Rick Badie / My Opinion

By Jeff

May 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

I didn’t expect anything written in the AJC to actually present a realistic view of a situation. Truth be told, most bar shootings happen in parking lots after the drunks go get their guns from their vehicles. I don’t think changing the law will have any affect on this. It doesn’t mean that people have to carry in a restaurant, only that they can. I do not feel threatened in restaurants, so even though I rarely drink, I won’t be likely to bring my gun inside. Thanks for an objectively written piece. A rare thing for the AJC!

By Bruce Wilcox

May 22, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

I really don’t see the problem, the majority of permit holders are not usually the trouble makers. If I want to go out to dinner with my wife and forgo drinking I should be able to carry my weapon.

When you hear of a shooting at a nightclub or bar, how many of those involved even have a permit?

Better enforcement and punishment of those carrying a handgun without a permit is the sane answer. Under Federal Law it is an automatic five years, but most cases are handled by local judges, not federal, and the punishment is usually a slap on the wrist.

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Typical Badie bilge.

Of course, Badie indulged in a Shrimp Po’ boy instead of looking into any statistics.

People, like myself, who have a CCW do not commit crimes. And in states with CCW laws, very few permits are revoked, and most of those are for insignificant infractions.

Of the 204,108 licenses issued in the Florida law’s first 6 1/2 years of operation, seventeen (17, or .008%) were revoked for unlawful conduct while the firearm was present, and many of these violations were either technical (such as carrying into a restricted area, like an airport or bar) or non-gun related (such as revoking a permit due to a drunken driving arrest). In Oregon, over 60,000 concealed carry permits have been issued, and none has been revoked.

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/3-8-Permitting-people-to-carry-concealed-weapons-will-lead.html

The Badie Bilge Blog strikes again. I believe the one person shot at this particular Barnacles was shot by someone with a CCW.

Detective Jason Carter of the Norcross Police Department said he doesn’t expect any charges to be filed in Thursday’s shooting death of Juan Ojeda, a 54-year-old Spanish man who regularly goes to Barnacles to play pool.

Ojeda appeared to have been drinking when he entered the restaurant just after midnight and he went to the patio where he asked to join a group of four people who he did not know. The group agreed, but Ojeda soon got on their nerves, Carter said.

When one member of the group said something to Ojeda, he became angry and hit one person and bit another in the neck. Restaurant workers separated the group and Ojeda left and went to his car. Ojeda returned 30 to 40 minutes later with a pistol in hand, Carter said.

People on the deck scattered and one of the patrons had a gun of his own, which he fired as he tried to get away. Carter said it was not an “aimed” shot, but it struck Ojeda in the head, killing him.

The shooter had a concealed weapons permit, and Carter said everything appeared to be in order with that gun.

Now Badie if you are truly concerned about homicides in Gwinnett, how many were committed by Illegal Aliens?

LT5000

By Katie

May 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

I hunt, I like going to shooting ranges and I have no problems being around guns. However, I do have a problem with people carrying guns into bars—where drinking may occur. It is a proven fact that alcohol (and/or drugs) effect the decision making process in the brain. A person may be a very law abiding citizen but when drinking makes stupid mistakes. Permits are worthless in a brain that’s intoxicated. Just because someone has a permit to carry does not mean that they won’t ever use their gun illegally.

By jimbo

May 22, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Look, if you don’t want weapons in your establishment put up a sign that says “No weapons allowed”. It’ll at least keep me from carrying inside.

By Sandy_G

May 22, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Personally, someone seated in a restaurant next to me with a concealed weapon doesn’t concern me if they have the permit. The reason for that is that in order to get the permit, they have to have a clean criminal record (background check required), be 21 years old, clean mental health record (again, mental health history check is required), they have to show proof of legal residency, proof of registration of the gun, etc.

http://www.ehow.com/how2061093get-permit-carry-concealed-weapon.html?ref=fuel&utmsource=yahoo&utmmedium=ssp&utmcampaign=ysspart

The guy that doesn’t have a permit, who may or may not have purchased his/her weapon legally and may or may not have mental issues, criminal tendencies, etc., is the one I worry about. To my mind, in order to get the carry permit, there should be one more requirement, the requirement to take a gun safety course. I think this ought to be a requirement for anyone purchasing a weapon. I grew up around guns and was taught about gun safety both at home and I took a gun safety class in college. People who buy guns for protection should be required to have some basic level of training in how to own and use the weapon safely.

