Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 15 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGuns and liberal angst
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The suspense ended Wednesday, the final day for Gov. Sonny Perdue to veto legislation from this year’s General Assembly. He signed the bill that had most stoked liberal angst, agreeing that law-abiding citizens with licenses to carry guns can take them in purses or under jackets on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol and in state parks.
MARTA’s union drivers had said they would demand bulletproof shields, reports the AJC’s James Salzer. The Georgia Restaurant Association, likewise, magnified its distress, arguing that servers shouldn’t be put in the position of asking to see patron’s permit before serving alcohol.
We are talking here about law-abiding citizens, those who have submitted to fingerprinting and to a criminal background check. MARTA drivers, we can reasonably assume, transport riders carrying weapons without permits without thinking they need bulletproof shields. So all of this to-do is a reaction to lawful citizens without criminal records who pose no danger to Atlanta’s banks, liquor and convenience stores or to its public safety.
We over-react to the lawful, as the MARTA union and restaurant association do, not because it’s the population that poses the threat, but because it’s the one that can be controlled. Go figure.
I own guns. Three of them. Rifle, shotgun and pistol. Even with a permit I wouldn’t take a weapon on public transportation or in parks or restaurants. But I’m not the least disturbed by the prospect that others with carrying permits would. Perdue made the right call in signing this bill into law.
Services »
Comments
By Redneck Convert
May 15, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
Well, I see old Sonny signed the law to let law-abiding GA rednecks carry their guns into restaurants. Now I got to make some kind of holster that will hold a machine gun. They are kind of heavy but it will be worth it if I can perteck me and mine from criminals when we go to Ryans. The only problem is the law is flawed. It won’t let me drink beer or likker if I’m packing heat in a place. Which might put a crimp on beer sales. Its awful when you got to choose between packing heat and getting likkered up.
But leastwise we are getting closer to being a Dodge City. Pretty soon we won’t need no cops to keep Law and Order. If we see a crime we can just blast away and take care of it ourself. Its about time somebody done something to perteck my 2nd Amendment Rights. Not to mention it will make the line jumpers think long and hard before getting ahead of the missus at the buffet. When they look down and see a machine gun hanging there they will back off if they know what’s good for them. Now if they will just adopt my idea of using the toll booths on GA 400 as ammo stations we will be all set.
Have a good day everybody. I know you will feel real safe the next time you go out to eat and see everybody carrying a gun. If I was a waiter, I would want the food I serve to be realllllll good and the service right snappy.
By Crazy
May 15, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
I expect carnage in the streets today now that permit holders can legally take their guns into places most people probably didn’t think twice about before all this hubub. Way to go Sonny!!! Any anybody who is more afraid of a finger-printed, background-checked, permit holding, law-abiding citizen than a criminal is just plain stupid.
By Peter
May 15, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Yep good thing we can tote guns all around the city…..sounds safe to me!
Bad enough we have all this violence already, I guess a few too many beers, and and we will have the Wild West happening here!
Gee funny we are loosing Police officers in Atlanta because of the budget, I guess we should all get a gun to make sure we are safe out in Public!
By Grump
May 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Don’t you just love it when Liberals don’t get their way?
By Crazy
May 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Peter, I’m certain nobody will ever confuse you with an intelligent person.
By Taxpayer
May 15, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Well this has just got me all excited. It’s a good first step toward reducing our tax burden even more. I figure the next step should be to get a law passed that allows anyone who votes to carry a gun anywhere they want to. Then, I expect we’ll see statistics showing how crime dropped significantly even while police presence dropped. The next logical step will be to reduce the size of the police force since more law-abiding citizens will be providing the policing service free of charge (They could even start wearing police uniforms as a reward). Then, the need for those pricey lawyers, district attorneys, public defenders, judges, courtrooms, staff, and jurors — no, wait, jurors are a dime a dozen — would just fade away with the tax bills. Well, I can always hope for change, can’t I.
By Peter
May 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
By Crazy
May 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Peter, I’m certain nobody will ever confuse you with an intelligent person.
Gee you are so kind……you must have been given a few minutes out of your white coat today.
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I wish Georgia had a law that required all citizens over age 12 (without a history of felonies) to carry a gun at all times, in all places. Failing that, I think a property owner should have the right to control all behavior on his own property. If a restaurant owner wishes to make his restaurant a “gun-free” zone, he should have that right, although I may doubt the logic behind the policy. We have too many laws controlling behavior, and this may be such a law.
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Soon it will be just like the old west, as depicted on the boob tube….”Check your guns at the door” will read the signs outside bars and restraunts all over Red Neck Land. There is good news though, the Repukes are running scared: “Soul searching Republicans are turning to an unlikely savior, one-time party heretic and now presumptive White House nominee John McCain, as they try to stave off an electoral disaster. Stung by the Democratic seizure of three staunch conservative seats in Congress, Republican lawmakers fear a shellacking in November’s general election, after losing control of both chambers of Congress in 2006.
The rise of McCain as their champion is not without irony, since the 71-year-old Arizona senator has quarreled with his own party for years on issues as diverse as immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming.
But it is precisely that independent streak that is drawing Republicans to his coattails, hoping he can cleanse them of the stain of gridlocked Washington.
Eric Cantor, Republican chief deputy whip in the House of Representatives, told reporters that the McCain brand was healthier than that of his party.
“John McCain is a demonstrated vote getter among independents, and his message and what he will be able to do in this election is extremely important.”
House Republican minority leader John Boehner told Fox News that with McCain at the top of the ticket, his demoralized party might spring a surprise in November.
“I think that we’re going to do a lot better than people think,” Boehner said.
“John McCain appeals to almost all Republicans. He also appeals to a wide array of independents and conservative Democrats.”
Democrat Travis Childers on Tuesday won Mississippi’s first congressional district, one of the safest Republican seats in the country, following his party’s recent special election wins in Illinois and Louisiana.
The win was another triumph for the strategy of matching socially conservative Democrats, who often oppose abortion and back gun rights, to conservative districts, where Republicans would normally ease to victory.
As they surveyed the damage Wednesday, Republican House leaders rolled out the first elements of a new agenda, dubbed “The Change You Deserve,” pinpointing the struggles of working families.
Significantly, a key player in their press conference was Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now one of McCain’s most visible economic advisors.
Democrats see their win streak as a referendum on the unpopular president and dream of an electoral landslide after a Washington Post/ABC poll this week found eight in ten Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
Tom Cole, who heads Republican congressional campaign efforts, delivered an unusually stark warning, telling his party’s candidates “to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall.”
But Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican conference, suggested Republicans could prosper without their president up for reelection.
“The President is not on the ballot,” he said.
Top Democrats will not let them creep silently out of Bush’s shadow.
“What happened in Mississippi was a day for reckoning for the failed policies of the Bush administration,” said Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee.
And he said McCain, who recorded a message for the defeated Republican candidate in Mississippi, had failed to save his party.
“They thought he would be a life preserver, he wasn’t — he was an anchor.”
Democratic House majority leader Steny Hoyer meanwhile mocked the new Republican slogan, “The Change You Deserve,” saying it had already been used to market an anti-depressant medicine.
Democrats, who seized control of both chambers of Congress in 2006, are looking to expand their 37-seat majority in the House, and increase their tally in the 100-seat Senate from the current 51.
Republicans are particularly bracing for losses in the Senate, since in what was already shaping up as a bad year they have 23 seats up for reelection compared to only 12 for the Democrats.”
As they said in the old west “Hang the Repukes High.”
By dirty harry
May 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
I’m ready! Got me them special armor piercing bullets for my 44 special….It’s gonna be a good day if one of them criminals try something…C’mon MAKE MY DAY!
By Taxpayer
May 15, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
I think that we should get rid of police altogether and start using our state militia as police. After all, they’re getting plenty of training over in Iraq and Afghanistan and once their tours are up, they’re going to be in need of a new job. When they get back to the states, they should just get to keep the weapons that they were issued and then us taxpayers will just keep right on paying them to do what they’re already trained to do.
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
GOP cancer: Party could lose 20 more seats By JOHN F. HARRIS & JOSH KRAUSHAAR | NRCC Chairman Tom Cole is the target of finger-pointing.
For the past 18 months, ever since the 2006 elections, congressional Republicans have been like a hospital patient trying to convince visitors that he is not really all that sick: a bit under the weather; actually feel better than I sound; should be up and about any day; thanks for asking.
Suddenly — belatedly — all pretense is gone.
The Republican defeat in Tuesday’s special election in Mississippi, in a deeply conservative district where, in an average year, Democrats cannot even compete, was a clear sign that the GOP has the political equivalent of cancer that has spread throughout the body. Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall.
Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House — a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans’ long wilderness years in the 1960s and ’70s.
Things are not particularly more hopeful on the Senate side, where most analysts say Democrats have a strong chance of adding five or more seats to their current majority.
Panic and blame-casting for the dire condition were flowing in equal measures Wednesday inside the House Republican Conference and among party elders and operatives outside.
In the crossfire, there was a bracing new spirit of candor that has largely been missing since 2006, when many Republicans tried to convince the public — and perhaps themselves — that the defeat was the result of temporary setbacks, such as the House page scandal or bad headlines for Tom DeLay, rather than something more fundamental.
“The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006, when we lost 30 seats (and our majority) and came within a couple of percentage points of losing another 15 seats,” Rep. Tom Davis, a moderate Northern Virginia Republican who previously headed the National Republican Congressional Committee, wrote in a 20-page memo to colleagues.
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards, an Oklahoma Republican, said: “I don’t know that I have seen a year like this, ever. The general attitude toward Republicans is so bad nationally.”
By coincidence, the current NRCC chairman — Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the target of much finger-pointing for his strategy — got his start in politics as a young aide to Edwards. Like many in his party, Edwards said the GOP’s main hope for avoiding a blowout this fall rests in having candidates liberate themselves from their national party label and run on local issues.
But that is easier said than done. The Mississippi district won by Travis Childers is the third consecutive Republican-leaning district that Democrats have won in a special election this year.
Party strategists, most of whom spoke anonymously, said the implications of this record reverberate in all manner of ways that are not necessarily obvious at first blush.
Newly vulnerable Republicans: Suddenly, all sorts of districts that in typical years should be safe for the GOP, no matter the national trend, are clearly in jeopardy.
“Hang ‘em High”
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Breaking News: McCain sees Iraq combat over, U.S. troops home before 2013
In a speech he’s about to give shortly at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will for the first time talk about a specific date for when he envisions direct American military involvement to be over in Iraq.
It’s January, 2013. By then, he says, American combat involvement will be over and most U.S. troops back home.
A staunch defender of the war in Iraq and an ardent advocate for last year’s military surge, even before the Bush administration decided on it, McCain’s surprising remarks this morning are an early indicator of a significant shift in the former fighter pilot and POW’s stance on the controversial and unpopular war.
And it’s a theme he’s likely to hit hard, and perhaps even modify further, as the general election campaign unfolds, contrasting it with the Democrat’s sharper withdrawal.
Maybe you remember during their most heated debate exchange of the Republican primary season, McCain going right after former Gov. Mitt Romney for even hinting at a vague timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals because the Arizona senator alleged it would be taken by the enemy as a sign of surrender and a date they need only await.
