you would expect the non-gun homicide rate to have declined as well as the gun homicide rate. However, there was only a statistically significant decrease in the number of homicides that involved firearms

By GaLiberal

April 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Tom said: GaLiberal, Do some research on the origin of Georgia’s gun laws. They came about because of the white people’s desire to disarm blacks. In fact, Georgia’s “public gathering” clause was in response to the Camilla Massacre.

Well, Tom you may be right. However, the reason the massacre occurred is because the whites feared “…the blacks were going to refuse obediance…” Clearly this view was driven by their racism. They saw a large gathering of blacks as a threat which justified the use of deadly force. This same attitude prevails today. That’s why the Rethuglicon-controlled legislature is allowing guns on MARTA and other public areas. Their racist view that a large gathering of blacks is a threat to whites justifies the need to pack heat.

Tom also said: Oh yeah, all pro-gun people aren’t Republicans

I never said they weren’t. I did say the Rethuglicons in the legislature were responsible for this indefensible foolishness by passing the bill. Don’t put words in my mouth as it makes you look foolish.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And these racist legislature is living proof.

By Bill

April 10, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

As usual, the anti-gun side must resort to diminishing the character of law abiding citizens in order to get its point across. Forget the fact that very few legal concealed weapons permit holders actually commit gun crimes. Gun crimes are committed by people who are criminals who do not have a weapons permit in most cases. Bookman, your only hope at overturning our constitutional right is to continue to distort the truth. Facts are certainly not on your side.

By Seth

April 10, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Common Sense,

Your argument that U.S. v. Miller justifies gun control is based on an flawed interpretation of the Court’s opinion. Miller created a two part test to determine whether a particular weapon fell within the protection of the Second Amendment: A) is the weapon suitable for military use, and B) is the weapon in common use by the People.

That is not to say that the argument you make, or some version thereof, has not been made in lower courts by those seeking to control the People. I am saying that the opinion has been misapplied for many years; I would go so far as to argue the opinion itself is flawed.

Again, please do not take my word for it. The oral arguments in DC v. Heller showed us that whether Miller should stand is very much in the minds of the Justices. See excerpt from oral arguments on 3/18/2008 below.

Justice Ginsburg and Alan Gura, arguing for Heller, on the “Miller test”: * JUSTICE GINSBURG: But why wouldn’t the machine gun qualify? General Clement told us that’s standard issue in the military. MR. GURA: But it’s not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use. That’s the other aspect of Miller. Miller spoke about the militia as encompassing the notion that people would bring with them arms of the kind in common use supplied by themselves. *

Justice Kennedy and General Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the United States, on the validity of the Miller opinion: JUSTICE KENNEDY: So in your view this amendment has nothing to do with the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves, despite maybe an attempt by the Federal Government, which is what the Second Amendment applies to, to take away their weapons? GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kennedy, I wouldn’t say that it has no application there. As I say, I think the term “arms,” especially if Miller is going to continue to be the law, is influenced by the preamble. But the way we would look at it — JUSTICE KENNEDY: I agree that Miller is consistent with what you’ve just said, but it seems to me Miller, which kind of ends abruptly as an opinion writing anyway, is just insufficient to subscribe — to describe the interests that must have been foremost in the framers’ minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense.

Justice Kennedy and Alan Gura, arguing for Heller, on the validity of the Miller opinion: MR. GURA: Your Honor, even within the militia understanding, the understanding of the militia was always that people would bring whatever they had with them in civilian life. So if a machine gun, even though it may be a wonderful — JUSTICE KENNEDY: My point is: Why is that of any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today? MR. GURA: It’s only of relevance if the Court wishes to continue reading the militia clause as informing the type of weapon which is protected. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, you’re being faithful to Miller. I suggest that Miller may be deficient.

By MCBUCK

April 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

WOW !! It is amazing to see how wordy and long the lib gungrabbers posts are !!! How long did it take you boys to copy and paste you findings from HCI and the Brady Bunch ?

