Opinion Talk

By Jeff

June 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Number one is the FACT that the government CAN NOT make a law forcing one way or the other.

Pesky little thing called the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Beyond that, I’d say personal preference. I’m abivalent. On the one hand, open carry is a pretty good deterrent. On the other hand, a better deterrent is to put a round or two down range (and into the perp) once they’ve made their move.

In the first case, you haven’t really stopped the perp, you’ve just made him choose another victim.

In the second case, assuming you’re decent with your weapon, the perp is down for the count.

Either way your family is safe, though certainly YOUR family is safer with the first route.

By Logical Dude

June 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

If it’s legal, it’s okay.

Personally, if I owned a gun, and carried, I would probably conceal it since I would rather surprise someone with it than have someone aim to take it from me.

Now, a sword or dagger, that I would wear unconcealed. Those look much better as a fashion statement.

By Copyleft

June 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Ahh, this longing for the days of the Wild West… or at least, the way people like to IMAGINE the Wild West was.

The problem with the armed-society-is-polite routine is that the logic of deterrence requires exactly that: LOGIC. And most violent crimes in our country involve a total abandonment of logic—acts of impulsive, emotional, stupidity. No quantity of “visible guns” are going to prevent that—they’ll just ensure that when violence DOES erupt, it’ll kill as many people as possible.

Great job. We can’t turn Iraq into America, so we’re turning America into Iraq.

By Notso

June 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Link to this

Copyleft…. I’ve carried a gun for years and I’ve never had the impulse to pull it and start killing people. You might want to seek psychiatric help if you feel that way. Carrying has nothing to do with the ‘Wild Wild West’ and has everything to do with protecting what I value most - the lives of my family.

By James

June 11, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

Open is fine! It used to be done all the time back in the early 70’s (including a rifle in the gun rack of just about every pickup truck) and there was no problem ! Liberals have been gripping about concealed carry but the law allows open carry so that’s just too bad. Quit whinning and educate your kids !

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” — George Washington

By Gandalf, the Grey

June 11, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

So copyleft, when people that are of the ilk you describe attempt to “kill as many people as possible” what are you going to do? Turn the other cheek? Wait for “Johnny Law”? Me thinks not! I would disarm the illogical SOB by the addition of fresh AIR HOLES to his chest cavity. If weapons were allowed at VT campus, only one person would have died that tragic day.

By Edward

June 11, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Face the facts, this is Atlanta and we’re one of the few large cities in Amercia that reported an increase in homicides and serious crimes in 2007. Atlanta took in so many of the misplaced Katrina criminals, we soaked them up like vactioners in Miami soaking up the sun. Now we can’t get the New Orleans thugs out of this city unless they’re wearing a toe tag. Copyleft, you can scream like the girl-man you sound as if you are if you’re approached by some criminal with intent to kill you but I won’t. I’ll reach for my Kimber SIS Ultra and the last thing they’ll hear is a sonic boom going off and then lead in the head. And trust me, I am not kidding.

By DMV

June 11, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Copyleft is the kind of guy that will hit you over the head with his purse if you attack him or choke you with his scarf. LOL.

By Unclebuck

June 11, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

I Conceal Carry because a COP is too heavy to carry around.
I dont think I will let local Government protect my family today. Shirely Franklin cant keep her own family from F-ing up why would I trust her to protect mine.

By Martin

June 11, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

With every right comes an ensuing responsibility. I believe that if you want to exercise to carry a firearm (open or concealed) you need to be adequately trained and carry liability insurance. No training or insurance = No carry.

Seems reasonable to me. But, somehow, I suspect some person who forgets half the words to the 2nd Amendment will start calling me names. Oh well…

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, Maybe one day someone will try to rob you at gunpoint. If someone else is carrying and sees you I hope he/she just bypasses you. Maybe you will think differently after that. Moron.

By Copyleft

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

I see the theme of the gun-fondlers’ comments here: “Guns are MANLY. Anybody who doesn’t carry a gun is probably GAY.”

Wow. Some real sharp thinkers here; I’m impressed.

Yes, it’s true that the presence of another armed person might have cut short the tragic Virginia Tech shootings that day (probably with several more innocent bystanders hurt, since marksmanship is rare)… and it would also have resulted in similar shootouts every single day of the year.

Do the math. How is that better?