How times change, now that McCain has the GOP nomination sewed up and confronts an unpopular war, an unpopular president of his own unpopular party, a string of Democratic successes in….
…special House elections, perceptions of a struggling economy and early Democratic attacks from both Sen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that a McCain Administration would only be a Bush III.
According to excerpts obtained by The Times’ Maeve Reston, McCain uses an imaginative speech construction today not to announce any dramatic change in his proposed policies regarding Iraq and what he once described as a possible 100 year deployment of U.S. troops. Instead, he describes “what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President.”
Here’s the optimistic scenario he will describe:
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.
“Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders.
“The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.
“The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated. U.S. and NATO forces remain there to help finish the job, and continue operations against the remnants of al Qaeda.
“The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants.
“There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven. Increased cooperation between the United States and its allies in the concerted use of military, diplomatic, and economic power and reforms in the intelligence capabilities of the United States has disrupted terrorist networks and exposed plots around the world. There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.”
Of course, all this is also premised on McCain not only imagining but actually pulling off a general election victory on Nov. 4.
By sunshine and thunder
May 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Now all the nannies can whine and talk like rednecks and sob that the wild west will be born again. We’ve heard it all before. Hell, it’s a cliche’.
Neal Boortz is right about one thing at least: if some had their way America would be one huge nursing home.
By Peter
May 15, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Funny McCain said he will get Osama bin Laden, and that would be during his first term……..
Gee why didn’t King George think of that?
By dirty harry
May 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
GW… I hope DUSTY doesn’t read your posts today!
It may send her over the cliff.
By Curious Observer
May 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Way to elevate Georgia to No. 1 in redneckism, Sonny! My guess is that the law will be on the books for a maximum of two years. Shortly, we will be reading a plethora of news items about shoot-outs at restaurants, bars, and parks.
Being background-checked and fingerprinted is no insurance against gun violence. It’s a good bet that 90% of those involved in violence and other crimes have never been arrested. And nothing in the new law mandates a check of the testosterone levels that lead to outbreaks of violence.
You can bet that if I see a gun-toting customer other than a uniformed police officer walk into a restaurant I’m patronizing, I’ll be leaving immediately.
By Midtowner
May 15, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
As a business and commercial property owner, how are the insurance companies going to react when they discover guns are legal on my property without my consent? Are they going to see “lawsuit” and “filing for damages,” even if such things are ruled frivolous in court? What about increased chances of property damages from a shoot-out? For a conservative to pass this with no consideration to the cost of doing business by small business owners (who pay scads of taxes and generate scads of jobs), by a Republican, is height of hypocracy. There should be a legal opt-out clause, like as was provided for smoking and bars (change your status, you can have indoor smokers). There is NO REASON for guns in a software company, so why should I face the real possibility of increased insurance rates? If something happens on my property and I get sued or my insurance rates go up, I’ll be talking to my lawyers, dear Sonny….
By Taxpayer
May 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
The word on the street is that Quick-Draw McCain is gunnin’ for Osama. Now that totin’ is all legal here in Georgia, Osama better not show his cowardly face in these parts while McCain is in town. This state just won’t be big enough for the two of ‘em. Nope. Has anyone else seen that silhouette of McCain with his holsters and 45s. I swear he’s the spittin’ image of the Duke. I hear he can even hit a spittoon from 50 paces. Yep. I reckon it’ll be OK with me for him to Corral them terrorist varmints and Boot ‘em on up the Hill for a good tongue thrashing.
By ron
May 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Good morning all,It seems that some people have a hard time distinguishing between law abiding citizens and criminals when it comes to concealed weapons.They have a tendency to tar everyone with the same brush.People such as myself,who apply for,and obtain a concealed weapons permit are not the problem.We are, like the Lone Ranger,on the side of the law.It’s the person that carries the gun that can’t get the permit that you have to worry about.
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer, The last time I checked guns don’t make people rednecks. Every person has the right to protect themselves by carrying a firearm. By the way, do us all a favor and stay indoors since you are more scared of guns than the maniacs that use them for evil. Can you get anymore idiotic?
This is a great day in America when an individual can protect him or herself from thugs. And no, that wasn’t a racist comment.
By HIDT
May 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
People should be free to carry, but property owners, including employers should be free to ban firearms from their premises including their parking lots. Property rights rule!
By Brian
May 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Looks like the libtards got their panties in a bunch this morning. They can’t outlaw peoples right to carry guns :( Don’t worry shooting people is still illegal and we all know that if it is illegal then no one will shoot anyone.
By Get a Grip
May 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Boy, all these chicken littles are going to make me believe the sky is falling.
Gun totin’ has been legal in GA for a loooong time. Carrying a concealed weapon with a permit has been legal in GA for a loooong time.
All these predicted shootouts are rediculous. You mean someone is going to be so upset about something in a restaurant, etc. that they will now shoot first and ask question later? I find it hard to believe that last week these same people who kept their guns in their cars when in these establishments were not upset enough to take 15 seconds to walk out to their car to get their gun. Better put on my helmet - the sky is falling!
By TW
May 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
This is nothing legislation…makes no difference at all.
If carrying a gun helps you deal with your fear of the world, so be it…so what…waste of tax payer money talking a bout it.
Eager to use a gun? Join the service…
By jplapp
May 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
It is telling that all of the anti comments on here are just condescending redneck remarks. They clearly don’t understand that the majority of permit holders are ex spouses, professionals that have a real need to carry a gun or others that have a reason to fear for their life. All states that have passed laws much more open that bill 89 have seen crime go down and no shootouts from permit holders. Why will liberals not look at facts?
By No Party System
May 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Boy, all this liberal talk. What makes any of you think that some with liberal principals don’t support this law. Is it because your opinion is not your own but that you march to the beat of Boortz, Hannity, Orielly, and Mr. Rush; listen I am neither a conservative or a liberal but I will support Obama in the General Election. Funny, I guess that makes me a liberal, by contrast I voted for Bush in the last election. Anyway, this is a great law, I am proud of Sonny for allowing law abiding citizen to protect family, neighbors and possession. I am a black man and pose no threat to anyone because I carry a gun. I only pose a threat to those that threaten me, my family, defenseless others and my possessions. So in short Way to Go Sonny. Oh one last point my friends, please read George Washington’s farewell address regarding this party system. This conservative vs liberal argument that grows greater everyday does not lend itself to a strong America but a weaker nation seized by in fighting which is a breeding ground for outside influences and chaos.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
By DayTrader
May 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
It’s about time we were given the right to carry our guns around with us. By the way, I don’t drink and I’m as sa- sa- san- sane as the ne- ne- nex- next person. I just have a little tw- tw- twit- twitch to work on. It’ll be OK though. I plan on making an easy $100 grand with the money from this home equity loan and that’ll be enough to pay off all the loans and my bookie and the treatments and then my wife and kids will be proud of me and they’ll let me come see them again. Everything is gonna be fine, just fine.
By D
May 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Hooray for this article! It’s about time someone told the anti-gun dopes that those of us who have permits aren’t the one’s to be afraid of. Those who are against this bill will be the first to ask why no one helped them in their time of need. They also don’t understand that the criminals will always be able to get weapons - we have a right to be able to protect ourselves, family and property. The police can’t be everywhere.
By Devastator
May 15, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Debunking Five Myths About Obama’s Support
MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.
FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain
May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.
Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).
NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.
MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:
FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.
Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.
NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.
Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.
In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.
Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.
MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:
FACT: Obama’s is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.
LA Times (May 8) Obama 41 - McCain 45
Wash Post (May 13): Obama 42 - McCain 51
2004 Exit polls: Kerry 41 - Bush 58
2000 Exit Polls: Gore 43 - Bush 54
1996 Exit polls: Clinton 43 - Dole 46
1992 Exit polls: Clinton 39 - Bush 41 - Perot 20
MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama’s position among women:
FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.
Wash Post (May 13): Obama 54 - McCain 40
New York Times (May 3) Obama 47 - McCain 39
NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush
MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:
FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters
In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.
$40K-$59K Obama 43 McCain 40
$60K-$100K Obama 51 McCain42
$101K+ Obama 46 McCain 47
According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton’s insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:
Obama vs. McCain is 40-52
By Shar
May 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
If allowing permit-holding gun owners to carry concealed weapons is so very safe, why can’t they do it in the State Capitol and the Governor’s Mansion? Those are state properties which conceivably could fall under the state park designation. Why do these legislators believe that I, as a law abiding citizen, run no risk of harm as a result of this law but that they must be shielded from its effects?
Because it’s not safe. Permit-holders have just as many moments of poor judgement, fear, rage, irrationality and frustration as anyone else, but now they are allowed to have their Great Equalizer on hand to force their will on others. Law enforcement officers whom we entrust with weapons must be trained personnel who are sworn to uphold the law, protect the public and to act as impartially as possible. The justice system weighs actions and determines guilt or innocence. We do not entrust these functions to some person who has fulfilled some of the most cursory permit requirements in the country. And when some untrained, excitable Charles Bronson wannabe starts firing at what she or he takes for a perpetrator in the middle of a fluid situation they may or may not understand, and I end up getting shot, “oops” just isn’t good enough.
This legislation wasn’t even allowed to be debated on the floor of the Legislature, but was passed at the very end of the session to shield it from legitimate questions. The people who passed it are not subject to its conditions. The instigators are not even from Georgia, but from Florida where they couldn’t get it passed so they decided to push it through here (where they’re not subject to it either) and use it as leverage in the Florida legislature.
“Liberal angst”? Dismissive condecension cannot detract from the true personal safety concerns of law-abiding citizens who want neither to be caught in a shooting gallery nor to hand over law enforcement and justice to Johnny On The Spot. Nor does an unsupported slur like “MARTA drivers, we can reasonably assume, transport riders carrying weapons without permits” do anything more than reiterate Mr. Wooten’s oft-expressed distaste for public transportation and the people who use it, as well as a crass disregard for the safety concerns of workers.
This legislation has serious implications for public safety in our state, and enacting its provisions should have been subject to debate and negotiation. Instead, it was slipped through and signed in a last-minute flurry. Had a major environmental initiative or funding for public transportation been handled this way, Mr. Wooten’s outrage would have been immediate. Since it’s guns, he feels that any objections should be cursorily overridden.
Snuck through a Republican House and a Republican Senate by big Republican contributors and signed by a Republican governor, not one of whom will be subject to its provisions. And you wonder why the Republicans have lost the last three interim Congressional elections?
By This is a a** backwards state
May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Just because someone has not committed a crime YET, does not mean that they will never commit one. Even the ‘criminals’ you seem to pillage in this article were once ‘law abiding citizens.’ This entire ‘conservative’ way of thinking is a farce. So you can carry handgun into a restaurant, but can’t be trusted to buy liquor on Sunday. Funny that theres no discussin of the THUMPIN you guys took in Mississippi a couple days ago. You’re just like Bush, ignore the obvious.
By DaveE
May 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
We’ve heard all these silly, stupid, loony-liberal complaints before - they come up every time a concealed-carry law is passed in any state.
All these same “Wild West shoot-out” worry-warts came out of the woodwork back when the original concealed-carry law was passed in GA, and guess what? NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. Know why? Because the people now permitted to carry guns in these places aren’t the type to start a shootout. They aren’t the type to shoot up a MARTA bus or mow down people in a public park for no reason.