By Ymal Brucker

May 22, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

I’m in Texas. CCW is permitted in places that serve alcohol and there is no restriction on whether the person with the weapon may consume alcohol.

In the five years this law has been on the books, there have been NO reported cases of a CHL holder creating a problem.

Perhaps Texans are just more responsible than Georgians - but somehow I doubt that.

The problem is not CCW holders entering bars; the problem is with those who think there’s a problem.

By One Man's View

May 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

If being armed is so important, or socially or otherwise beneficial, why don’t we just mandate that everyone carry a weapon all the time, everywhere?

Personally, I don’t like the idea of others being armed in my presence. I wonder why? Are you afraid? Are you hungry for power? [Two sides of the same coin] When I say to you, “Why are you talking so loud on your cell phone and ruining my meal?” will you reach over and pat your weapon, putting me in my place? I don’t buy all this talk that being armed is entirely innocuous. Hunters carry a rifle with the intent to shoot game. What is the intent of armed restaurant goers?

By Sandy_G

May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

“What is the intent of armed restaurant goers?”

To have a meal in peace (just like you) and to go home in one piece (just like you).

By Bruce Wilcox

May 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

One Man’s View, have you noticed the increase of gangs and crime in Gwinnett? Some just don’t want to become a statistic.

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

One Man’s View,

If you don’t want to carry, don’t carry. It’s idiots like you that think a call to 911 will bring the police instantly.

Again look at the facts on CCW holders and the amount of crimes committed with these guns. Almost zero. Quit being a hyperventilating candyass. It’s embarrassing, especially since you purport to be a man.

Does anybody else think it’s ironic that Badie chose the Barnacles where a person with a CCW undoubtedly saved lives?

Badie is almost as big a moron as One Man’s View,

LT5000

By jimbo

May 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

One man,

I carry because I know what police response times and responsibilities are.

I carry because I also have a cell phone, identification, and in many cases a flash light and a first aid kit too.

I carry because while I might be able to withstand a violent crime 99.9% of the time I’m with my fiancee and I would never forgive myself if any harm came to her.

I carry because people let their dogs run loose. Because there are teenagers who think it’s sport to break into houses or rob people on the street (a block from a place I lived). Because there are people who like to make a living by victimizing others and I’d rather have the capability to do something decisive about it than not.

What do I carry? Is it some intimidating large caliber handgun that I have to wear a trench coat to hide?

No. Google Kel-Tec P3AT.

The gun I carry is small caliber and fits in the palm of my hand. It is purely a weapon of self defense and I’m somewhat concerned that if I ever have cause to use it I would HAVE to use it because it’s not intimidating enough. But it will do the job.

The reason you can’t mandate that everyone carry is because some people don’t have the mentality to carry. Either they don’t have the resolve to pull the trigger or they’d simply rather not have the thing on them. That’s fine. That’s their right as much as it’s mine to carry.

If someone ever flashes a gun at you, by god you call the police on them as fast as you can. I don’t want that idiot on the street any more than you do and it’s what I’d do myself. Just make sure you’re not seeing a wardrobe malfunction, it happens to the best of us and it’s why the gun I carry is so small.

Remember, the best gun is the one you never have to use, but if I need it, it’s nice to know it’s there.

By What're you an idiot

May 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

LT,

Your I-hate-Badie jones is out of control today.

If you had read his column you should have noted that he remarked that “the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon rightly prevailed.”

Let me explain for you. Rick believes it is A-OK for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. In this case he is on the same side of the argument as you are.

As I said before, the probability that you’ll make an a** out of yourself on the Badie Blog is positively skewed.

By jimbo

May 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Katie,

I agree with your basic premise. It seems logical. Except this law doesn’t allow people to carry into “bars”. It allows them to carry into restaurants that allow that sell alcohol for consumption but derive more than 50% of their revenue from food. Right now I can’t carry into Willy’s when I stop for a burrito, this fixes that. I still can’t carry into the Vortex or places that are actually BARS.

Also, yeah, anyone can use a legal gun illegally just like anyone can use a legal car illegally, or a legal golf club or legal prescription drugs or legal over the counter drugs or legal booze or legal cigarettes or even legal spoons, knives or food. I work in a field where people use legal computers for illegal acts all the time.

