Political Insider

By Steve

February 10, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

While we are on the subject of guns, this morning in SW DeKalb a police officer was shot, I’m sure by a black male. I am waiting with baited breath for our wonderful civil rights leaders and the new black panther party to be out in groves today protetsing the needless shooting of an innocent police officer. Afterall, are they not concerend with all the senseless shootings we have encountered lately? Bottom line, with all the thugs running amuck in Atlanta, you better have a gun or a good insurance burial policy. The less white my neighborhood becomes, the more guns myself and my neighbors LEGALLY purchase. It’s just a sad and honest fact of life.

By Emily

February 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

I find Cagle’s position a rightous one. It’s hard for the the right wing to deal with this particular situation and I actually find him strong for standing up for what is ultimately safely.

As for the previous comment, I haven’t heard such racist trash since George Wallace took to the steps of the University of Alabama. Of course the man was black, let’s lock up the white wives and children. How bout we go back to the rope too? I can’t believe you even know how to read and write. And since you can read, how about picking up The Color Purple, Roots, some Maya Angelo and think before you rant such uninformed racist crap.

By Harold

February 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

In response to Emily’s remarks. It is a fact that when a police officer kills someone, all the civil rights activist demonstrate. But when a police officer is shot or killed, they are all silent. If that is raceism, it is not the white people who are practicing it.

By Rob Smith

February 10, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this

Read about Atlanta’s most unethical Minority Real Estate Developer Red Rock Global on the following Webpage!

http://redrockglobal.blogspot.com/ Click on Link…

Rob

By RJ

February 10, 2007 8:18 PM | Link to this

Steve, You took a hypothetical, “While we are on the subject of guns, this morning in SW DeKalb a police officer was shot, I’m sure by a black male,” and got off the subject of this post, which is about the Second Amendment v. property rights. Emily, Harold, and Rob Smith picked up on your comment and race becomes the subject of the discourse. What really matters in the final analysis is that the victim and shooter are human beings.

Georgia will remain on the bottom in education attainment and economic growth as long as race dominate its psyhic. Why? Because all candidates for elective office have to do directly or through code is play to that pshyic. It does not matter where they stand on issues that impact our quaility of life, i.e., health care coverage, jobs creation, transportation, environment, and costs of gas and electricity, to name a few.

Steve, except for this incident, when fellow bloggers do what you did I simply ignore and comment on the subject of the post because I don’t allow them to pull me into a discourse driven by their personal issues.

By Frank Silbermann

February 11, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

Why not write the law to say that their ability to ban a gun from a car in their parking lot depends upon whether the gun’s owner has a concealed carry permit? That is to say, any company policy banning guns from parking lots must have a carry-permit exception?

We already make an exception when it’s a police officer who parks there, so why not make an exception for private citizens who are equally safe?

By Tony

February 12, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I guess the notion of property rights has no bearing any more? Now companies have to deal with greater liabilities of armed employees, one day rational, the next day fired. And telling companies what they can and cannot do on their property? Someone forget that concept fought for during the American Revolution? If the government cannot force me to allow gun toters on my property, why should businesses be any different?

By Steve2

February 12, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

I posess a Georgia fiream license. I carry my pistol with me wherever lawfully permitted. I work for two different companies who prohibit weapons on their premesis, yet I refuse to let company policy interfere with my ability to protect myself. By the way, someone intent on commiting a crime at work will not follow these company policies, either.

By Steve2

February 12, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

I would like to add that I was fired from a national home improvment company for something which I did not know was a violation. I really liked the job and depended on it to support my family. I was crushed. I had my pistol on me when I was fired, as I always do. Just because somone has a gun and gets fired does not mean that that person is going to shoot someone.

By Steve2

February 12, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

This bill also provides for immunity for employers who allow employees to possess firearms in locked vehicles on the premises of such employer. The bill can be found here

By Tony

February 12, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

So Steve you have no respect for the rule of law or people’s private property rights…good American. You disregard someone else’s rights and endanger them and violate their property for your own disregard of their property.

Be sure not to set foot on my property. When you are employed by that company, you agree in principle to abide by their rules and procedures. That includes not violating their property rights. Your permit does not matter. Your permit does not allow guns on school property but I am sure you’d have no problem marching right into a school as well? Or a jail? Your argument for support of this does not work since you say your permit circumvents property rights and restrictions.

By Steve2

February 12, 2007 7:38 PM | Link to this

Tony, I do respect the rule or law. It is not illegal to carry a firearm on the property of a business, just because it is prohibited. What harm do you suppose is caused by a lawful gun owner carrying a firearm on someone’s elses property? No, I would NEVER take my firearm anywhere contary to law. What exactly will you do if I set foot on your prperty?

By atlbsky

February 12, 2007 7:46 PM | Link to this

So let me see if I understand this - that .357 under your seat is perfectly fine, but don’t let us catch you with your seat belt off! Absolutely incredible. This should make the commute through Atlanta even more interesting. Now the guy that wants to go 100 mph in the middle lane so badly that he thinks nothing of virtually trying to “push” you out of the way by driving inches from your bumper, screaming at you as he passes and flips you off - now these same lunatics can just shoot at you for going the speed limit. Congrats to all the legislatures that the NRA promised money to in return for this vote.

By Tony

February 12, 2007 11:18 PM | Link to this

Steve,

If I say you cannot carry a firearm on my property, you cannot do it. Simple. What gives you the right to come onto my property with a gun? Where in the Constitution does it say Steve can go wherever he wants with his gun despite what other people may say coming on their property? Tell me where you have the right to carry a gun on my property? Perhaps you skipped history class in school but here is a refresher. Read up on what happened when British soldiers and their guns came onto American property.

I will flip your question around. What harm is there in NOT carrying your firearm on someone else’s property?

You say it is not illegal but only prohibited. Take your gun into a school, a government building, or any other major business and see what happens to you. Try it. If it is not illegal, why is there a need for a law to make it legal?