They’re the type of people to behave themselves, act civilly in public, obey the law and practice self-control. Basically the opposite of every Democrat constituency group.
By Mid-South Philosopher
May 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
Human nature never changes. We tend to prophesy the worse when those behaviors with which we disagree are made legal or socially acceptable. Usually, our prophecies come to naught.
I well recall, when legal liquor sales were emerging in the rural south in the 1960s, the rants of those well-meaning individuals who warned of drunks being on every street corner, churches and other houses of worship becoming dormant because of the influence of demon rum, and the virtue of womanhood being ravished by hoards of enticing pretty boys with a flask in their pockets.
Time has proven that whatever the ill effects of legal liquor sales, things are better than they would have been had we maintained an unenforceable prohibition environment.
The issue arises of citizens, with lawful permits, going armed about the streets.
This is a good law and “Silly” Sonny is less “silly” because he signed this sterling statue.
If just one potential lawbreaker stops to think that within the crowd there might just be one fat, old man with the skill and ability to dispatch a bullet with deadly accuracy, perhaps the commission of a crime will be prevented.
If just one potential assailant pauses to think that , that lovely young jogger might have a pistol in that fanny-pack and might be proficient with it, as are my daughters, perhaps he will think about something else.
If some law-abiding citizen executes some worthless piece of human excrement, while the latter is attempting the commission of a crime of violence, then so much the better …not to mention…the taxpayers are saved the cost of keeping the criminal’s sorry posterior up for the term of a prison sentence.
Likely, there will be some mistakes and accidents, but, all things considered in the first decade of the 21st Century we will be safer.
Of course, as the old man at the grocery store always said, “Time will tell, boys, time will tell!”
By D
May 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Hooray for this article! It’s about time someone told the anti-gun dopes that those of us who have permits aren’t the one’s to be afraid of. Those who are against this bill will be the first to ask why no one helped them in their time of need. They also don’t understand that the criminals will always be able to get weapons - we have a right to be able to protect ourselves, family and property. The police can’t be everywhere.
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
I think McCain’s plan for four more years of war in Iraq will doom his efforts to win the Chimp’s third term….Let us hope Obama will investigate and prosecute the Chimp and his entire administration for high crimes…..
By Peter 2
May 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
I could understand the Legislature and Governor allowing more guns in public if they took down the metal detectors in the Capitol and Court Houses.
This “More Guns - Less Crime” is a lot of malarkey. The more guns we have in this country, the more gun related crime and violence we have. (I don’t hear any objections to the disarming of Iraqi’s to quell violence there.)
By This is a a** backwards state
May 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Just because someone has not committed a crime YET, does not mean that they will never commit one. Even the ‘criminals’ you seem to pillage in this article were once ‘law abiding citizens.’ This entire ‘conservative’ way of thinking is a farce. So you can carry handgun into a restaurant, but can’t be trusted to buy liquor on Sunday. Funny that theres no discussin of the THUMPIN you guys took in Mississippi a couple days ago. You’re just like Bush, ignore the obvious.
By Jlapp
May 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
It is telling that all of the anti comments on here are just condescending redneck remarks. They clearly don’t understand that the majority of permit holders are ex spouses, professionals that have a real need to carry a gun or others that have a reason to fear for their life. All states that have passed laws much more open that bill 89 have seen crime go down and no shootouts from permit holders. Why will liberals not look at facts?
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Dear Dirty @ 9:25, not to worry, nobody (not Dusty nor anyone else) reads a cut and paste longer than 25 words. Now if George wrote something original, many might read it.
By This is a a** backwards state
May 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Just because someone has not committed a crime YET, does not mean that they will never commit one. Even the ‘criminals’ you seem to pillage in this article were once ‘law abiding citizens.’ This entire ‘conservative’ way of thinking is a farce. So you can carry handgun into a restaurant, but can’t be trusted to buy liquor on Sunday. Funny that theres no discussin of the THUMPIN you guys took in Mississippi a couple days ago. You’re just like Bush, ignore the obvious.
By Facts
May 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
We are closely following Kansas as the most ridiculous state in the frigging union.
Pistol-packin’, bible-thumpin’ idiots.
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Dusty is cheating on old woodenhead, she is over there at Lukovich’s blog, posting away….Dirty Cheating Hag
By dirty harry
May 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
POINT TAKEN!
My point was that 3 solid republican districts have fallen, and the outlook is bleak per Tom Davis, Eric Cantor and Adam Putz-man for the repugs come November!
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Dear HIDT @ 9:38, I’ll contribute to your campaign if you ever run for office. I like the way you think.
By Glenn
May 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
End your pursuit Tom Jefferson. Happiness is a warm Barrett rifle.
…Oh, oops. Is this a Zero Tolerance blog?
By Larryg2
May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Governor Perdue stands as a bastion of integrity in his decision to sign HB89. After considering all the propaganda hurled his way by the media and other groups against this bill, our Governor clung to the facts and nothing but the facts in coming to the correct decision. Thank you, Governor Perdue, for your strength and loyalty to the good citizens of Georgia.
Jim Wooten is right on the money with his assessment. Our public should concentrate their fear on the criminals who seek to beat, rape and murder us and not on the law abiding, honest citizens who hold a Georgia Firearms License!
By notPC
May 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Comments need to be limited words…some people are publishing their own articles on here!
Get the facts straight people. Private property is still private property…if you don’t want someone there (in your restaurant), ask them to leave. If you’re going to comment, at least do yourself a favor and read the bill so you can argue intelligently. http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb89.htm
By Tomb
May 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Dear Backwards @ 9:53, “Funny that theres no discussin of the THUMPIN you guys took in Mississippi a couple days ago.” You must have missed the blog yesterday. What we all have noticed is that Democrats win when they repudiate the national party’s views on abortion and gun control and religious practices and vouchers. By “you guys” I suppose you mean leftists, since the conservatives were guaranteed a win either way.
By Alex
May 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Shar, you say “excitable Charles Bronson wannabe” and “Johnny On The Spot” and you complain about “Dismissive condecension[sic]”?!?! Way to complain about the same exact thing you are currently doing! Georgia is the 38th state to legalize carry in restaurants that serve alcohol and the 44th state to legalize carry on mass transportation. And in Georgia, only those that have permits are allowed to do so. Before you get outraged at this tremendous danger, why don’t you post some examples of gun violence committed by gun permit owners in these locations across the country. And then, why don’t you post ONE incident of a Georgia Firearms License holder committing a gun crime.
By Les
May 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
I think the libs that post on this must be low on Lithium!
By Copyleft
May 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
I wonder what President Obama has to say on this topic… oh well, we may as well wait till he’s officially sworn in.
By Curious Observer
May 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Governor Perdue stands as a bastion of integrity in his decision to sign HB89.
Ha, ha, ha. Is this the same “bastion of integrity” Governor Perdue who got the $100,000 tax break in a bill he signed but knew nothing about? Or does Georgia have two governors who just happen to have the same name?
By Fix-It
May 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
*Hey Devastator, are all Obama supporters as stupid as you? This forum is about gun laws. *
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
imagine, everyone packing firepower: its like retroactive ABORTION….YES SUPPORT RETROACTIVE ABORTION
By jm
May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
It is nice to know that we leave in a society where in order to feel safe people feel they have to go out armed.
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, President Obama will be too busy praying 5 times a day to Mecca to care about what happens in Georgia. By the time he tries to intercede we will all be busy in our underground bunkers avoiding radiation to care. Hussein Obama is a joke and is nothing more than an updated Jimmy Carter without the southern accent.
By Glenn
May 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Two governors? I hadn’t realized that we have ONE.
By BangaGong
May 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Well, I’m just happy as can be that good ole Sonny was able to salvage something from the long hours of bickering and fussing and name-calling and trying to appease all those folks at the Capitol with money to throw around for a favor that we tend to refer to as a legislative session. I mean if Sonny didn’t brag about giving taxpayers more opportunity to tote, what would he have to brag about. Think about it. Of course, he could probably even keep more taxpayers happy if he would just give people the right to a toke. It would also likely do a lot more to get guns off the street as well and he could avoid the moral issues associated with allowing alcohol seven days a week while still allowing some folks a chance to relieve themselves of their cares and stresses. Peace. Listen to some Lennon — not Lenin — dude. Toke on Sundays and drink the other six days.
By Dusty
May 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Well, good morning. Jim Wooten has noted the happiness of legal gun lovers. The new bill is fine with me. There are several rifles and pistols here in the house. Guess I better learn how to use them. Hadn’t given it much thought since I was a teenager. At that time I wanted a combination BB/22 rifle. Don’t know what I would have done with it. But my father took care of that. He said NO. Now I’m not interested.
But.. everybody here at home likes guns and knows how to use them. Some even have medals for markmanship. I pity anyone breaking into our home. Not a good idea.
dirty Harry@9:25
You couldn’t hit the side of a barn with a rock, much less a comment. What’s wrong with Georgie Porgie’s cut’n’paste of McCain’s speech? Sounds good to me.
McCain gave an encouraging report on Iraq which sounds very sensible. When things are settled in Iraq, our troops will come home. Some are already coming home. We may keep a token force there until peace is clear. McCain estimates that may be about 2013. Now what’s wrong with that?
OH, I see. You think that is a timetable to yank Americans out of Iraq. That figures. You’re a liberal. Can’t tell the difference between an estimate and cut’n’running.
Speaking of running, I have to “run”. Kinda busy today. See ya later. Stay outta trouble and don’t shoot until you see the “whites of their eyes”.
By Copyleft
May 15, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Truth: Really? Gee, I remember Carter as being a Christian, not a Muslim….
Hey, come to think of it, Obama’s a Christian too! Golly, what WAS I thinking?
Can’t wait for a REAL American (i.e., solidly liberal) administration to get started setting things right again! What a relief, knowing Bush and his neocon agenda are dead, dead, dead. We might even get Edwards as Attorney General!
Whee!
By Glenn
May 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Lots of Atlanta waiters and Marta drivers can’t leaglly carry guns because they can’t pass the requirements for a concealed weapons permitt. So they don’t want us to be able to do it. Always listen to the one screaming the loudest.
By ghost rider
May 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Well, truth you better get used to it then…
By Lily Toad
May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
OK, geniuses, what will prevent a person without a permit to carry a gun into a restaurant, etc.? How is this going to be enforced? I’m assuming no one will be asked to show the permit until after they shoot someone and isn’t it too late then?
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, You totally missed my point. Carter was the worst president in my lifetime. I was comparing the two. Not Carters religion. Obama Hussein is Christian? Really, because I didn’t know Jesus preached hate like the good Rev does. I think it’s funny that you think Obama Hussein will fix all of our problems. Your confidence in government is ridiculous. Edwards? Okay, get ready for sky rocketing taxes and more welfare lines.
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
ghost rider, Get used to what? It would help me understand what to get used to if you used English to tell me.
By Pine Knot
May 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
For you that do not like H. B. 89 passed by the Georgia Legislature, and signed by the Georgia Governor, do as Lewis said, “Delta is ready when you are.”
By WarrenKuhn
May 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
READ THE BILL BEFORE COMPLAINING
Property Owners (Including Restaurants) have the right to decide whether they will allow guns on their premises.