Our legal system isn’t built on the idea that everyone is potentially a criminal. It’s actually based on a completely opposite principle. The principle that every one is innocent until proven guilty. So your notion actually defies the foundation our entire legal system is based on and as such I reject it.

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Idiot,

Your comment means nothing.

Badie’s article is what is skewed.

At no point does he present the statistics about people with CCW permits.

At no point does he mention the use of a CCW at that particular Barnacles.

Journalistic malpractice at best.

All he does is poll bartenders and kitchen workers for their supposed expert opinions on the issue.

Maybe Badie could have pretended to be a real journalist and brought forth the statistics I presented. Certainly that would have added some much needed balance to the issue.

Of course, being the Idiot that you are, pun intended, you will always back up Badie.

LT5000

By Phil Dolan

May 22, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

LT, U R so funny! To get mad at everything Badie writes is a riot, man. Great stuff.

Keep your gun clean. Always clean your gun. You never know when……

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Phil,

Badie is a forth rate hack, even Stephen Glass looks good next to him.

His “articles” are devoid of any balance and blatantly ignore the facts.

Go back and look at his great “Recession” article, his health care articles or his taser articles. That’s just for starters.

And take this article, he quotes a bartender from Barnacles on Jimmy Carter and doesn’t even mention the shooting that occurred there. A case that is in direct opposition to the point he is trying to make. What a friggin halfwit.

I think the only reason he has a “Badie Tour” is to squeeze high calorie food out of local Gwinnett restaurants. Let’s hope he get gout and can’t type anymore.

The tour certainly doesn’t educate anyone. At least this wasn’t his usual Obama infomercial.

LT5000

By What're you an idiot

May 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Rick,

Please provide LT0 with a draft of any future column so that he can approve the contents before publication.

I know your byline is “Rick Badie/My Opinion”, but you’re just getting too carried away with this whole opinion thing. For example, today’s column was far too subjective, what with all that opinion getting from bartenders, managers, and owners of Norcross establishments. Sure you said that you wondered what people on the front line thought and you decided to go out and talk to them, but clearly you see that it would be more entertaining to instead just Google some mind-numbing statistics and list them.

Had you cleared your work with LT0 in advance, he’d have had you on the right track. You see LT0 is a leading authority on journalism. Sure you may have the fancy schmancy college degrees, professional credentials, successful career, etc… but LT0 is both potty trained and can feed himself finger foods.

In summary, let’s just try to cool it a bit on these thought provoking, interesting pieces you write and instead let’s churn out some statistics. Remember a real journalist would have brought forth the statistics LT0 presented. Certainly that would have added some much needed balance to the issue.

By KIM

May 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

I admire the AJC for allowing some of the remarks from the most negative and sad people I have ever read. Thank heavens for some intelligent and appropriate comments—on both sides of issues. I agree with former writers…If you hate the column so much, why do you continue to read it and comment? The only answer I have is that no one in your cubicle area must want to hear you either. It must be frustrating to have a job that allows you to be so critical…especially if no one listens to or reads you.

By Jais

May 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m a gun owner with a carry permit and guess what…I usually have it everywhere with me to begin with. Even inside bars while consuming alcohol. The fact of the matter is I am not the bad guy and will do so at my discretion. I know PLENTY of fellas at the local watering hole who do the same. Making it legal was a no-brainer. We, as Americans, have the unalienable right to keep and BEAR arms. Any law, by-law, circumstance or group who says otherwise must understand (and this goes out to lawmakers too) that you are not the persons who decide what we do with them. This has already been decided with the constitution. States who have anti-gun legislation should be subject to forced revision of their laws. If states had a ‘kill your baby with a hammer’ law, it would still be unconstitutional and therefore ILLEGAL. The founding fathers did a hell of a job protecting our future. They made sure we would remain armed, in case of another takeover by corrupt powers like the british. (which, I dare say is looking more and more plausible with gas at 4$ a gallon and washington doing nothing

In a post 9/11 world, guns are quite necessary. They are as necessary as shoes in this state due to dangerous, gun-wielding corrupt police officers, illegal aliens the cops refuse to arrest, terrorists, fundamentalists, serial killers, criminals, rapists, muggers, transients, child predators and other human garbage who should have been put down like dogs to begin with. These people see no rules, see no decency and know know limits. They will attack people, cars, dogs, murder, rob, rape, steal and what for? BECAUSE THEY ARE SCREWED IN THE SKULL, PEOPLE! make a law that says it’s illegal to be screwed in the skull and I’ll put my gun up. The constitution doesn’t guarantee any rights to madmen.