But I’m sure wishing and hoping for me to be violently assaulted makes you feel safer too—or at least, more “tough and manly.” (eye roll)

By Fix-It

June 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Fact; Washington DC, had the strictest gun laws in the nation. Fact; Washington, DC has one of the highest gun violence statistics in the nation. If guns where outlawed only the law abiding citizens would suffer, criminals would have free reign to plunder, because we would be unarmed. Everybody should have and carry, concealed, I want the bad guy to think twice before robbing me.

By Gandalf, the Grey

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

Martin, Who died and made you lawgiver?
I bet you are an insurance saleman!
I think people who vote should be rquired to serve in the military for 2 years and receive an honorable discharge…what do you think about that?

By Gandalf, the Grey

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

Martin, Who died and made you lawgiver?
I bet you are an insurance saleman!
I think people who vote should be rquired to serve in the military for 2 years and receive an honorable discharge…what do you think about that?

By Fix-It

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

Copyleft, don’t you have a pizza to deliver?

By JD

June 11, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

The rebuttals to Copyleft are so great and funny that he doesn’t need any more slapping around. ‘Girl-man’ is excellent! Most people who have a CCP are very adept with a gun, so I say more power to them. If I made it to the gun range more frequently, I would carry myself. I’d rather be surrounded by ordinary folks who pack heat and know how to use it than not, since our police are stretched so thinly around metro Atlanta. An ounce of prevention…

By WOW

June 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Copyleft has forgotten to use any sort of logic when he’s thinking of his posts. Either that or he is a criminal trying to make sure he’s the only one with a weapon. Either that or he’s Jay Bookman.

By Martin

June 11, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Gandalf, Thanks for filling the gap so quickly. For the record, No - I am not a insurance salesman. I am an avid shooter who believes in responsible gun ownership.

Shocking, eh?

As far as serving in the military for two years? Been there, done that, highly recommend it to the young folks I work with on a daily basis.

Any other nagging questions that you need enlightenment on?

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, That last argument for being against guns is weak. Carrying a gun is manly? I know a lot of women that carry a gun and they sure don’t look manly to me.

By GaLiberal

June 11, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

This is typical NRA Rethuglicon garbage. There are many cities and states that prohibit the open carrying of guns particularly into banks, government buildings, playground and parks, bars, etc. The wild west was never like the “Wild West” of the movies or of childhood fantasies. A lot of people didn’t openly carry a handgun; for most a rifle was much more useful. There were no quick-draw shootouts at high noon on main street. There were plenty of accounts where people used their gun to kill when they lost at poker or got drunk or for revenge. But these were illegal then and are today.

I have yet to figure out why people believe carrying a gun makes them feel safer when it clearly makes them a threat to others. I have no objection to someone who uses guns for sport or recreation (hunting, target, skeet, etc). But these people with the Rambo complexes need to get a grip on life.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And laws that allow you to carry a gun are living proof.

By Robopop

June 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

Shoot-outs in the “Wild, Wild West” were not as common as the movie makers would have us believe. In fact, They were very rare. Perhaps that is because everyone carried or at least it was assumed they were armed with a concealed weapon. You carry fire stick, I no carry, you hurt me. You carry fire stick, I carry fire stick, you mess with someone else who not likely to hurt you. I am 100 percent in favor of carrying concealed or openly. It is still a deterrent.

By John

June 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

So Martin, we should require training before you can carry. How about state sponsored training before you exercise some of your other rights, say freedom of speech, freedom or religion, and voting?

The simple fact is that literally anyone who can count to four is capable of handling a gun safely.

By Notso

June 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, do you have any facts to back up your statement “and it would also have resulted in similar shootouts every single day of the year”?

By mike

June 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Most of these people with “rambo” complexes have served our nation with a weapon in their hands and would come to your aid if you were in trouble.Pray you never find out the truth.Its unforgiveing.

By Copyleft

June 11, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Crafty: Simply responding the allegedly “witty rebuttals” to my earlier point about open-carry NOT functioning as a valid deterrent.

Rather than reply with facts, the responses mostly centered around calling me effeminate or hoping I’d be violently attacked soon… proving two points:

Thanks for proving my original point, gang! (snicker) You conservadrones are sooo easy, it’s like winding up a toy robot and sending it marching across the room.

By Chipster

June 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure Copyleft isn’t Jay Bookman. I’ve exchanged emails with Jay and was astonished at his incoherent writing. Somebody over at AJC (Cynthia Tucker?) is seriously editing everything Jay produces.

If I wasn’t bored to tears I wouldn’t be reading AJC in the first place. Total waste of newsprint.