By steve

April 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman, you are a disgrace. You would have us all disarmed at the hands of violent criminals. I don’t have some Rambo fantasy about saving a room full of people, i just want to be able to protect myself. You are nothing but a liberal stooge.

By UB

April 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Here is one for you Mr. Bookman. This happened in your own backyard:

http://www.kimberlyboydlegacy.org/thestory.html

“Shawn Roberts, who is a licensed gun carrier because he owns his own business and travels a lot, yelled for the animal to stop and the convicted rapist and armed robber turned the gun on Mr. Roberts and Roberts shot him in the chest and head dead. Roberts then went to the mangled Sequoia hoping to find my wife in good condition, but instead found her lying there forever lost”

Shawn Roberts is a F-ing Hero. What is this was your wife? You make me sick. You are one of the reasons I laugh at the people selling this rag at Home Depot or Walmart. Could you be one of the reasons why circulation is down??

By Andy

April 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

If an undercover cop were in a crowded restaurant, bus or rail car, would that cop shoot at a criminal unless he had a clear shot? Or would he exercise restraint and judgment to only shoot as a last resort? If an innocent person were killed by the cop, what would happen?

Can anyone who has a concealed permit exercise the same restraint and judgment that a well trained cop has?

The cop has to protect all citizens; whereas the concealed permit holder has no such obligation. And if you can’t guarantee my safety in a bad situation, why should I allow you to put my life at risk because of your bad judgment? I have confidence that a cop will exercise good judgment; I don’t have that confidence in someone who holds a permit.

I would feel much safer if everyone who attended a public function carried pepper spray and was trained in kick boxing. More likely to have better outcomes than if everyone carried guns.

By GaConservative

April 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

Firearms in the hands of the people are not just for protecting yourself from individuals intent on harming you. They are to protect yourself from an abusive government intent on subjugating you. April 19th is quickly approaching - Google it. Had any say lately about how your taxes are spent?

By les

April 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Suicidal liberals like Bookman are beyond help. I am most grateful to the legislature for finally doing something both sensible and moral. Guns on MARTA??God forbid, right? Well anyone who rides those cesspools on wheels already knows that the cars are weighted down with every manner of gun and weapons carried by the lowlifes intent on terrorizing riders. About two years ago I decided I rather walk if necessary.

If only Meredith Emerson, Lauren Burk and Eve Carson had been carrying a gun and had been unafraid to use them maybe they would still be alive and the scum that killed them would be what they should be - fertilizer.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

Andy, you put that much more eloquently than I did.

Excellent post, and your point is clear. And valid.

I trust the cop’s experience with guns and crime over Bubba’s. Or Leroy’s.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Les, is it still socially acceptable here in Atlanta to publically be a racist? Do you even ride MARTA, or are you just spouting racist trash?

By Mel

April 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Forget the guns! Let’s just give everybody their own nuclear weapon. Then we’ll REALLY be safe.

By GaConservative

April 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

GaLiberal - Why are you so intent on keeping everyone on MARTA unarmed? And while we are talking about it, why do you think that only blacks gather in groups? And why do you think that the intent of the law is to allow guns to be carried on MARTA specifically - that’s a pretty narrow scope, don’t ya think? Also, how do you make the logical jump from the intent of one law to protect whites from blacks to the newer law protecting whites from blacks? Do you think that whites need protection from blacks only and only on MARTA or in public parks? I just can’t seem to follow your logic….

When you vote Democrat, you vote against your own best interests. You also make yourself look like an idiot. And these racist rantings are living proof.

By lovelyliz

April 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

The 4th amendment is sacrosanct, but the 1st, 4th & 8th are nothing to be bothered with???????????????

By Steve

April 10, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

I’m dumbfounded by the argument that by you, owning a gun, you can protect yourself from a suddenly turned tyrannical and amazingly armed nuclear US govt.

cuckoo cuckoo!

By lovelyliz

April 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Too many Rambo & Dirty Harry movies.