But you will never see this law. And I dare say you will never see anti-gun laws passed widely ever again. This country has gone too long with people standing idly by while it falls apart.

My favorite saying at times like this is a very good quote from the old west: “God created men. Smith and Wesson made them all equal.”

About the law: kudos. If another Gary Hilton comes along when I’m at a park, I’ll put a few in him. If another friggin illegal alien tries to rob me at work again, I’ll do him on the spot. If some asswipe starts shooting at cars in a drunken rage feigning an injury, I’ll do him too. This law was a long time coming. Let it be a reminder to the nuts of this world that nutty isn’t the standard and they better keep it on a real short leash.

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Idiot and Kim,

If you don’t even expect even a modicum of journalistic integrity then you should be reading Highlights magazine or a coloring book. However, even those may be above Idiot’s reading level.

To be “thought provoking” you have to present more than one side of a story.

If Badie can share his opinion, I can share mine.

The difference being that I use facts to bolster my opinion, not what some dishwasher at Wendy’s said.

Too much to expect Idiot and Kim? You too probably invest in stocks that you hairdresser tells you about.

LT5000

By Gandalf, the Grey

May 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Concealed pistols don’t kill people…silly bloggers, drawn, loaded large caliber pistols do. Like the S&W Model 99 I carry (in .45 caliber, no less :-)!!!!!

Illegal hoods beware! Home Invaders, take notice!

Just because I don’t carry it into a bar doesn’t mean anything, see, I drinks a bit…

By What're you an idiot

May 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

To provoke thoughts you have to present more than one side of the story?

Interesting. You know most people are capable of independent thought. If a situation is presented, this majority can oftentimes consider alternative points of view without having it spoon fed to them.

Now run along, Blue has some clues for you.

By Ernie

May 22, 2008 9:39 PM | Link to this

In Nevada, we’ve been carrying concealed sidearms in casinos, bars, saloons, and restaurants that serve alcohol for many years—and unlike Georgia, we can drink while we’re doing it, too (as long as our blood alcohol content is below 0.08)—AND THERE HAVEN’T BEEN ANY DIRE CONSEQUENCES!

By LT5000

May 22, 2008 10:10 PM | Link to this

Idiot,

You don’t seem to be capable of thought at all, let alone independent thought.

You seem to rely on Badie to do the thinking for you. And that’s a one way ticket to Stupidville. Population 2. You and Badie.

Again, Badie could have easily presented some statistics on CCW permits and brought up the shooting that occurred at Barnacles. But those didn’t fit into the meme of his Op-Ed. That’s Journalism 101.

LT5000

By One Man's View

May 23, 2008 6:02 AM | Link to this

It is rather sad to see individuals resort to language on these blogs that they would never use in a social group. I know the last time that I was called a derogatory term or had my manhood questioned was in Marine Corps boot camp. Trust me, never again. My stereotype for obnoxious language and thoughts expressed hiding behind a mike or in the newspaper is Rush Limbaugh, a truly offensive individual.

Regarding facts as the end all, be all. Human relationships are what make this world tick. One can muster data/facts regarding such, but they are only a small window into human behavior. So when facts about gun usage are given, they hardly even scratch the surface of the dynamics of armed people, or better yet, some armed, some not. I guarantee it changes in ways maybe even imperceptible.

By LT5000

May 23, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

View,

What offensive things has Rush Limbaugh said?

The statistics I submitted were data about human behavior. i.e. CCW permit holders commit very few crimes.

I would wager that 99.9% of all the shooting that take place at the various Atlanta hip hop clubs and bars are not committed by CCW holders.

Please provide data to back up your claims. I can.

To choose to ignore data because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions is lunacy.

LT5000

By jimbo

May 23, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

One man,

Depending on source, facts are much more reliable than people. The human dynamic is a ruinous one these days and you simply can’t trust the people to make an informed decision.

Laws must be made based on facts and to protect the rights of everyone, not just the rights or interests of a vocal few.