By Larry

June 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Personally, I have always preferred individuals open carry (which incidentally is a very old term) instead of concealed carry simply because I think it makes risk assessment easier. I also suspect this is a minority opinion.

There are a number of adults who are simply afraid of guns and numerous stories about retail store managers telling individuals not to enter their store unless their firearms are concealed. The practical differences between open and concealed carry would take up their own blog, but I have no problem with the store managers’ position.

Also, the Times article is so breathtakingly inaccurate, it should be pulled. There are NO states where you can carry a firearm on school property without a permit. There are only ten states that allow un-permitted open carry, not “most” of them.

Nicholas Riccardi, should support responsible firearms ownership by not misrepresenting the law.

By GaLiberal

June 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Fix-It@10:08 AM ignorantly said: Fact; Washington DC, had the strictest gun laws in the nation. Fact; Washington, DC has one of the highest gun violence statistics in the nation. If guns where outlawed only the law abiding citizens would suffer, criminals would have free reign to plunder, because we would be unarmed. Everybody should have and carry, concealed, I want the bad guy to think twice before robbing me.

Well, Fix-it here is a fact. Great Britain prohibits selling or ownership of handguns and has as significantly lower murder rate that does the US. Here’s another fact; guns used in crimes much less often then guns that kill innocent kids or people commit suicide. So when you select your facts properly you can get the answer you want. One fact that that isn’t debatable; the sole purpose of guns is to kill. And that alone makes them unsuitable in a civilized society.

One other fact; if someone wants to rob you they will. They’ll jump you from behind before you can get to your gun or they’ll just shoot first and then leave you there in a pool of your own blood. Either way, your gun does you no good.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Fix-it is living proof.

By Homer

June 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is that we’ll never give up our guns and now we have more gun rights today than we did last year. It’s killing the libs. Gun laws will only serve gun owners with more rights thanks to thugs like the Blue Jean Bandits, people who came from New Orleans and as long as we have a SW DeKalb, I will own 50 guns. LEGALLY. Georgia is conservative and pro-guns, so get use to it.

By Lockand Load

June 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, you don’t know what you are talking about. I am married to a law enforcement officer and have carried a gun for years. He has put away some seriously bad - bad guys and they have made threats. I am a very level headed woman in my 40’s that knows how and will defend my family if necessary. The constitution of the United States gave me that write. And thank God, (yep, I believe in Him too) people like you can not say that I can not. I guess you will not be happy until all of your civil liberties have been taken away and the government does all of your thinking for you.

But guess what, I don’t need your approval to carry my 357 Smith & Wesson.

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, How has my response given you the impression that gun owners/carriers have a low IQ? When it comes down to it, law abiding citizens make rash decisions. Can you prove otherwise? DO you have statistics that show that gun owners are nut cases? I’ve actually contacted the FBI about such cases. I was told that law abiding citizens were 80% less likely to make a mistake with a gun as compared to a person who owns a gun illegally. Thanks for playing. (snicker, laugh cough, snicker.) MORON.

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

GaLiberal, I wish your parents would take your computer away from you. Isn’t time for your nap?

By Token Gringo

June 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Love to carry both openly and concealed. It upsets metrosexuals who are afraid of their own shadow.

By Token Gringo

June 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

While the Glock 23 makes a fashion statement, I think a Colt makes a much better fashion accessory. Can’t beat a Colt. Now the real question is does the leather holster match the belt and shoes? These are the real issues here folks. And please remember, NO white holsters before Easter or after Labor Day!

By dee

June 11, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

My Credentials: I am and always have been a liberal Democrat. I Served 3 years active duty in the USMC during the twighlight of the cold war. I own three handguns and am an expert shot. That being said, I was taught from my youth to always carry a big knife on my person and an axe handle in my car (now a .40 semi)to protect myself. I have never had to use these items and hope I never will, and yet I have taught my teenage daughter and wife both pistol marksmanship and basic hand to hand combat because violent criminals are violent and criminal.

By Copyleft

June 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Crafty, you just made my point for me: “Law-abiding citizens make rash decisions.” Which is exactly why having every one of those “law-abiding citizens” walking around with a risk-free instant-death machine is a BAD idea. Because people have irrational, violent impulses… and when they occur, guns ensure that those impulses wreak as much devastation as possible.

Now, as to the original topic: Can anyone still claim that the “open-carry” policy would somehow deter violent crime, given that even the most law-abiding citizen is not the emotionless risk-reward calculator that gun-fondlers like to pretend?