I seriously doubt anyone who has gone through the background check is going to run the risk of losing their license by going “cowboy” inside your local chili’s. By the way, they’ve been carrying in your McDonald’s and Steak’n’Shake for years and no ones noticed.
By HIDT
May 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Yes, notPC, I know, I know. But this is the same blog where people supported the right to keep arms in their cars at work, whether the property owner approves or not. Just keeping up the good fight for property owners’ rights. Never hurts to reiterate.
By doodie buddy
May 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
This will have no effect on anyone’s lives other than you will all be safer if some insane person goes crazy (i.e. Va. Tech) and a sane person who is armed has a gun. Now it just makes it legal for us to arm ourselves. Besides, now when I go camping in the woods in a state park I don’t have to worry about hiding my .357 if a cop comes by for fear of it getting confiscated. And no, I don’t use it to act like a redneck, it’s with me to protect me from rednecks. You libs ever seen “Deliverance”?
By Martin Luther King, Jr.
May 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
PolyPoFool
Cut & paste, cut & paste. What would a PolyPoFool post be without 3/4’s of it being someone else’s thoughts. Well, at least you learned something in high school.
Time to move on to the wet paste & papier mache.
By doodie buddy
May 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
This will have no effect on anyone’s lives other than you will all be safer if some insane person goes crazy (i.e. Va. Tech) and a sane person who is armed has a gun. Now it just makes it legal for us to arm ourselves. Besides, now when I go camping in the woods in a state park I don’t have to worry about hiding my .357 if a cop comes by for fear of it getting confiscated. And no, I don’t use it to act like a redneck, it’s with me to protect me from rednecks. You libs ever seen “Deliverance”?
By WarrenKuhn
May 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
LilyToad,
What would have prevented a person without a gun from going into a restaurant and shooting someone prior to the bill being signed?
It doesn’t take a genius to follow the logic but thanks for the compliment.
By WarrenKuhn
May 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
LilyToad,
What would have prevented a person without a gun license from going into a restaurant and shooting someone prior to the bill being signed?
It doesn’t take a genius to follow the logic but thanks for the compliment.
By munchi
May 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
I would say this…If someone wants for whatever reason to carry a gun (myself I can’t imagine why) but if he/or she does they sould first have to take a thorough psychoanalyst test. Second they should have to pass a safety and shooting course.
Then if you accidently shoot me I’ll only take half of what is yours!
By Shar
May 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Alex@10:18 - Point taken, and apologies extended, for my own foray into dismissive condecension. However, the issue is still valid. People who qualify for a concealed weapon permit in Georgia - in other words, citizen residents who are 21 or older and who have clean criminal and mental health records - are not exchangable for trained, sworn law enforcement officers nor for a trial by jury.
There is no overriding public safety issue that is addressed by this legislation. There is no spur or cause for it to be enacted, other than as a political statement and a way to reap campaign cash for its sponsors. There seems to be a belief among supporters that, as Mid-South put it above, “If just one potential lawbreaker stops to think that within the crowd there might just be one fat, old man with the skill and ability to dispatch a bullet with deadly accuracy, perhaps the commission of a crime will be prevented.”
If potential lawbreakers stopped to think, the death penalty would be a provably effective deterrent. In fact, if violent criminals were prone to stopping to think, they probably wouldn’t be violent criminals. And for every person with the skill and calm to deliver a bullet precisely where they want it to go under emotional and split-second circumstances, there are probably 25 who can get a permit but who are not similarly gifted. If every permit holder was adept, cool, controlled and responsible, there would not be a greater likelihood of a homeowner’s gun harming him/her than harming an intruder.
Mid-South goes on, “If some law-abiding citizen executes some worthless piece of human excrement” in the commission of a crime, that is a positive effect of this law. To whom are we granting the authority to make such a judgement? Say you’re with your daughter in a state park and she’s screaming and crying. Are you a child molester or a parent who is denying a tired child a treat? If you spank her, are you an abuser? Shooting first and asking questions later is a blueprint for tragedy.
Mid-South thinks this is acceptable, saying “Likely, there will be some mistakes and accidents, but, all things considered in the first decade of the 21st Century we will be safer.” Maybe from a public policy standpoint this is a reasonable tradeoff, although probably not if you’re the “mistake”. But what are the characteristics of this decade that create a need for such a drastic reordering of public safety enforcement? Where is the information that supports this approach as the best, in light of whatever these hypothetical needs are? There was no discussion, no debate, no analysis in this legislation - just a knee-jerk pandering to a vocal political constituency, with potentially fatal “mistakes and accidents” brushed aside.
DaveE @ 9:54 wrote, “We’ve heard all these silly, stupid, loony-liberal complaints before - they come up every time a concealed-carry law is passed in any state.” You can substitute conservative for liberal and gay rights for concealed-carry in that statement, and it would be just as true. To me, it is silly and stupid to suppose that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, but I respect the depth of concern of those who disagree and the extent of the policy change that accompanies the issue, and I recognize that it must be publicly debated and negotiated. In turn, I believe that the only reason for a concealed weapon is to fool other people, and that carrying a weapon in a public place makes it far likelier that it will be used there. Those are legitimate concerns, and do not deserve to be swept aside in the interests of political expediency.
And you wanted an example of a legal owner breaking the law? How about Joe Horn, the man in Texas who “executed human excrement” when he shot and killed two men as they were leaving the scene of a burglary? The police dispatcher told him not to shoot, and he was in no personal danger nor did the burglars break into his home, but he usurped both law enforcement and judicial procedures and used deadly force, shooting one of the men in the back as he tried to run. Some Texans thought that justice was served, regardless of legality. I say that burglary is not a capital offense, and I don’t want a neighbor becoming judge, jury and executioner on my supposed behalf.
These are issues to be discussed, not enforced by one group on another with objections denigrated and dismissed. Apologies again for having done the latter myself.
By Dean
May 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry to say Redneck Convert that you are ignorant of the current laws. GFL holders could already go into restaurants that do not server alcohol, such as sweet tomatoes. Where was the carnage? I don’t drink, have a GFL and come from NY so your redneck analogy is also flawed. I suggest you be honest with everyone and just say you don’t like guns and no one should own them instead of making up inane arguments.
By deegee
May 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
“I own guns. Three of them. Rifle, shotgun and pistol. Even with a permit I wouldn’t take a weapon on public transportation or in parks or restaurants.”
Okay, so assuming that JW has the same joie de vivre as the rest of us, and drinks from the fountain of conservative koolaid, why wouldn’t JW arm himself when going out? What is in the psyche of those that would carry a gun into a restaurant? Are they anticipating becoming a hero by taking out a psychopath? My suspicion is that in this day of virtual reality video gaming where people are targets, there are a number of ostensibly normal people that fantasize about becoming the hero of their imaginary video game. All it would take is for someone to look or act menacing to become the target of their fantasy. I think that this law gives moral latitude to those that would take the law into their own hands and to dispense justice according to their own code.
By Dean
May 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry to say Redneck Convert that you are ignorant of the current laws. GFL holders could already go into restaurants that do not server alcohol, such as sweet tomatoes. Where was the carnage? I don’t drink, have a GFL and come from NY so your redneck analogy is also flawed. I suggest you be honest with everyone and just say you don’t like guns and no one should own them instead of making up inane arguments.
By Dannick
May 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Yep, I know I’ll feel better and a lot safer once that guy yelling at the top of his lungs for the Philadelphia Flyers and cursing patrons who gave him dirty looks in the restaurant Saturday night returns with a .44.
By ghost rider
May 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
ghost rider, Get used to what? It would help me understand what to get used to if you used English to tell me.
Truth…by your previous posts you do seem a little slow on the uptake SO, I’ll spell it out for you. OK?
Get used to the fact OBAMA is going to be the next president!
CLEAR ENOUGH?
By h ryder
May 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Think of 9/11 or Virginia Tech, then if you have employed logic and still believe law abiding citizens should not be able to be armed in the situations covered by the signed legislation you are insane!! Since only law breakers will be armed.
By gooberpeas
May 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
self reliant citizens scare government to death…..what if word gets around that we don’t need the bureaucrats as badly as they want us to think we do?
By CHA
May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
The road to Hell in paved with good intentions…, it has extra thick pavement, multiple lanes to carry ever increasing traffic and it goes right through the Georgia State Capital!
By AmVet
May 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
OUTSTANDING, Mr. Wooten!
With SO very much going wrong for the misnamed, do nothing, incompetent conservatives these days, at last a ray of shining hope.
We all get to pack our heat just about everywhere now!
I agree that chances are that your average gun-toting schmoe is no miscreant. But just because they have no documented history of violence, look around at recent serial killings by those who fit that description to a T for evidence that this is not always a great indicator.
And when the first “clean” madman goes berserk, all we can do is hope that it is in some bar like “Curious George’s T-shirt shop” in Marietta.
Then the value of this legislation will be obvious.
To The Father of Our Country, in spite of ambulance chasing denials on behalf of others, I read your posts faithfully!
And the one about the GOP possibly losing another 20 seats in Congress is yet more great news in an already outfreakingstanding election year.
And as for the “argument” that it is only “conservative “Democrats who are going to be the benefactors of the worst administration in US history, that may well be the case in Mississippi and other locales within the Moron Belt.
But in more enlightened areas of the republic we can rest assured that that will not even be a factor.
By BB
May 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Just because you have a permit doesnt mean you can shoot straight.
By ron
May 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Shar,The second amendment.I would carry without a permit if it was legal.Carrying a concealed weapon is one of the rights that law abiding citizens still have.I don’t intend to let this right lapse.
By getalife
May 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Never leave home without mine.
All the drunk cajuns are armed down here.
By Crafty
May 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
AmVet, Moron belt? You’re free to leave if you’d like. You may as well call the country you served a stupid crap country. Democrats are no better than Republicans. If you want high taxes, dmv healthcare, big brother in your house, appeasement and socialism then go ahead and vote for the communist party of Obama Hussein. I’ll be waiting in 2012 to vote for a real conservative.
By Swiftboat
May 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
AmVet, How exactly is Obama Hussein Bin Laden going to solve Americas problems? Did you sit on one too many grenades while pealing potatoes in Vietnam?
By wayne
May 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
A great day for freedom loving citizens…a bad day for the ‘bad’ guys.
By gman2000
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
By jplapp They clearly don’t understand that the majority of permit holders are ex spouses, professionals that have a real need to carry a gun or others that have a reason to fear for their life. All states that have passed laws much more open that bill 89 have seen crime go down and no shootouts from permit holders.
Most liberals don’t understand that a permit holder isn’t going to risk loosing thier permit by breaking the law. It takes respect and responsibility to legally carry a gun. But I’ll continue to leave mine locked in my glove compartment upon entering public establishments.
By SDigger
May 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Anyone who thinks the guns are not there already are ignorant or just turning a blind eye. Guns are in every restaurant you go to now, on public transportation and at parks. Only they are carried by non-law abiding citizens. One must remember that laws are written for law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow laws and laws do not direct their behavior. They do what they want. Gun laws only forced normally law abiding citizens to go unprotected. They created “target rich environments” such as Marta or state parks for criminals to stalk because they knew that law abiding citizens coming off a train was unarmed and unable to protect themselves. What makes me laugh is that democrats are only scared of law biding citizens and were not afraid of the criminals who were carrying on Marta already.