Actually, I wouldn’t feel as bad about those carrying guns, if real experience and training was required. That and if virtually every study ever done didn’t show that owning a gun is more likely to result in the injury or death of friends and family than the actual bad guy.

By Steve Fritts

April 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

Ha! What a loser this guy is.

By Fred Mertz

April 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Hey, lovelyliz, I used to drink sacrosanct but it made my teeth yellow. And not just the 1st, 4th and 8th, all 5 of them.

By lovelyliz

April 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Ditto Andy

By Pro2A

April 10, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

So 1.9% of the gun homicides were justified (meaning the gun was used in self defense)… I bet you will find that is pretty close to the % of the population that has a CCP.

Out of the 10,177 deaths 195 of them were because the good guy defended himself and won. So naturally you would like to reduce that to zero and make all 10,177 deaths of innocent people. Makes perfect sense.

By Willie

April 10, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

NOW THAT IS POWERFUL REASONING! What say you Jay?

By Fred Mertz

April 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Andy - Nice scenario! Do you like to role play? Do you dress up too? Gee I wish I was more like you but I can’t be because I HAVE A SET OF NUTS!

By Tyler

April 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

** For those of you, especially the media, who wish to advertise that you believe all guns are bad and only The government should be allowed to have them, I say good luck with that… after all there’s never been a national socialist government take advantage of an unarmed group of people before has there?

Wake up. The world doesn’t share your non-violent resolution system beliefs with you. I say put up as many gun free zone signs in your own front yard as you’d like, but leave me alone about choosing to not be a victim. I won’t tell you that you don’t have the right to protect yourself or your family, why would you try and tell me the same?

Try for a second, to use that open mind that you claim to have… and invision a criminal forcing their way into your childrens bedroom at night. Now… your childs life is in danger. Would you rather A) use your gun to save your innocent child’s life or B) call someone else who has a gun, and hope you can talk your way into the criminal’s good graces as you dial 911 and wait for the police.

Will the liberals of America not be happy until every right as a free citizen has been removed?

By GaConservative

April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

All we are saying is give a piece a chance….

By leadfree

April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

So why can’t we just accomodate all our needs by following the intent of the 2nd amendment? Those that desire to “keep and bear arms” should be formed into a “well-regulated militia” to meet and train and provide for our “security” (in this case, a more modern view of a “free State” which,in the current arguments, would be better protection from thugs and criminal acts involving weapons instead of a tyrannical government). These civilian militias would meet regularly to train, and then deter crime by patroling high crime areas, functioning something like the air marshalls. These “ground marshalls” would, however, need some oversight to prevent them from devolving into vigilanties based on race, creed, religion, etc. Since the police force cannot be everywhere, and that seems to be one of the big concerns, then these ground marshalls can help us feel safe while we are at the resturant, at the theater, etc. knowing the a well-train militia force is armed and ready to spring to action. Just the threat of unidentified armed crime fighters should help deter some potential criminal acts. And it would save the taxpayers money for the weapons, training, and any benefit obligations if they are wounded or killed in action.

By Tyler

April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

I am a peace loving person. I wish to the lord that I never have to use my weapon on another human. But how can I expect God to grant me a safe and protected life if I’m not willing to take the common sense steps to protect myself first?

By Mike

April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

How typical of Bookman to personally attack people who don’t share his extremely narrow political views.

Don’t agree with the laws that are passed? Super. Like most liberals, Bookman gets personally offended when others are too stupid or ignorant to share his enlightened views on gun control. As a result, he feels the need to mock these folks and question their bravery.

Thanks again to the AJC for continuing to do their part to keep public discourse at the grade school level.

By Dave

April 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

retired federal agent - You are my Hero… Have never heard it expressed better… good luck to the sheep!

By HARRY

April 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Jay,

Just curious, have you ever owned or fired a handgun? How do you feel about guns in the home for defense?