No, you don’t need my approval to carry a gun. But you do need enough voters to agree that the benefits outweigh the costs. Georgia may still be stuck in the violent-hick stage, but the rest of civilization has moved on. Eventually Georgia will get there too.

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, Meant to say WE DON”T MAKE RASH decisions. That was my fault for leaving out the word don’t. If a criminal sees gun owners packing they would most likely go elsewhere. There will always be thugs and criminals. But people should ALWAYS be able to protect themselves. Nothing wrong with that. Georgia is a pro-gun state as are a lot of states. If you don’t like it then either write your Governor or move to a blue state. That’s all I can tell you.

By the way, what hicks are you referring to? I have not seen too many hicks going around and robbing banks, shooting people or blowing up gas stations.

By Jeff

June 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Liberal:

Actually, if you vote Republican * OR DEMOCRAT*, you vote against your own best interests.

The only way to vote in accordance with your own best interests is to vote for the party that represents maximal Individual Liberty: The LIBERTARIAN Party.

By Copyleft

June 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Crafty: My choice is turn Georgia blue. We don’t have to accept backward thinking; we can educate people enough to do better.

By Crafty

June 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, We don’t want high taxes, weak national security, welfare, government controlled socialist health care, nanny state, political correctness, american hating democrats. Go sell blue somewhere else. What education are you referring to? I have a masters. Why would I need to be “educated.” If you mean “brainwashed” to believe what you believe then keep it.

By IrishTom

June 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Copyleft - I am a Democrat, and I own a Glock 22. I carry it often as I have a permit to do so. When I walked out of the movies last month and a guy who had been following me saw it on my hip when I removed the overshirt I was wearing (movie theatres can be cold), funny how he did a 90 degree turn the other way, all the while looking at me.

It can be and is a deterrent, and you can have it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

By Lthrnck

June 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Copyleft… hate to burst your bubble. You stated that the people cannot making sound decisions. In fact there is an estimated 6 to 7 million (Yes I said Million).. people in this country everyday carrying their weapons either Concealed or Openly.

In the past 25 years we have gone from 3 states having concealed carry laws inacted to over 40.

So the people of this country are making good discisions on protecting themselfs and their families.

Think about it, if that many people are carrying their weapons everyday, then why isn’t the death toll in the millions or even in the hundred of thousands every year.

If you look at the statics of gun deaths, you will find that there is a high % of suicides and then next area is criminal deaths. In other words criminals killing criminals.

So the first problem is the suicides, MENTAL HEALTH PROLEM - NOT A GUN PROBLEM. Japan has very strict gun laws and yes they have a much lower gun death rate. But check out their suicides rate, it is higher per captia then ours. SO… if a person is going to commit suicide they will find a way.

Second problem, Criminal vs. Criminal.. again a MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM..NOT A GUN PROBLEM… why do criminal think the way they do. Why do they feel they don’t have to obey common laws of the land. I don’t know. The vast majority of people know and obey the laws of a civil country. So why do Criminals think the way they do… again..MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, NOT GUN ISSUES.

Mankind has been making laws for thousands of years against killing other humans. Has any of them stopped the killings…. NO.

If mankind would put all the effort and just half the money that it has sunk into trying to take away a TOOL…into the ECONOMY, AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS of this world, we would have far less problems.

Guns are here to stay. Some people don’t like that. Guns are not just here to kill people. I shoot my guns on a regular basis. I like to shoot competitions. I shoot at targets for score. I do it for fun, much like my bowling league, I shoot my bowling ball down the lane for score..

Now don’t give me that line, about a bowling ball not being able to kill someone. You hit a man in the head with a 16lb bowling ball with enough force … it’s gonna kill him.

GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM….MENTAL HEALTH IS…. FIX THE PROBLEM..QUIT TRYING TO FIX THE TOOLS.. THERE ARE TOO MANY TOOLS THAT CAN KILL OUT THERE TO TRY AND TAKE AWAY ALL OF THEM.

By AlohaVampire

June 11, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft and GaLiberal,

First… Like it or not the Second Ammendment guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers of this nation believed that citizens had a fundamental right to protect themselves, their families and their property from tyranny… Wherever the threat came from… Foreign or domestic.

Second… GaLiberal said, “One other fact; if someone wants to rob you they will. They’ll jump you from behind before you can get to your gun or they’ll just shoot first and then leave you there in a pool of your own blood. Either way, your gun does you no good.”