Thank you Sonny for allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the predators of the City of Atlanta.
By GIJoe
May 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
AmVet, How exactly is a Democrat controlled country going to solve problems. What is Obama going to do as president? How is he going to get gas prices down, protect the country and make our economy better? Because last time I checked it was capitalism that made businesses great and not government. By the way, are you going to now call me names and hide behind your service to the military? Because that’s what libs like you do. They hide behind service or race so that people can’t call them out for what they are.
By TW
May 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
What a sad life it must be to feel the need for a handgun in order to leave one’s house. What a fearful, sad existence. Funny that the so-called tough rightwing has more people in this chicken coup than the left.
By Shar
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Ron@11:31 - “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.”
As you know, the Supremes are currently considering (although, given the Court makeup, the outcome is pretty foreseeable) the “militia” context of this amendment. However, it has been established that infringement can be made in respect to what kinds of arms can be kept and borne by individuals. Concealed weapons are not specifically listed in the amendment. Neither is ammunition. If we were to keep to a strict interpretation, the covered weapons would be restricted to those that were available when the clause was written.
If you want to defend your gun rights, try carrying a bazooka. Or a concealed weapon into the State House. Or on an airplane. These rights are negotiated all the time in an attempt to balance the Second Amendment with sensible public safety. This was not done in the case of HB 89.
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
TW, I just read an article that said conservatives are happier than liberals. I’m not sad. I love carrying my gun and I have a big fat smile on my face. By the way, the left is too busy raising taxes and having anal sex.
By Peter
May 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
By wayne
May 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
A great day for freedom loving citizens…a bad day for the ‘bad’ guys.
Hey Wayne, and Dean…..
are you implying as citizens we should become vigilantes……act first then see what the police would say, or do ?
By AmVet
May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Craftsman,
And you’re free to try and make me if you’re that stupid.
Your mistake is a common one.
You confuse the indisputable fact that many of the people in this nation are ignorant and pig-headed, with that somehow equating to the United States of America being a “stupid crap country”. Your words, not mine.
You also apparently have other issues regarding accurately comprehending standard written English.
You ASSUME I’m a big fan of the Democratic Party. There is an old saying, “Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”.
The Democrats as defined by Pelosi and Kennedy are just about useless. And I have written about this numerous times.
I voted against both Kerry and Gore.
But like it or not, this is a liberal nation and they will do what they do. Some of it very good and some of it very bad. But bank on this, liberalism will ALWAYS be a vibrant and relevant force in this country.
Neo-conservatism on the other hand is practically dead and irrelevant after a scant 25 years.
The only saving grace for the Dems is that they are better, albeit slightly, than the hijacked abomination that IS the GOP.
And go ahead and keep looking for commies behind every bush if that makes you feel better. And cling to your delusions, including the hope beyond hope that your Republican heroes are going to have some sort of political resurrection in four years.
But much more likely IMHO is that IF they do not have some sort of collective epiphany and reinvent themselves and soon, they are once again going to be looking square in the face of being the minority party for the next forty years.
The evidence is overwhelming…
By Shar
May 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Ron@11:31 - “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.”
As you know, the Supremes are currently considering (although, given the Court makeup, the outcome is pretty foreseeable) the “militia” context of this amendment. However, it has been established that infringement can be made in respect to what kinds of arms can be kept and borne by individuals. Concealed weapons are not specifically listed in the amendment. Neither is ammunition. If we were to keep to a strict interpretation, the covered weapons would be restricted to those that were available when the clause was written.
If you want to defend your gun rights, try carrying a bazooka. Or a concealed weapon into the State House. Or on an airplane. These rights are negotiated all the time in an attempt to balance the Second Amendment with sensible public safety. This was not done in the case of HB 89.
By WhatDidYouExpect
May 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Oh well. Georgia continues to reinforce it’s image as redneck central. What an embarrassment this state full of bubbas, racists, xenophobes, and nativists has become.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Sonny can’t get re-elected, so the NRA will be providing his retirement annuity.
Sad to say, our politicians are being bought and paid for by the lobbyists (not just the NRA, but all lobbyists). We constituants do not have a chance.
But, like most law-abiding citizens, I do not NEED to carry a gun. Isn’t that what the police and security cameras are for?
By Me
May 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
You know if someone is carrying a concealed weapon you really have no way of knowing that they are. Doesn’t matter if they have a permit or not. So maybe everybody just needs to drop the attitudes and be a little nicer to strangers.
By Taxpayer
May 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
I don’t think we should have any law at all that allows carrying concealed weapons. Anyone caught carrying a concealed weapon should be pistol-whipped, thrown under the jail, tarred and feathered, run out of town on a rail — the wussies. If you are going to carry a weapon, I think you should display it in a prominent location for everyone to behold. Be proud of your weapon. Let others see your weapon. Let curious bystanders gawk at your weapon. Let them hold it and even try it out. Many people don’t own a nice big weapon simply because they have never used one before. Line up some whiskey glasses at the local saloon and get in a little target practice or just show off for the other patrons. Start a little show and charge admission. Get yourself a partner of the opposite sex or at least someone that dresses as such and call yourselves Annie and Wild Bill.
By Me
May 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Basically the only thing a security camera will do is record the fact that you’ve been killed. And odds are a Policeman isn’t gonna be around the instant you need him. No slam on him…just the facts of life.
By Cruzin
May 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
There is one reason and one reason only why wimpy liberals attack law abiding citizens. They want to control them. Throughout history, the population that is unarmed is easily trampled and destroyed. Look around, see the countries that abuse their people today, most are countries that ban guns. Law abiding people are not threats to society and never have been.
By AmVet
May 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Speaking of hiding behind names, GIJoe?
You have got to be kidding, me Mr. Joe.
Funny. I’ve never noted your nom de plume before. Will it ever appear again after today? I guess we’ll see.
But at least now, it is becoming a fair fight - three “conservative” Sybils vs. one veteran.
Read my previous post about voting Democratic, warrior.
I will not vote for Senator Clinton or Obama. Period.
But must you live in such a polarized, mislabeled and illogical world view?
I abhor the Republican Party in its current inept form. That it has been a disaster since 1980 is for MANY Americans not even arguable.
That does not mean I care one iota about the Democratic Party. I gave up on them long ago too.
Try to grasp this basic concept.
I excoriate the worst political ideology of my lifetime - neo-conservatism. And the worst president in US history - George W. Bush.
Whenever possible, I vote for independents, non-incumbents or when those are not options for the PERSON I consider best for the job. I voted Republican for my local representative.
Why do I sense that you haven’t voted for a non-Republican in a long time, if ever?
Heal yourself, drop the platitudes about capitalism vs. government and proffer your partisan “arguments” much more cogently if you hope to dissuade anyone from voting for the evil liberals.
By Maniac is accurate
May 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
I think weapons permits are stupid. This is the United States of America. My Aunt Lil out to be able to walk down Tebeau Street with a 12-guage slung over her shoulder. And carry it into the courthouse or any other public place.
By TW
May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Truth - Imagine how happy you’d be if you didn’t need to pack a firearm in order to have something big in your pants. Relax, I’m sure the anal sex was not your fault. I apologize for the leftist who put you through all that.
By Ex-Georgian
May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
What about those signs you still see in restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Does a restaurant owner still have the right to refuse service to some bubba packing a gun?
I hope a few licensed gun-owners who try to stop a crime get killed. That would put a damper on this law, now, wouldn’t it?
By Dennis
May 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
I would hope that this is just another one of Mr. Wooten’s “I’ll put a little controversial statement in today’s column so folks will read it and get all rilled up.” thoughts.
But given that he tells us of the armaments that he owns, I think he must mean what he says, “So all of this to-do is a reaction to lawful citizens without criminal records who pose no danger to Atlanta’s banks, liquor and convenience stores or to its public safety.”
Criminal record or not has nothing to do with the emotional side of a hot tempered individual nor the mentally unstable one. Neither should be carrying a weapon in public.
If his view is either or both the peak and depth of his ability to think, then the AJC is in bad shape for “journalists”.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By time for the fair and menacing truth
May 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
thanks, sonnybubby. now I can go to the finer hippityhop rib, chicken and watermelon clubs in town without fear.
By George Washington
May 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Looks like President Obama will have long coat tails….First year, the House and the Senate will pass anything he proposes…..Ah suggests a federal tax rate of 90% on all income over 200K for a single, and 250K for joint, regardless of source of income….Ah suggest we remove the upper limit on social security and medicare taxes, every cent of income should pay into both programs….Let us set a special upper income tax for social security of 20% for all income over 90k for single, and 150k for joint. Heh heh heh, this payback thing is gonna be fun….heh heh heh
By The Truth
May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
TW, The anal sex comment was just for fun. To ruffle the feathers of a few libs. Anyway, no, I’m happy and my johnson is big also. Thanks for asking.
By GHF
May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
Georgia is now essentially on this issue where Florida has been for nearly 20 years.
The logic is simple - Sam Colt essentially made everybody the same size.
I have no problem with anybody who does not want to carry, but I have a real problem with those who want to stop me because they think (1) they can not use it when necessary, (2) nobody can use it when necessary, or (3) they are are just better than me.
A gunfight is essentially a head game. A gun is a tool that the older, weaker, female, outnumbered can protect themselves from the younger, stronger, male, multiple criminal element.
When seconds count, the police - as good as they are and as hard as they try - are at least minutes away.
By bill
May 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Swinging right today did I notice the jbmlaw first propose a law to require behavior and the blame society for too many laws controlling behavior? Or is just laws that are left of center that are controlling?
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Bob
May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Everyone against this bill, please consider the following situations:
1: You’re sitting in a restaurant in a state where carrying a gun is illegal. Someone drives a pickup truck through the front window, gets out, and opens fire. He walks around, calmly executing people as he goes. People get up and try to charge him or resist, but are calmly shot as well. He finally shoots himself when the police arrive.
2: You’re sitting in a different restaurant, where carrying a firearm is legal. Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant. They herd all the customers and employees, over 20 total, into the walk-in cooler. Many such armed robberies end with the execution-style murders of all the potential witnesses, and shooting them in the cooler cuts down on the noise and gives the killers a better chance of escape. One customer pulls out a handgun and shoots at the two men, killing both.
Which situation would you rather be in? Woul
Both of these incidents actually happened. You might recognize incident #1 as the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre. Texas law prohibited firearms carry, yet that law did not stop the shooter. Incidentally, the laws against murder and assault didn’t, either.
Incident #2 happened two months later, at a Shoney’s in Anniston, Alabama. A customer pulled out a legally-carried gun and shot both attackers; all of the customers and employees survived.
Those of us who carry are not maniacs itching for a chance to shoot someone; we hope that our guns never leave their holsters except to clean them or to practice at the range. We don’t go looking for trouble; in fact, we try to avoid it in the first place because we don’t want to hurt anyone. But if things go wrong and we do get attacked, we want to have a better way to resist than getting down on our knees and begging, “please don’t kill me, Mr. Badguy!” We just want to live so we can go home to our families.
And finally, think about this:
-You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a police officer than you are of being attacked by someone with a firearms license.
-Police are only required to qualify with their weapons once or twice per year; a large portion of them practice no more than is required to pass the test. The average GFL holder probably shoots more rounds than that every month.