To all you fine citizens that have been bad mouthing Mr. Bookman, shame on you. I don’t usually agree with him but he keeps up with and responds to the comments section and he answers emails. He has the guts to stand up for his opinion and discuss it in a civil manner. For that reason, I always read what he has to say.

By lovelyliz

April 10, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

I know several people who own gun. NOT ONE OF THEM HASE EVER SHOT AT A BAD GUY. That’s not to say it won’t ever happened, but if more people used their weapons to defend themselves rather than to shoot a spouse, child, friend etc. it could be different.

Unfortunately it isn’t.

By Dennis

April 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

how many non permited guns carriers have been taking thier guns on MARTA, parks, and restruants? They have been doing it for years. Now the permited ones have equal ground.

By Dennis

April 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

To all you thugs that rob and carjack, and carry guns without permits. I would rather be on trial for your death, than you on trial for mine.

By ACC-SEC Booster

April 10, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Jay Kookman and his bag of socialist left-wing lies has struck again! This time Poppin’ Jay is attacking law abiding citizens with permits who carry guns to protect themselves against criminals WITHOUT permits who carry guns to rob, maim and kill innocent people. By the sounds of his piece, it looks as if Jay would rather the criminals be the only ones allowed to carry the guns, just like in Washington DC.

By ACC-SEC Booster

April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Jay Kookman and his bag of socialist left-wing lies has struck again! This time Poppin’ Jay is attacking law abiding citizens with permits who carry guns to protect themselves against criminals WITHOUT permits who carry guns to rob, maim and kill innocent people. By the sounds of his piece, it looks as if Jay would rather the criminals be the only ones allowed to carry the guns, just like in Washington DC.

By Steve

April 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Gee, I’ve lived in the heart of a not so great (but gentrifying) neighborhood for 11 years, and in the city for 18 years, and not once have I felt like I needed a gun to be safe.

By ACC-SEC Booster

April 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

Dennis @ 4:06-

Good point. I’d much rather be judged by 12 for defending my life against pondscum than carried by six after that same POS pondscum took my life over some petty cash or some other trivial items.

By GA Citiizen

April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Jay you are the type of columnist that helped me decide to cancel my AJC subscription…had I not been reading a real piece of journalism and found a link to this article, I would not have been reminded to have my company’s subscription canceled, also. Thank you for reminding me what a piece of crap Atlanta has for a newspaper. You have renewed my commitment to remind my friends, family & business associates not to subscribe or advertise their businesses in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I am also not surprised by GALiberal’s ignorance reaching out to play his only hand….the race card. What a simpleton…..I think the AJC helps promote this racist attitudes of ignorant people, like GALiberal.

By Dan

April 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

It makes sense that off 10,000 killings 2 percent were justified killings by private citizens. In Georgia only 3% of citizens are Fireams license holders. The only real question is how do we make the other 98% justified? Easy own, train, and carry a firearm. Just remember it is a gun that provides the blanket of security that you sleep under every night, not a piece of paper in Washington DC

By Tyler

April 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

“By ACC-SEC Booster
Good point. I’d much rather be judged by 12 for defending my life against pondscum than carried by six after that same POS pondscum took my life over some petty cash or some other trivial items.”

But this is the very thing that liberals in general find so offensive.

How dare you as a citizen of a free country,not just lay down and give all of your hardearned possessions and possibly your life to someone who’s probably never earned anything in theirs. How dare you have the right to say that saving the life of you or your family is worth ending the life of a career criminal who will tell you he’s never going to change.

I would bet that all the “peace lovers” that want us to give up our guns and trust the government to protect us are the same ones saying that 911 was an inside job funded by the government.

The same liberals saying we should never stand up for our beleifs are the ones that form street blocking peace walks to stand up for theirs.

By James

April 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Looks like Jay hit a nerve with the local gun crowd.

Guns don’t make us safer - improving society makes us safer. Solving poverty and improving education.