Hmmmmmmmm… Tell that to the Dekalb officer who shot an intruder in his home after the intruder killed the officer’s wife. Perhaps the policeman should have just gotten down on his knees and begged like a coward. Do you believe that criminal would have had a change of heart and just left the house feeling sorry for that family? Nobody could be that stupid… not even you or Copyleft.

Unfortunately justice can be harsh at times.

I believe a cliche’ is in order… “If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.”

It seems to me the lefties have misplaced their moral compass. Killing in self defense is not immoral. Murder is immoral.

Firearms are not bad… Bad people are bad.

What would have the rest of us do? Hide in our homes… Wear flowers in our hair and sing campsongs… Put up with scumbag criminals who prey on innocent victims? To hell with the criminals. I don’t feel any measure of empathy with someone who uses a gun in a violent attack on an innocent person. In fact, I hope that perp gets shot and suffers. The way I see it he earned his justice. I hope it hurts.

When it comes to issue of concealed carry or open carry I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. Law abiding citizens are exactly that. We as a society don’t need to live in fear of what they might do… We need to be concerned about the punks who hold their pistols sideways and use them to rob convenience stores and liquor stores and people just walking home.

Truth be told… One dead perpetrator equals one less person our taxes have to pay for in a prison cell.

PS, The United States ain’t Great Britain… We don’t have a queen or royal family. We don’t eat fish and chips here and we don’t have tea time. We are a nation of laws and free, independent and brave citizens. If you can’t stand that they are happily accepting applications for amnesty in Myanmar, North Korea, Cuba, as well as a few places even I wouldn’t refer you to.

Don’t worry… The rest of us will keep you safe at night even though you’re a spineless coward not deserving of the freedom which you take for granted.

Have a nice day, Sig Sauer 9mm with HydraShock ammo.

By qwaszx

June 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Hey GAYLIBERAL,

You talk about Great Britain as an example? They arrest 80 year olds for putting their bottles in the wrong recycle bin! Their football fans go on drunken rampages! NO THANK YOU, MA’AM! You can cower in the corner if you want. Don’t expect the rest of us to be as gutless. F that S LOSER.

By jimbo

June 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Copy I haven’t seen any facts coming out of you. You make all these emotional claims about the gun fondler and you talk about facts, but you don’t use any. You keep spewing the same baseless assumptions I’m sure you’ve read on plenty of websites that support your opinions.

Most of the people I know that own firearms and carry, you so-called “gun fondlers” are well paid, intelligent, professionals. Your “statistic” that most gun owners are of a lower IQ is probably based on some vague idea that only stupid country people have guns.. Actually, what the hell am I saying. You don’t have anything but vague ideas. Just go have a nice vacation in London and make sure to go beyond the relative safety of the circle line.

By jimbo

June 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

As for concealed versus open carry. Open carry is fine for when you’re in the field (hiking or hunting for example) but it’s probably better not to ruffle anyone’s feathers during the day to day grind.

By jimbo

June 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

And oh good lord, don’t get me started on the second amendment.. take a civics class. The bill o’ rights enumerates the rights of all free people that in inalienable.. that means the government can’t take them away. They are solely for the people and do not in any way grant the government anything at all. Governments have powers, people have rights, and according to the dick act of 1903 everyone aged 17-45 is in the militia already anyway.. so TELL ME MARTIN, why aren’t we allowing 17 year olds to have guns?

By qwaszx

June 11, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

Awww hell, Jimbo! You went made those liberal panty wastes cry!

By Slobama

June 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Ga Liberal is no patriot. He always talks about only pursuing his self interest.
It’s a bright day in Lexington, should the minute men face the British or run away…Ga. Liberal will run for the woods every time.
He will vote to raise someone else’s taxes, hide from military service and demand that you and I work to pay his bills. He thinks Kennedy was a fool for asking you to pursue what is best for your country, not just in your personal interest. He is a leech and in the words of my wife, Michelle, “his soul is broken”.

By aldread

June 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

**Number one is the FACT that the government CAN NOT make a law forcing one way or the other.

Pesky little thing called the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.**

Let’s clear up the misunderstanding.

1st Amendment

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.

2nd Amendment

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.

See the difference? Obviously Congress IS reserved the right to regulate to create laws respecting the right to bear arms. live and learn.

By Who Cares

June 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

AlohaVampire, well said! About the only thing I can contribute is that GaLiberal and Copyleft must feel really safe by the protection that is provided to them by our government’s police agencies. It must be because they have badges and drive cars with flashing blue lights, (can’t be the guns, because guns aren’t a deterrent). Maybe we should all turn in our guns and get badges and flashing lights for our vehicles! I feel safer already!