-Citizens with firearms licenses already carry in movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, and fast-food restaurants. Yet you never hear of them going on shooting rampages. You have certainly stood next to someone with a legally-carried gun many times… but nothing happened.
-The average police response time is 5-6 minutes or more. If you’re attacked on the street (and even assuming you are somehow able to call 911 before the attack is over), the police will not get there in time to do anything but file a report (if you’re lucky) or clean up your body (if you aren’t).
-Murder and assault laws do not stop criminals from committing assault and murder, so why do people continue to think that gun laws will? What good do off-limits places do if the only ones that obey the restrictions are the responsible ones who aren’t causing trouble?
By Liberal Gun Owner
May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
TW,
I am a liberal left wing gun owner with a permit and I carry my weapon daily.
Not everyone fits in your shoe boxes as neatly as you wish.
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Bob
May 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
Everyone against this bill, please consider the following situations:
1: You’re sitting in a restaurant in a state where carrying a gun is illegal. Someone drives a pickup truck through the front window, gets out, and opens fire. He walks around, calmly executing people as he goes. People get up and try to charge him or resist, but are calmly shot as well. He finally shoots himself when the police arrive.
2: You’re sitting in a different restaurant, where carrying a firearm is legal. Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant. They herd all the customers and employees, over 20 total, into the walk-in cooler. Many such armed robberies end with the execution-style murders of all the potential witnesses, and shooting them in the cooler cuts down on the noise and gives the killers a better chance of escape. One customer pulls out a handgun and shoots at the two men, killing both.
Which situation would you rather be in? Woul
Both of these incidents actually happened. You might recognize incident #1 as the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre. Texas law prohibited firearms carry, yet that law did not stop the shooter. Incidentally, the laws against murder and assault didn’t, either.
Incident #2 happened two months later, at a Shoney’s in Anniston, Alabama. A customer pulled out a legally-carried gun and shot both attackers; all of the customers and employees survived.
Those of us who carry are not maniacs itching for a chance to shoot someone; we hope that our guns never leave their holsters except to clean them or to practice at the range. We don’t go looking for trouble; in fact, we try to avoid it in the first place because we don’t want to hurt anyone. But if things go wrong and we do get attacked, we want to have a better way to resist than getting down on our knees and begging, “please don’t kill me, Mr. Badguy!” We just want to live so we can go home to our families.
And finally, think about this:
-You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a police officer than you are of being attacked by someone with a firearms license.
-Police are only required to qualify with their weapons once or twice per year; a large portion of them practice no more than is required to pass the test. The average GFL holder probably shoots more rounds than that every month.
-Citizens with firearms licenses already carry in movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, and fast-food restaurants. Yet you never hear of them going on shooting rampages. You have certainly stood next to someone with a legally-carried gun many times… but nothing happened.
-The average police response time is 5-6 minutes or more. If you’re attacked on the street (and even assuming you are somehow able to call 911 before the attack is over), the police will not get there in time to do anything but file a report (if you’re lucky) or clean up your body (if you aren’t).
-Murder and assault laws do not stop criminals from committing assault and murder, so why do people continue to think that gun laws will? What good do off-limits places do if the only ones that obey the restrictions are the responsible ones who aren’t causing trouble?
By freidenker
May 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
sonny-what a piece of work. as a permit holder i applaud his signing of this flawed bill if only to be able to carry legally in wilderness areas (gary hilton ring a bell?). if only he had the testicular fortitude to allow US to vote on sunday sales. i guess baptists believe guns don’t kill but alcohol does. anyway, i guess his putting the signing of hb89 off until the last moment was good “time management”. what a rube,…but thanks, sonny.
and, yes, to many of you, permit holders SHOULD be required to undergo some sort of ‘state approved’ training before issue of license.
have a great day! and…what about that guy in the booth next to you only drinking sweet tea?
By Sam Parker
May 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Any educated person that has done research on gun control laws will find that areas in the US with large legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. New York and LA have very restrictive gun laws and high crime rates. If you go to Europe Switzerland specifically where almost the entire population has a gun the crime rate is almost zero
By Bob
May 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Everyone against this bill, please consider the following situations:
1: You’re sitting in a restaurant in a state where carrying a gun is illegal. Someone drives a pickup truck through the front window, gets out, and opens fire. He walks around, calmly executing people as he goes. People get up and try to charge him or resist, but are calmly shot as well. He finally shoots himself when the police arrive.
2: You’re sitting in a different restaurant, where carrying a firearm is legal. Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant. They herd all the customers and employees, over 20 total, into the walk-in cooler. Many such armed robberies end with the execution-style murders of all the potential witnesses, and shooting them in the cooler cuts down on the noise and gives the killers a better chance of escape. One customer pulls out a handgun and shoots at the two men, killing both.
Which situation would you rather be in? Woul
Both of these incidents actually happened. You might recognize incident #1 as the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre. Texas law prohibited firearms carry, yet that law did not stop the shooter. Incidentally, the laws against murder and assault didn’t, either.
Incident #2 happened two months later, at a Shoney’s in Anniston, Alabama. A customer pulled out a legally-carried gun and shot both attackers; all of the customers and employees survived.
Those of us who carry are not maniacs itching for a chance to shoot someone; we hope that our guns never leave their holsters except to clean them or to practice at the range. We don’t go looking for trouble; in fact, we try to avoid it in the first place because we don’t want to hurt anyone. But if things go wrong and we do get attacked, we want to have a better way to resist than getting down on our knees and begging, “please don’t kill me, Mr. Badguy!” We just want to live so we can go home to our families.
And finally, think about this:
-You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a police officer than you are of being attacked by someone with a firearms license.
-Police are only required to qualify with their weapons once or twice per year; a large portion of them practice no more than is required to pass the test. The average GFL holder probably shoots more rounds than that every month.
-Citizens with firearms licenses already carry in movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, and fast-food restaurants. Yet you never hear of them going on shooting rampages. You have certainly stood next to someone with a legally-carried gun many times… but nothing happened.
-The average police response time is 5-6 minutes or more. If you’re attacked on the street (and even assuming you are somehow able to call 911 before the attack is over), the police will not get there in time to do anything but file a report (if you’re lucky) or clean up your body (if you aren’t).
-Murder and assault laws do not stop criminals from committing assault and murder, so why do people continue to think that gun laws will? What good do off-limits places do if the only ones that obey the restrictions are the responsible ones who aren’t causing trouble?
By Shane
May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Quote: By Shar
“Concealed weapons are not specifically listed in the amendment.”
**You are correct, it only says we have the right to keep and bear arms. So I suggest we onpenly carry our firearms. After all, it is perfectly legal to OPENLY carry in Gerorgia.
“If we were to keep to a strict interpretation, the covered weapons would be restricted to those that were available when the clause was written.”
Am I to believe you wish to take the imterepret the constitution for the time period? Ok, then I suppose that you will refrain from excercising your 1st Amendment right on this forum anymore, because the internet was not availiable with that clause was written.
Botton line: I do not carry a firearm to protect you or anyone else on this forum. The firearm is for the protection of me and my family. I do not wish to be in law enforcement, nor do I wish to have their authority. The firearm I carry is yet another tool I may use in the protection of my life. I choose not to be a victim to criminal activity. If that is your choice, so be it.
I wish that for one time, those that take the anti-carry stance would have the intestinal fortitude to say what they really mean. Which is to obviously ban all guns. Well, you can blame the guns all you wish, I however, will place the blame on the element that truly requires me to carry. The criminals.
By Menk
May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
This and the other blog are the only things that legitimate this newspaper. No one here has any idea what a daily paper has to do to thrive in these times, so the Masthead has become just another degraded sh!tty brand on its way to the latest outlet mall to be suffocated by the newest outlet mall.
Without these blogs the paper is total bullsh!t.
By JK
May 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
As a progressive-minded (“liberal” if you must) white chick from the suburbs, I say, WOO-HOOOOO! Where do I get me one? What kind would fit nicely in my sweet feminine, hormone-affected hands, y’all?
I am surrounded by neo-fascist Republicans who want to take away my rights to privacy and ability to make my own medical decisions, monitor and record everything I do, dictate which campaign-contributing corporations will benefit from efforts to ease the pain and symptoms of… daily life, and subvert the American dream for everyone who is not exactly like them. These people have made it clear they do not appreciate dissenting opinions, and I should keep those to myself or I won’t be welcome at the neighborhood church anymore, let alone get on a booster club committe. And they indicated, practically in unison, that they had no problem with the citizens of NOLA being trapped, dehydrated and starving, at the point of a gun, rather than be allowed to cross a bridge to save their own lives. Survival of the fittest, indeed! The cops won’t be there to help me in a crisis, so YEAH BUDDY! SHOW ME SOME OF THEM THERE FIREARMS!
I’m gonna pack some heat and if these FASCIST ba——ds sniff their disapproval at me again, BLAM! If I want a bottle of Clos du Bois on Sunday, Publix is selling it to me! Yipeeee! Yes indeed, let’s DO play by your rules instead! Bring it, tough guys. Some people really do need killin’. (Life is GOOOOOD!)
By Lee
May 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Why is it that every negative comment is based on emotion, not facts and logic? The people who only want the government of GWB to have guns are the ones who truly frighten me… not the person next to me who may be packing a pistol to defend himself or herself.
By Menk
May 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
This and the other blog are the only things that legitimate this newspaper. No one here has any idea what a daily paper has to do to thrive in these times, so the Masthead has become just another degraded sh!tty brand on its way to the latest outlet mall to be suffocated by the newest outlet mall.
Without these blogs the paper is total bullsh!t.
By Cruzin
May 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Sonny will go down in Georgia history as the man who allowed us to have our 2nd amendment rights! Thank you Mr. Future VP!!
By Menk
May 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
This and the other blog are the only things that legitimate this newspaper. No one here has any idea what a daily paper has to do to thrive in these times, so the Masthead has become just another degraded sh!tty brand on its way to the latest outlet mall to be suffocated by the newest outlet mall.
Without these blogs the paper is total bullsh!t.
By ron
May 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Shar,Let me repeat;this bill pertains only to law abiding citizens.Those are people that haven’t committed a crime and aren’t likely to.Law abiding citizen,Shar.Repeat that.Law abiding citizen.Common sense individual.No bazookas,or as Cynthia likes to say”Howitzers in every home”.I applaud the Governor signing this bill.
I am aware that the Supreme Court is going to rule on the militia part of the 2nd Amendment.I am also aware that we,as a society,haven’t progressed far enough yet to preclude the need of a well regulated militia.
By Menk
May 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
This and the other blog are the only things that legitimate this newspaper. No one here has any idea what a daily paper has to do to thrive in these times, so the Masthead has become just another degraded sh!tty brand on its way to the latest outlet mall to be suffocated by the newest outlet mall.
Without these blogs the paper is total bullsh!t.
By Cruzin
May 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
After reading the nonsense statements made by the Georgia Restaurant Association, everyone (not liberals of course) should boycott all restaurants that belong to this childish immature association.
By Menk
May 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
This and the other blog are the only things that legitimate this newspaper. No one here has any idea what a daily paper has to do to thrive in these times, so the Masthead has become just another degraded sh!tty brand on its way to the latest outlet mall to be suffocated by the newest outlet mall.