Carrying a gun might make you feel safe, but I hate to tell ya, statistics prove otherwise. It’s more dangerous to be packing one than not. These are easy facts to look up.

By Scott

April 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Criminals have and will always have guns. Gun laws that take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens only creates easier targets for the criminals. I choose NOT to be a victim! The cops will not be there in time to save you!

By les

April 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Steve,

What is socially acceptable in Atlanta is of no concern to me since Atlanta proper is a bastion of sicko liberals who had rather watch their entire families slaughter rather than “OFFFEEEND” someone. Secondly, racism—esisting in the province of thought—is something everyone has the right to which to ascribe. Certainly, every racial group on the face of the earth is racist.

And yes, I did used to ride MARTA. I did totally stop riding it about two years ago when I could no longer tolerate the thugs that got on with sullen threatening looks. Also,the stench of urine and the general filth finally was more than I could bear.

Please, can somenone tell me why racism is such a no-no when it is as widespread as breathing lungs.

By Ed

April 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Jay,

You are simply one those liberals who would fall on the floor and roll up in the fetal position if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night and would hope the bad guy would not shoot you and your family in the head. How sad.

By ACC-SEC Booster

April 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

Tyler @ 4:52 pm-

Many Metro Atlanta police departments are facing severe manpower shortages where they’re stretched almost to the breaking point. APD, Cobb, Clayton and especially Gwinnett and DeKalb where the loopy County Commission rejected pay increases and expanding the force amidst a rising tide of violent home invasions and armed robberies of every kind and MARTA where there often doesn’t seem to be a cop when you really, really need one. With this type of borderline public safety crisis, it seems that no one living in the city would be crying foul about the right to legally protect themselves in just a few more places, especially in an urban environment where random violent crime is an all too frequent reality.

By someone who read the whole 2nd amendmen, not just the part I liked

April 10, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

I love how the gun lobby and those who support it ramble on about their “right to keep and bear arms” while conveniently skipping over the part in the 2nd amendment about “a well-regulated Militia”. Militia to defend a free State was the intent; not dining out with a gun at the table.

By Mike A

April 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

Nice once again to see our media doesn’t give a rats * for the Second Amendment. Perhaps we should take away freedom of the press for a while, and see how they like it?

By Mike A

April 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

Nice once again to see our media doesn’t give a rats * for the Second Amendment. Perhaps we should take away freedom of the press for a while, and see how they like it?

By Skeptic Tank

April 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

Having lived in the Netherlands for several years, where few are armed and homicide is scarce (and shootings even scarcer), it’s a laugh riot reading the justifications for the proliferation of firearms in the United States. Strangely, the same people who fear the government so much that they endorse carrying a handgun “just in case” are the ones who have bought into unfettered government surveillance of their private business for “national security” reasons. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy!

That being said, the time to have regulated handguns was DECADES ago. A balancing test should have been applied, as it is with so many other privileges afforded us in the United States: does the bad outweigh the good to society? Sadly, it’s far too late to act. So despite their lunacy, the lunatics were able to forestall regulations long enough to ensure the NEED for firearms, now that we live in the most violent nation in the free world.

By Liberals Fail Again

April 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

A person’s support of the 2nd amendment comes down to two basic types of people… (1) Those who believe that government is the answer to our problems and (2) those who believe that government does not do a good job solving our problems.——- Liberals believe #1… it makes them feel all happy and safe to think that someone else will take care of things for them. The truth is, as we saw on 9/11 and during Hurricane Katrina, government does not have the capability to keep you safe. You must take care of yourself. Therefore, liberals are dead wrong about the 2nd amendment as they are with so many important issues of our days. They would give the keys to the burglar, so to speak, just because it “seems like the right thing”.

By Jay Bookman

April 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

To HARRY: Yes, I have used both pistols and rifles, and can dismantle and clean them as well. I have hunted small game, and back in my teens, when I furtrapped for extra money, I used a firearm every day. I grew up in a house where firearms were common, and my father made sure I knew how to handle, use and store them properly.