By aldread

June 11, 2008 7:28 PM | Link to this

**Number one is the FACT that the government CAN NOT make a law forcing one way or the other.

Pesky little thing called the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.**

Let’s clear up the misunderstanding.

1st Amendment

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.

2nd Amendment

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.

See the difference? Obviously Congress IS reserved the right to regulate to create laws respecting the right to bear arms. live and learn.

By fedupingwinnett

June 11, 2008 7:53 PM | Link to this

Hey GALIBERAL….so you don’t think voting democrat isn’t going against your own best interests??? Just wait and see.

By Van

June 11, 2008 8:59 PM | Link to this

I am looking at the Glock 17 myself.

I have to say carrying a firearm into a bank is a touch much.

By Gumbo

June 11, 2008 9:13 PM | Link to this

Many of the comments above are spewed daily on talk radio and the blogosphere. We constantly have to decide democrat or republican, north or south, young or old and black or white. The truth is that some hardened criminals will not fear open carry and petty criminals will. Party affiliation or any other shallow index will not stop crime.

By Just Nasty and Mean

June 11, 2008 9:58 PM | Link to this

I have a carry permit. I don’t wish to “flash” my weapon to or for anyone. I do not wish to appear “on offense” in any shape manner or form.

However, I will not retreat if accosted , and will present a strong and unyielding defense and confront any perpetrator attempting to threaten me, my family or property.

I am NOT looking for confrontation, and in fact—wish to avoid one. However, given no option—I feel compelled and obligated to protect my interests to the fullest extent of the law.

I have that right.

By Jimbo

June 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Link to this

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED UPON..

You’re missing the point of the whole bill of rights and what “well regulated” meant in the 18th century.

“well regulated” meant “in order” or “ready and prepared” not “regulated by the government”. It sort of shows the way the mind set of the american people has changed over the centuries. A ship in good order would be “well regulated”.

In actuality, congress shouldn’t have the ability to legislate on anything in the bill of rights. LIKE ANY BILL OF RIGHTS IN ANY CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE the whole point is that you can’t legislate those rights away, they are inviolate. Unfortunately, the government has changed the rules and the people play along.. how about you look at the tenth amendment (I know it’s hard to get that far):

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

No where does the constitution actually specify that congress should regulate the right of the people to bear arms, only that it should prepare money and warms for distribution to the militia if necessary. It also says something about a standing army only lasting a few years before being disbanded….. oops… (that’s all in the earlier articles) so.. don’t preach the constitution to me, pal.

By Mike In Woodstock

June 11, 2008 11:03 PM | Link to this

I’m thinking of getting a pistol grip for my Mossberg 500A. Has anyone done this? My guess is it would be better for close range shooting.

By Jimbo

June 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this

Mine came with one, in Iraq they’re called “master keys”.. They do make the shotgun more wieldy, BUT, the pain of recoil is increased considerably because it’s all on your wrist.

In a small space it’s not a bad idea, but if it’s intended for a woman to use make sure she can handle it.

By John

June 11, 2008 11:25 PM | Link to this

GaLiberal, I was in London over the summer and there was one murder each day of the weekend I was there. They seem to have a problem with “youths” carrying knives. Just because there are no guns, doesn’t mean that you are safe. One 16 year old was killed with a broken beer bottle in a bakery the day after his birthday. Another person was mugged and stabbed to death in the heart of the upscale shopping district outside a McDonalds at 2pm with tons of witnesses. England has the same problems that we do. Law abiding citizens are afraid to arm themselves because it is illegal, but the muggers or gang youths will quickly put a knife in you. I feel less safe in the UK than I do in the US. Why? They drill it in your head that carrying a knife for your own personal safety in no excuse for breaking the law. I’m sure the youths over there really care, especially since they were only handing out warnings for gang members bringing knives on public transit until last month.

By Jason

June 12, 2008 4:08 AM | Link to this

My “fashion statement” (stupid AJC) is a Sig p220 .45ACP, Carry Elite, or as I refer to it: my hand cannon. I open and conceal carry.

My girlfriend has had her jeep broken into 4 times since she’s lived in Midtown with me. We don’t even call the cops anymore. There was a young woman assulted outside my apartment several months back, and after the cop told me that no, they couldn’t send any more patrol cars down Piedmont Ave, he advised me to get a concealed permit and a gun if I don’t already have/own one.