Without these blogs the paper is total bullsh!t.
By Andrew
May 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Hate to rain on anyone’s bleeding heart parade, but most of the otherwise law-biding citizens who will actually take advantage of this law were likely already packing heat on MARTA. I for one would rather get written up on a weapons charge and be alive than be cut by a member of the Lakewood mafia.
By PAT
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Would someone tell “George Washington” to keep his comments to less than a single volume!? He’s wasting electrons and air. What a blowhard. Everytime a law like this is passed, there are uncountable predictions, using some liberal’s version of “common sense” that blood will be running in the streets the next day after this “horrible law” is passed. So far, in over 20 years of tracking right-to-carry laws, it just hasn’t happened. Look at the facts, not your so-called “common sense”! But, then, you can’t fix stupid! (Thnx to Ron White)
By Cruzin
May 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
After reading the nonsense statements made by the Georgia Restaurant Association, everyone (not liberals of course) should boycott all restaurants that belong to this childish immature association.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Bob, I just read your post and I want to know what you have been smoking (or pill popping)?
Firstly, you are offering the most bizare examples. When was the last time “Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant”? For heaven’s sake, what would they be trying to steal or blow up and why?
So, I will follow your “logic” one step futher. The person at the table next to me is “carrying” and he/she gets up from their seat and starts shooting at the “Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant”. Innocient little me - I’m caught in the cross-fire.
By any stretch of the imagination, these “incidents” you describe are few and far between (only magnified by your brain).
What would have happened in the Perimeter Mall Food Court (a few years ago) if the folks “carrying” started shooting at the perp. The answer: Lots more innocent victims would have been hurt and stuck in the cross fire.
You may have a permit to carry the gun, but when was the last time you went to a firing range to perfect your “aim”?
Not only should gun owners have licenses, but before issuing these licenses, there should be a compitence test on how to use it (just like taking a behind the wheels driving test)
By Where is she?
May 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Where is your wife’s body Sam Parker? WHy are you participating in this blog while in jail?
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Bob, I just read your post and I want to know what you have been smoking (or pill popping)?
Firstly, you are offering the most bizare examples. When was the last time “Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant”? For heaven’s sake, what would they be trying to steal or blow up and why?
So, I will follow your “logic” one step futher. The person at the table next to me is “carrying” and he/she gets up from their seat and starts shooting at the “Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant”. Innocient little me - I’m caught in the cross-fire.
By any stretch of the imagination, these “incidents” you describe are few and far between (only magnified by your brain).
What would have happened in the Perimeter Mall Food Court (a few years ago) if the folks “carrying” started shooting at the perp. The answer: Lots more innocent victims would have been hurt and stuck in the cross fire.
You may have a permit to carry the gun, but when was the last time you went to a firing range to perfect your “aim”?
Not only should gun owners have licenses, but before issuing these licenses, there should be a competence test on how to use it (just like taking a behind the wheels driving test)
By Disgusted
May 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
By Just wondering
May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
Hey, Menk, what do you think about the AJC’s blogs?
By Liberal Gun Owner
May 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Slotl: “You may have a permit to carry the gun, but when was the last time you went to a firing range to perfect your “aim”?”
Every other weekend.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Liberal Gun Owner, I do NOT have a permit to carry a gun. I do NOT own a gun. I will NEVER own a gun. But that is MY choice.
I would never infringe on anyone’s right to own a gun. What I do want is that before someone gets a license to carry a gun, that they are properly TRAINED in is use. I don’t think that is a lot to ask.
This is NOT the “Wild Wild West”. We do live in a “civilized” nation (I would hope).
By Steve Hatchett
May 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
I don’t know why we have to conceal our weapons. I should be able to carry my pistol in a holster so people can see it. Now that’s deterrence! Come to think of it, why can’t I point it at people? As long as I don’t pull the trigger, who am I harming? And it puts everyone on notice that I am a man not to be trifled with!
By RCH
May 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer
There are over 300,000 individuals who have a concealed weapons license. Please nameOne instance of said individuals committing a crime with a handgun. I am waiting!!!!!
By Liberal Gun Owner
May 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Slotl: I have yet to meet a GFL and firearm owner who does not engage in proper training.
By Clearheaded
May 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
We are the only nation in the entire civilized world so in love with guns! We don’t have the right to bear arms - unless we are in a militia! Why are we so afraid that we have to pack when we go to a restaurant, bar or park? And don’t give me the same old cliches please! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to bear arms if you are not in the military, police or other armed service. Period. Sonny will rue his decision.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Liberal Gun Owner, You must be smoking or popping the same pills as Bob.
You may not have “met” a firearm owner who does not engage in proper training.
But, if that were the case that “all firearm owners are trained”, why are children killed when they “find” their parents guns and play with them or take them to school?
I thought, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that firearms should be stored in a locked cabinet with the firing pin removed and the bullets in a separate locked storage cabinet.
By Curious Observer
May 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
RCH,
Chew on the following for a while—from the Brady Bill Web site:
This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study’s key findings are as follows:
For several years now, the nation’s crime rate has fallen – but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.
Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.
Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.
An analysis conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: allowing more people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1997 to 1998 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 6.4%, from 4930.0 to 4615.5 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling is this continuing trend where crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that do not allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.
From 1992 to 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for the 11 states that had liberal CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants) during this entire period dropped only 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was twice that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. New York and California — the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws — experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the six-year period. New York experienced a 43% decline and California experienced a 37% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.
By just me
May 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
I’m afraid of the licensed, background-checked gun owner because I know that many of them injure themselves and innocent by-standers in tense situations. I would rather see a criminal get into my wallet than to see one get into a gun battle with a amateur vigilante licensed gun owner.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Clearheaded, Sonny will NOT rue his decision until we, the people, find out how much (or what) he was “paid” for his signature by the NRA.
By JK
May 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
Clearheaded, I used to agree with you. Actually, I still agree with you, but I’ve learned that in this modern America of neo-fascists, my clearheaded opinion that considers the well being of others is neither wanted nor appreciated. Our government has been elected by neo-fascist “patriots” who put party before country, and their own prejudices before the principles we grew up believing this country stood for. We live in the world we live in, not the world we believe in. Hence, it’s not such a bad idea to arm scared young women before they head to the abortion clinic, for example. In fact, if you know one, please lend her your piece!
By RCH
May 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer
Lets try this again. Name ONE!!!!! instance of a licensed concealed weapons owner committing a felony with that weapon.
We can argue study after study if crime is reduced because of concealed handguns,but the fact remains there has been no instance of an O.K. coral, only cases of registered handguns used to stop crimes.
By Andrew
May 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Hate to rain on anyone’s bleeding heart parade, but most of the otherwise law-biding citizens who will actually take advantage of this law were likely already packing heat on MARTA. I for one would rather get written up on a weapons charge and be alive than be cut by a member of the Lakewood mafia.
By LB
May 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Jim, but as usual you’re wrong. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with party lines. If you think our communities will be safer with thousands of untrained, inexperienced, trigger-happy good ol’boys toting firearms, then you’re living in a dreamworld. This ain’t Bonanza. Good ol’ boy Sonny just opened Pandara’s box, and I’m a bit scared.
By David
May 15, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Wow, Jim. I guess Maureen, Mike, and Cynthia make your life a living hell for demonstrating such ability to reason. Too bad they can’t.
By Dave
May 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
GUN “OWNERS” kill people….not guns nor bullets….you get what you deserve. GA…just as backwards as it was in 1920! Instead of the “hate” for blacks…it’s now for hispanics…legal or not…
The “rest” of this country moves forward…GA…keeps going back in time…funny..yet sad.
By Michael
May 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Those of you who opposed HB 89 are worrying yourselves over nothing. I've carried in restaurants in other states (legally) without creating a scene. Can anybody who opposed HB 89 tell me what the difference is between my going to a Bennigans in Georgia armed and going to a Bennigans in Pennsylvania armed? Don't worry yourselves, the sky won't fall, and there won't be a shootout over every jar of mustard. Georgia has had concealed carry for forty years, and the sky is still up there in the sky. Relax.By jm
May 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I wonder what would happen to a law abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit if he tried to exercise his constitutional right to bring his weapon with him into the governor’s mansion. If those with concealed weapons permits are as law abiding Governor Perdue says, why doesn’t he allow them to bring their guns into government facilities?
By GHFLRLTD
May 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Slotl said:
“So, I will follow your “logic” one step futher. The person at the table next to me is “carrying” and he/she gets up from their seat and starts shooting at the “Two heavily-armed gunmen stormed into the restaurant”. Innocient little me - I’m caught in the cross-fire.”
You would have a better chance of not being shot for three reasons:
The expectations of the gunmen of no return fire would be shattered, much the same way that in the military I was taught to fire into an ambush rather than just take the incoming fire.
With the expectation shattered, the out-going fire would be less accurate, and the newly-found fear of being shot would shake them up.
My first shot would be very deliberate, since I would have the element of surprise. Assuming I hit Center of Mass, the fight is now one on one, and I am the main target, not anybody else.
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Michael, Be it Ga or Pa (or any other state), why do you find it necessary to “carry” in a restaurant?
What are you paranoid about? Is there someone out there who wants to “get you”?
By Marge N. Overa
May 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
I don’t know Michael, if you are about to finish the last of the Mister Mustard with horseradish, I might have to cap you.
By Copyleft
May 15, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
I, for one, am DELIGHTED that more people will be packing heat. That way, the lone gunman who terrorizes a crowded public space can be swiftly and easily dispatched…
Every single day. Everywhere. Gonna be a SWELL time, all right!
(Of course, I’m kidding. Everyone knows that criminals are 100% rational risk/reward evaluators who will never DARE break the law as long as they know other armed people are about. Emotions do not exist. An armed society is a polite society. This is a recording!)
By Shar
May 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Ron @ 12:54 - I can be shot by a bullet from the gun of a “law abiding citizen” just as easily as I can by a criminal when the two exchange shots. If a person is carrying a weapon in a public place, it is more likely to be used there than if it is left at home. Obviously. Far too many gun deaths are attributable to legally owned guns that are not adequately safeguarded or used too quickly, and most of those occur in the home. I respect the right of those who want to own guns to do so, but I expect that my right not to be endangered by that gun should be equally respected.
Today’s posters base their defense of HB 89 on the supposition that armed predators will be attacking them or their families, and the only way to survive is to shoot faster. Self defense and law enforcement advice on avoiding injury in such a situation is to hand over whatever is demanded or to run away. Using deadly force in an emotionally charged, fast-moving situation is not a good option unless there is no other available.
The comparative benefits of different methods, the likelihood of being attacked, the perspective of law enforcement officials, the rights of bystanders - none of these were considered in passing HB 89. Just the largesse of the NRA. There is not a requirement that those who bring these weapons into the public arena should be subject to conditions similar to those for driving a car (probably the most dangerous activity many of us will undertake) - passing a competency test, having the car/gun in safe operating condition and holding insurance so that if an accident takes place the victims can be compensated.