My problem with people is that freedom is dangerous and so is having to exercise rights and it seems to me that more and more people don’t want that danger or the burden of decision making. This frustrates me because the first instinct of the masses appears to be “ban it! stop it! there oughta be a law!”..

Humans, they mess up everything good.

By facts

May 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Facts are stubborn things. Fact: the new law is for RESTAURANTS, not BARS. Fact: a person is more likely to be assaulted by a Police Officer than a concealed carry permit holder. Permit holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens around. Why else would they go to the trouble of getting the permit?

By what're you an idiot

May 23, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Where exactly did you study journalism 101?

Kinder-care?

By KIM

May 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

LT, if you reread my comment I confirmed that differing opinions are important, but regretfully, you do not differ in opinion, you attack with absurd comments that no one I choose to be around (my hairdresser included) would make. It is clear that you set yourself above other thinking people. As I wrote, why don’t you find your pleasure elsewhere? It seems that this column bothers you too much.

By LT5000

May 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Kim,

but regretfully, you do not differ in opinion,

What an idiotic statement. The reason I do not differ in opinion is because my opinions are solidly based on fact. Unlike our thrice weekly Badie blog.

I can back up my statements with facts. You should try it. Reading is intellectually stimulating.

You seem to think this blog, which allows comments, should only be for people who agree with Badie.

I would have much less problems with this blog if Badie had half a clue of his subject matter. However, he trades on supposition, faulty sources and anecdotal evidence.

Take this blog relying on bartenders and restaurant managers for info. These people are in those jobs for a reason, it doesn’t take a college degree.

These people are not the most reputable source for information out there, unless you want a recipe for an apple martini.

Badie doesn’t research the facts and then write an article. He comes up with a premise, undoubtedly after a cholesterol laden meal, and then writes the article regardless of the facts.

I am here to give the readers the real facts, not what a dishwasher told me.

LT5000

By Mr. Kincaid

May 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

I will have to admit Mr. Badie’s “articles” seem to be more like someone who goes out to eat (on the AJC’s ticket) and decides to make an “article” out of it.

It wouldn’t be so bad but unlike other writers for the AJC he doesn’t even read or reply to his own blog. Kind of like he just takes the easy way out in order to get a paycheck.

By Jais

May 23, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

I cannot usually stand Badie or his articles. He’s pretty bad about removing any negatory refference to himself, as well, which is trash journalism.

By Bob

May 23, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Question: What currently keeps people from breaking the law that says you can’t have a gun there at all?

Answer: The honor system! Unless their establishment searches everyone when they enter, there is no guarantee whatsoever that someone isn’t breaking the law. There is no magic wall that prevents people from carrying guns in—everybody just hopes that everyone else follows the law. The same goes for any other “gun-free zone”; unless active steps (searches, metal detectors, etc) taken to keep guns out, a “gun-free zone” is about as effective as leaving cookies within reach of a 2-year-old when you leave the room, and expecting the kid not to eat them.

By Bob

May 23, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Question: What currently keeps people from breaking the law that says you can’t have a gun there at all?

Answer: The honor system! Unless their establishment searches everyone when they enter, there is no guarantee whatsoever that someone isn’t breaking the law. There is no magic wall that prevents people from carrying guns in—everybody just hopes that everyone else follows the law. The same goes for any other “gun-free zone”; unless active steps (searches, metal detectors, etc) taken to keep guns out, a “gun-free zone” is about as effective as leaving cookies within reach of a 2-year-old when you leave the room, and expecting the kid not to eat them.

By Michael H. Smith

May 23, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

So gun laws make the difference, is that the rational behind this blog? Or, simply booze and guns don’t mix?

Just read a story from another local news source that cites gang members arrested in a routine traffic stop for carrying concealed guns and marijuana.

Okay, Mr. Badie, you win. I’ll be sure to stay away from those dangerous bars and/or restaurants that allow the mixed consumption of guns and booze (as though I don’t already stay away from bars anyhow) in an honorable preference to patronize the much safer roads – at least I won’t be shot by an ill-tempered drunk, right?!

By what're you an idiot

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

lt0,

The byline on this blog and Rick’s associated newspaper column is “Rick Badie/My Opinion”. Its not an exercise in empirical research. If Rick’s mission was to try to sway overall public opinion in support of his own view, making citations of documented facts might make sense. Instead the very nature of what Rick is doing is to get out amongst the populous and provide a perspective on current issues.