I took the advice.

By tom ga hunter

June 12, 2008 6:18 AM | Link to this

Iguess my SIG is out of style, where can I get a deal on a Glock?

By Jimbo

June 12, 2008 6:24 AM | Link to this

The UK has a serious gun problem. Just because they don’t allow guns doesn’t mean they aren’t there. If you check BBC.com there are many stories about gun violence and how it’s on the rise. Much like here it’s gang related. The part that I find interesting is that the government’s response to the rising gun violence is to make stronger laws. How do you have a law stronger than a total ban with a mandatory five year sentence for possession?

Also, let’s not forget that Chicago had 23 kids killed in its public schools last year. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but when in Atlanta did we last have a weekend shooting spree where 36 people were shot? When was the last time the SWAT team was put on the street to patrol with M4 assault rifles? That’s never happened here.

Bans don’t work. The reason the UK has fewer homicides than the US is because they’ve always had fewer homicides than the US. IF you check DoJ statistics (admittedly they’re 10 years old but the trends are pretty hard to beat) the UK has more car thefts, more robberies, and more assaults than the US (per capita) and while those types of crimes fell in the US until 2005 (though now with a tough economy you should expect them to rise some) they were climbing steadily in the UK. In fact there was a scandal where the UK police got in trouble because they simply stopped responding to anything short of an assault.

Now, for the anecdotal evidence. I’ve been to New York. I’ve been do DC. I’ve been to LA. I’ve lived in Atlanta (and not always the best parts) for most of my life. The only place I’ve actually seen someone lying in a pool of blood is outside the King’s Cross Station in London. It was in broad daylight, around lunch time, on a busy day, on a busy street. The cops got there pretty fast but the guy was already dead.

If you think bans work, let me know how prohibition went.. or if you think we’re really winning the war on drugs.

I feel very strongly about people who believe that guns are the problem. I also feel very strongly about people who would put their trust in the government before themselves or their neighbors. I ask people how they can look at the way our city is run.. or the killing of a 92 year old woman by cops in this city, or hell, hurricane Katrina, and still believe that the government, at any level, is going to take care of their safety or well being.

It boggles the mind.

By Jimbo

June 12, 2008 6:27 AM | Link to this

SIG is so new money. Classy people with money carry a 1911. (I carry a Kel-Tec or a Charter Bulldog.. so.. I’m way out of style)

By Ben

June 12, 2008 7:17 AM | Link to this

I’m for open carry. I personally don’t care whether or not someone may be uncomfortable with me openly carrying my guns. As I understand things, open carry is the next goal for gun friendly legislators in GA, whom I would like to thank for clearing the way to carry on MARTA.

Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about training and insurance, those are modern day inventions for those who are weak minded and have never held or shot a gun and don’t want anyone else to.

By GaLiberal

June 12, 2008 7:21 AM | Link to this

AlohaVampire demonstrated their ignorance by saying: First… Like it or not the Second Ammendment guarantees our citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Why is it the Rethuglicon bobble-head NRA gun-nuts can’t read. The complete text is of the amendment clearly shows it is NOT an individual right. The Supreme Court has this very issue under review. Given the makeup of the court, I hold no hope they will come to the intended interpretation and instead will cave to the Rethuglicon rednecks.

Also, there is nothing to prohibit the state from regulating the sale of ammunition. I think the gun totters should be required 1)to pay an annual ammo possession fee, 2)pass an annual rigorous gun safety course, 3)either post a $1 million bond or carry equivalent insurance, 4)undergo a background check including mental evaluation (at their expense; don’t want to burden the taxpayers), 5)store ammo and guns separately until they are needed, and 6) state the specific purpose for the ammo (personal or home protection is not a valid purpose). These simple restrictions would go a long way to making gun owners more responsible and less of a threat.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And AlohaVampire is living proof.

By Jeff

June 12, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Liberal:

Personal protection not a valid reason?

And you think that with THAT thinking, liberals a) are rational and b) should be placed in control?????

Come into my house uninvited, and you’ll go out in a body bag. Its that simple. Whether I put you in it via a .45 or a baseball bat or even just my bare hands does not matter, but it is a GARAUNTEED result in any case.

When you vote Republican OR DEMOCRAT, you vote against your own best interests.

The only way to vote for your own best interests is to vote for the party of maximal Individual Liberty: The LIBERTARIAN Party.

By jimbo

June 12, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal, you’re pretty much what’s wrong with this country.