In the case of this column Rick believes that it is right to carry concealed weapons into restaurants. He offers the perspective from some restaurant workers that might cause one to pause and reflect before making up one’s mind. However, apparently upon further review Rick still believes it is right to carry.

The objection I and others have with your diatribes isn’t that you disagree with Rick. Disagreement is fine, but you can’t seem to express your opinion without ad hominem attacks, which is typical of childish behavior.

By Kurt

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

I don’t expect bartenders and waitresses to ask customers if they have a gun with them, when HB 89 takes effect July 1. So if somebody carried a concealed pistol into a restaurant and ordered an alcoholic drink with their meal, the law would be broken and odds are that the crime would not get detected.

But TODAY, and for the last upteen years, the law has said that it’s illegal to set foot on the property of any place that serves alcohol to be consumed there. So under the old law, was the waiter or bartender supposed to ask patrons at the door, “How many in your party? Would you prefer a table or booth? Are any of you packing pistols?”

The new law did not make it any more difficult to detect violations of the weapon law. And it did not make any dangerous or reckless conduct legal. It only legalized perfectly reasonable behavior that furthers the right of self defense and promotes public safety.

By LT5000

May 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Idiot,

The only people who seem to have a problem with my comments are you and Kim. And before I accused anyone of being childish, I would go back and read your comments.

The AJC is a newspaper, in the loosest sense of the term, even it has a minimum journalistic standard to meet.

Badie misses that bar significantly. Need I remind you of his Recession article? His taser article and many many others? Chock full of factual omissions and errors.

I realize an extra chromosome makes analytical thinking difficult. But don’t rely on Badie to do your thinking for you.

LT5000

By Wiley

May 23, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Interesting to note that Mr. Badie doesn’t bother to ask Lumpkin how she tells if the person she’s serving had their driver’s license suspended for drunk driving, beats up their family in drunken rages, etc.

Obviously not as important as keeping the Black Codes and JimCrow on the books to Mr. Badie.

More liberal whine dejur.

By jimbo

May 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Ok guys, look. Are you even reading this thing?

Rick Badie wrote an article about the opinions of some bar tenders and wait staff and prefaced it with what is actually the most honest representation of HB89 to appear on this website.

I don’t have any exposure to his previous articles to know what raises such ire at him, but this is purely about how wait staff and bar tenders feel about a law that has been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented and nothing else and their opinions are super broad. They aren’t rabid about it or even negative about it, they just note that in their opinion guns and booze don’t mix and they don’t think the honor system will be trustworthy.

It’s not his place to correct them or change their mind or even necessarily to ask them about other aspects of their job. His article has a narrow focus and he keeps it: “How do you feel about this law?”

He even has opinions from both sides of the fence as shown by the last person quoted.

He shows his own opinion by stating “On this issue, the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon rightly prevailed.”

and he’s right, there are nuts on each side..

I can’t really argue with anything he says. For a one page opinion piece on a single issue, it’s fine.

By Sandy_G

May 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

As far as LT is concerned, you have to understand, that he is the authority on all things, he is never wrong, not to be questioned and he is better than all of us. Once you understand how superior LT is above the rest of the human race and subject yourselves to his omnipotence, then you are allowed to rise above his desnigation of “idiot”. Either that, or you can ignore him, which is what I suggest, unless of course, you enjoy a little game of “yes you did”, “no you didn’t”, “yes you did”, “no you didn’t”, “oh yeah”, “Yeah!!” which is how LT defends his opinions when he runs out of statistics he has Googled on the web.

Obviously, he gets a thrill from ticking people off. Don’t encourage him. If he really knew anything about journalism, he’d be writing a blog for a major newspaper, not trolling a message board under several different member names.

By LT5000

May 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Link to this

Sandy,

I’m sure your intelligence is only seconded by your beauty. How pretty is an IQ of 70?

Once again, I have the facts, while Badie has quotes from burger flippers and bartenders. Certainly not much to base an article on.

I will point out that if he is interviewing a bartender at Barnacles about the CCW laws, he could have easily brought up the CCW involved shooting at Barnacles on Jimmy Carter.

However, Badie, being the second rate hack that he is didn’t because it didn’t fit into his meme.

I don’t need Badie or anyone else to tell me that alcohol and loaded firearms are a bad combination. I think I have known that since the 2nd grade.

Even more deadly in Georgia are the combination of Illegal immigrants, booze and a large truck with the Virgin Mary of Guadelupe painted on the side.

LT5000

By Michael H. Smith

May 24, 2008 12:39 AM | Link to this

Irresponsible people don’t mix well with much of anything.

What amazes me in all of this is how some people seem so concerned about “some guy getting drunk” having a gun in a bar and never voiced the first worry that this same “some guy getting drunk” will drive out of the parking lot of a place like Barnacles onto the public roads, “fully loaded”.

By Jais

May 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

this goes out to SANDY just fyi (and this is the way it is)

when I bought my new gun I was asked to fill out some stupid, generalized paperwork and was sold the gun no questions asked. No background check no mental health history check- get your facts straight. I agree with your point, but want you to know buying a gun in this state is as easy as having the money to get it. The rest is easily forgotten, and yes, I bought it at a retail store. there is no such thing as a mental health background check. I could have been jack the friggin ripper and it would have made 0% difference.

By LT5000

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

Jais,

I doubt you were able to purchase a gun without a background check. If you were, the store was in serious violoation of the law.

Most likely you provided your social security number and ID and had an instant background check. This takes about 2 to 5 minutes.

LT5000

By charliejoe

May 29, 2008 1:01 AM | Link to this

If I were LT’s size, I would probably carry a gun everywhere, too. Also, if I was as mouthy as he is…

But seriously, I have to agree with the facts. Show me any trouble at all (or even at 1/100th the level of the general public) that CCW permit holders cause, then maybe I’ll worry. Do all of you cowards who are afraid of an inanimate object (a gun) not realize the only people who laws against carrying guns will definitely NOT affect are the ones who don’t give a S*&T about the laws in the first place? If you are afraid of guns, you should be much more afraid of cars, because you’re probably 10-100 times more likely to be hurt or killed by the latter than the former, even if you live in the ‘hood’ (aka Atlanta).

Wake the F up, all you illogical people with your ridiculous fantasies about CCW holders going Travis Bickle in your local Applebee’s. I’d bet my life you’re much more likely to have your life saved (in an attempted robbery, etc.) by a CCW holder than to ever be harmed by one—unless of course, you’re the one attempting the robbery…but maybe that’s who you’re worried about? Protect the unfortunate criminals who just want to steal money to feed their starving crack habit?

Tell you what: You just cower in the corner and crap yourself while a CCW permit holder pops a cap in the dome of the thug who is interrupting your dinner with a robbery and then be grateful that some people are willing and able to protect themselves and others.

And if you think the police are there to protect you, you’re right…on the off chance that they are already on location, or will get to the location before it’s too late. Usually you’ve got a max of two or three minutes is all the time you’ve got if the ish goes down (criminals know they have a good chance of escaping before any police arrive unless they just have bad luck) -and I believe police response time is just rounded to the nearest quarter-hour in Atlanta, anyway. It was almost 30 minutes the only time I called them—of course, I was only the recipient of a death threat by a drug-addled homeless scumbag, so it was a minor concern. Didn’t have my gun, but luckily had a 3,500-pound GMC “bullet” if I needed it.

What up, L-Dog? Tell the bald jerk hello for me! And tell him to quit feeding that kid…Jeez.

By Fred

May 30, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this

I realize that I am dumber than dog squeeze, but I THINK that what Mr Badie was trying to convey was not a woory that the new law would cause legal permit holders to get drunk and shoot someone, but that the bar owners and workers were worried that there is no way to know who is legal to carry or not carry. Before it was simple, carry a gun into a bar, get removed. I can see that point, and I am NOT an anti weapon person. LT linked some good facts about legal gun carriers. That is not the concern here. But I have another question:

Say i own a bar. Do I have the right as a PRIVATE owner to say: If you carry a gun, don’t come into my bar? I mean we now tell bar and restaurant owners if they can allow people to smoke or not………. Again, I don’t smoke, I HATE the smell of the nasty crap, but i also feel it’s not the Governments job to tell a privately owned business whether or not it will allow smoking. If i find a bar too “smoky’ it’s MY choice whether or not to enter it.