I can’t imagine why someone who claims to be a social liberal wouldn’t be for gun rights.

Firearms in the hands of citizens helped protect members of the labor movement when the military was deployed against them.

Firearms helped protect blacks (when they could possess them) and other minorities at a time when they were being harrassed and killed by white aggressors.

Firearms ensured your right to be an ignorant jackass about how the bill of rights works and show your ignorance and “popular ideas” in a public forum.

I just don’t get it. When you stand up for the little guy a firearm sure helps even the score and it has for years.

Strict gun control, and I hate to break Godwin’s law, is the invention of restrictive and oppressive regimes. The first weapons controls that I can think of were placed on the scots and irish by occupying english to keep them from rebelling effectively. They also banned haircuts, colors, and musical instruments. They banned their songs and their language.. these are the types of things that come when you disarm the citizenry.. that’s why the amendment, whether you like it, or get it, or not, is an individual right.

If you can’t accept that, accept this: As male between the ages of 17 and 45, I’m a member of the unorganized militia under the militia act of 1903. Either way I can keep and bear arms, it just so happens that you’re wrong, but either way you don’t necessarily get your way.

I guess what I’m saying is that you’re a damn lousy liberal.

By Abe

June 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

For liberals who want to exercise their First Amendment freedoms, they should:

(1) Pay an annual free speech fee, (2) pass an annual rigorous constitutional law and political science test, (3) either post a $10 million bond or carry equivalent slander insurance, (4) undergo a background check including mental evaluation, (5) speak only while in the privacy of their own homes or homes of other fellow liberals [but if they must speak publicly see #6], (6) state the specific purpose for their wanting to speak publicly and obtain advance approval from a newly-created government agency (headed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney). “I hate: Bush, Republicans, Halliburton, corporations, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the private sector, religious people, straight people, sportsmen, people not dependent on government, heterosexuals, married people, people who believe in private property rights, the military, folks who are patriotic, people who can defend their family, people who work to provide for their family” etc. all constitute invalid purposes.

By Abe

June 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

If you object to carrying a Glock 23 (.40), may I recommend the sub-compact Glock 30 or 36(.45 ACP)?

For ladies and those who prefer 9mm, the Glock 21 is a good choice.

Either way, you’re supporting Smyrna-based Glock so it’s good for the local economy.

Remember, think globally, act locally.

By Abe

June 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Hey Libs,

In addition to the Second Amendment, what other components of the Bill of Rights make you unhappy?

Liberals hate the Second Amendment because it gives people independence (from government). We just can’t have that and be a good liberal, can we.

As Miss Ann says: “If liberals had any sense, they’d be Republicans.”

By Abe

June 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Setting aside the frivolous characterization (by the “journalist”) of a Glock Safe-Action pistol being a fashion statement, personal defense using a handgun is a serious subject.

Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama opposes the Second Amendment and has a voting history to prove it. Despite his cloudy rhetoric, here are the facts:

On December 28, 2003, a 52-year old Wilmette, IL resident’s home was invaded by a career criminal who took family possessions including keys and the homeowner’s car. The individual reported the matter to the police—who said such events were not uncommon in the area.

Less than 24 hours later, the burglar returned. The citizen was prepared with a handgun legally purchased years earlier. The citizen, fearing for the lives of his children, shot the burglar who fled in the citizen’s car. The burglar drove to the hospital in the citizen’s vehicle where the criminal was arrested.

After the citizen purchased the gun, the city of Wilmette banned weapons such as the one in the citizen’s home. Although local prosecutors ultimately found the citizen’s gun use justified, other local officials pressed for his prosecution saying that through his gun ownership the citizen “is endangering innocent civilians.”

Many Illinois residents objected to the desire to prosecute the citizen who defended his family and a bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature to protect citizens who use handguns in defense of their homes or businesses. The bill passed overwhelmingly in both the Illinois House and Senate, but then-State Senator Barack Obama voted against the measure. The Democrat governor vetoed the bill but the legislature overrode the veto. State Senator Barack Obama voted against overriding the veto.

Simply put, Senator Obama opposes gun ownership and believes honest citizens do not have the right to defend themselves. Recently he has used phrases such as “protecting sportsmen” and “common sense gun safety” to make gullible people believe he isn’t anti-gun. But Obama’s voting record says it all: He is strongly opposed to the Second Amendment.

Liberals are so opposed to the Second Amendment and that they would risk your family’s very lives to ensure that you can’t protect yourself.

That, my friends, is change I cannot believe in.