My youngest daughter, at 12, became the object of obsession for a classmate with a history of violent fantasies. He stalked and harassed her, and had a plan to slit her throat and drink her blood and then kill himself so they could be together in death forever. The public school system told me that this child had a right to make these threats because his psychological profile included the violent fantasies and they were therefore “protected”. However, they assured me that they didn’t “think” he’d actually kill her, so I had no right to infringe on his access to her in terms of class assignments, lunchroom access, etc. Needless to say, she was out of there.
I feel much the same way about HB 89. I find this to be a poorly thought out, undiscussed piece of legislation that is being imposed by an authority that is not considering my best interest or point of view. I do not share your faith that “law-abiding citizens” can be universally relied upon to exercise good judgement, skill and control, particularly in a high-adrenaline situation. I don’t think that armed individuals are interchangeable with law enforcement officers or a judge and jury. I believe that my safety is compromised when guns are brought into public places rather than left at home. I believe that the number of accidental gun deaths at home due to improper storage and handling can be extrapolated to an increase in accidental gun deaths in public places.
Do I have numbers on this? No. Neither do you offer proof of your position. The decision to circumvent discussion effectively cut off an analysis of the problem and the best means to resolve it. That is as unacceptable in public policy as it was in public school discipline.
By RCH
May 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Slotl
MichaelForgive the intrusion. I don’t find it necessarily the case to carry my gun in a particular restaurant,bus,or train.It is the path to get to a location that can worry me.For example driving my care through a bad neighbor hood, parking my car in a dark alley a block away from that popular restaurant.That is my greatest concern
By jbmlaw
May 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
Dear Bill @ 12:34, apologies, sometimes my attempts at humor are too bizarre to work. Perhaps if I had added my standard “under penalty of death” you would have appreciated my initial line. You are correct in your logic, that I think laws generally misfire when they aim at behavior of an individual who has not infringed the rights of another. You conclusion, however, is on point, that it is mostly legislation from the left that inappropriately infringe on freedom, whether we are talking about taxes or criminalizing political differences or tightly regulating good-faith differences in accounting techniques. No innocent babies are murdered by right-wing behavior laws.
By David
May 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Shar, LB and others of your ilk:
You completely, in liberal thinking (is that an oxymoron) fashion overlook the facts and truth and instead regurgitate emotionalism and fear-mongering. HB 89 was debated by the Legislature. Heck, it was over a year in coming to fruition. Currently there are approximately 250,000-300,000 licensed individuals in the state and prior to HB 89 they could legally carry in 80% of the restaurants. Where are your “gun fights”? Surely they would have already taken place over the past few years. So, now permit holders may carry into the other 20%. Oh no! Guns and alcohol do not mix. What!? Where is the logic here, folks? They were already prevented by law to carry into these establishments, now that they can you start spreading fear. Where is the data that shows how many GFL holders violated this portion of the law? You have none. Tucker, Downey, and King would have offered it if it existed. So, these people were abiding by the law. Now you try to say they’re all of a sudden going to begin breaking the new law once they can legally go through the doors carrying? Such a juvenile display of intellect (or lack thereof). Jim’s point on MARTA is on target (no pun intended), yet Shar must attempt to turn this to some disdain he/she feels Jim harbors for MARTA. Stick with the facts of the point in debate! Asking a liberal to “think” and “reason” is like asking Ted Kennedy for driving lessons.
By David
May 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
Shar wrote:
“If we were to keep to a strict interpretation, the covered weapons would be restricted to those that were available when the clause was written.”
OK, moron. Use your quill pen and hand press in this forum.
By Wyatt
May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
The presumption is that before now, no one in the city carried a gun. Well, read this newspaper and watch the TV news and you’ll see that’s not exactly true. The only difference is now, law-abiding citizens (in fact, only the ones PERMITted by government) can carry their guns wherever they want. Just like the criminals have been doing all along, except that these people are not criminals. Big difference, especially if you’re a criminal.
By By the Way
May 15, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Chalk me up as another liberal gun enthusiast. I like this law. Please dispense with the truly condescending, indeed, elitist, “Liberal Whining” B.S. There just might be a chance we have other issues in common. Why let your attitudes about others be so narrowly divided because some skillful radio or TV personality knows how to press your buttons? Be rational. Think for yourself. That is freedom.
By getalife
May 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Grandson of Nazi Enabler Decries Talking to Nazis
Scumbag.
By Mid-South Philosopher
May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
To Shar
You have made several good points today with respect to the argument concerning the citizenry going armed.
I would take issue with your suggestion that capital punishment has not afforded a deterrent to violent crime. I would argue that it is NOT capital punishment that has failed to deter the wrong-doers, rather, it is the slow administration of the punishment that has neutered its effect. There is a greater probability that a male criminal, sentenced to death, will die of prostate cancer before he will be executed in the United States. That would not be much of a deterrent if one believed, as most criminals do, that they just might get away with it.
As to the 2nd Amendment issue, you must remember that at the time the Bill of Rights was framed virtually ALL males above the age of 16 and below the age of 70 were considered as ripe for being a member of the militia. There were no National Guard armories and dam few military arsenals. We will see if the current Supreme Court Justices learned their American History or if they swallow the tripe manufactured by the *reformist historians.
The reason that I will not carry a weapon into a bar, a restaurant, a ballgame, on MARTA, or into a group of politicians is really quite simple. If one has a weapon, one must be ready and willing to use it. If I use it, I will use it well. There will be no wounding, no nicking, nor no flesh injuries. Do I really want to have that option? I think not.
By Big Liberal
May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
I am a Democrat and we need to tone down the name calling. This is not a political but an education issue. I have many guns, a permit to carry, and I carry everyday.
People in the media has taught us to hate and they have pitted us against each other.
We as permit holders have no interest in enforcing the law when we are on the street. The headache of having to go to court because we stopped a robbery in progress is not worth it, but if my life is in danger I will use deadly force.
Please dont blame democrats for all the things that you dont like. We are just not into the name calling as much, and we will stand shoulder to shoulder in the street fighting to protect our families TOGETHER!
By Liberal Pistolero
May 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
Shar-@2:32 you stated that, “Far too many gun deaths are attributable to legally owned guns that are not adequately safeguarded or used too quickly, and most of those occur in the home.” So if we carry, then the guns you fear won’t be at home. Problem solved.
By Joe Mama
May 15, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Awwwww, all these whining liberals need to go to one of their cuddle parties to make at all feel better again!!
By Maniac is accurate
May 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Jim, I’d watch out for that Bookman if I were you. He has written two – count ‘em, two – blogs today. He’s trying to wrest the title of Blog King from you. Don’t take it lying down.
He can’t hold a candle to you (though he’d probably like to). Heck, he even took off a comment I made earlier disparaging his new blog photo. What a ninny.
By Bob
May 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
No Party System, how can you vote for a person, who if he has his way, would prohibit law abiding citizens from owning and carring a gun? If you disagree with that just look at his voting record in the Ill. Sen. and the U.S. Sen. I am nither a rep or dem, just your avg. ind.
By Maniac is accurate
May 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Oh, and my crack about his photo wasn’t obscene, or nearly as bad as my usual gag about his picture looking slightly man-ish, but only slightly so.
By Bob
May 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
No Party System, how can you vote for a person, who if he has his way, would prohibit law abiding citizens from owning and carring a gun? If you disagree with that just look at his voting record in the Ill. Sen. and the U.S. Sen. I am nither a rep or dem, just your avg. ind.
By Bob
May 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
No Party System, how can you vote for a person, who if he has his way, would prohibit law abiding citizens from owning and carring a gun? If you disagree with that just look at his voting record in the Ill. Sen. and the U.S. Sen. I am nither a rep or dem, just your avg. ind.
By Maximum
May 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
What folks might not realize is the fact that many people have been packing for a long time anyway. Just ask a cop if he/she can protect you. Answer: They will get there when they can. It might be 10 minutes, might be 30, and if anything is going on, it might be never. Good job Sonny, just wished you had signed the bill on Day 1!!!
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Let me get this correct: I carry a loaded gun in my purse for that “just in case” moment. The firing pin is engaged and the bullets are loaded ready to go.
A “bad guy” comes by and steals my purse (not knowing that a gun was in there). So, now he has a gun and I don’t. I am much smaller (and weaker) than he is, so I can be overpowered very easily. When he opens my purse, I am DEAD MEAT!
My children go in my purse and find the loaded (ready to fire gun). REAL SAFE!
I get acosted on the street by a “bad guy”. How in the world am I going to have the time and presence of mind to search thru my purse looking for my gun. The robber wants my purse. Without the gun in it, he can have it. With the gun in it, I am in serious trouble. I’d rather fumble for mace.
I drop my purse, or throw it in the backseat of the car. My pen or pencil sticks in the trigger. BOOM, I have shot myself or my passengers.
What is the REAL reason to carry? To make you feel like a “real man” and have a bulge in your pants?
By NotSceered
May 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
All you chicken little gotta tote a gun to feel safe girly boys need to grow a pair. A gun doesn’t take the place of a pair of nads.
By Boxer
May 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
Bush goes to Israel and talks about “some Americans” who believe that talking with the enemy and appeasement is the answer. Guess who gets their panties in a wad? Liberal Demorats! Barack Obama who arrogantly thinks Bush was specifically referring to him, Nancy Pelosi the gas price hero, and that irrelevant hothead has been political hack Joe Biden, with Joe not being able to contain himself calling the comments bullsh!t.
No, you little pink skirts on the left are hacked off because you know Bush is right and you are wrong on this issue. Bush’s reference to some appeasement senator wishing to have had a chance to talk to Hitler said it all. How fun to watch these jackals scream and run around in circles! And no, Barack, you pompous liberal boob, the world and this nation CERTAINLY does not revolve around you. I’m sorry.
Regarding the topic of this blog today, liberal demorats overwhelmingly hate guns and want them all confiscated where we will all then be protected by their beloved government protection who can’t be everywhere at all times. I believe the AJC editor Cynthia Tucker is one of them. Any doubts can be cast aside if one did read comments in various leftist blogs after the former NRA president Charlton Heston passed last month.
By Doug
May 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
By RCH
May 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer
Lets try this again. Name ONE!!!!! instance of a licensed concealed weapons owner committing a felony with that weapon.
So the moron is back. RCH you dimwit how about the “law abiding, permitted man in Florida that shot his neighbor after an arguement over one bag of garbage too many at the curb? There is no shortage of incidents where otherwise “law abiding” persons shot someone over something really stupid. Of course coming from you RCH, an utter idiot that probably has never told the truth in your sorry ner do well life, what else can we expect.
By Sunny
May 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
I feel there are a couple of things I need to do here. I like to call these things my To Do List. First, in order to commemorate our new-found gun-toting freedoms, I want to also introduce a new annual event. I like to call it “Bring Your Gun to Work Day”. Personally, I’d rather combine this day with our “Bring Your Child to Work Day” and rename it “Bring Your Whatever to Work Day” but I have been advised that there may be some problems resulting from combining the two. So, we’ll just settle on having these two events on separate days that will be announced at some point in the future. Secondly, some of you have expressed concern about toting a gun on the Sabbath. Well, this is just a non-issue that was probably raised by a heathen. After all, we don’t drink on the Sabbath so there is no need to become alarmed by anyone that may or may not be toting something under their coat. Third and finally, I just want to ease all your concerns about getting shot by some crazed hidden-gun toter while out enjoying a meal. If you bother to read the new law, it says you can carry a concealed weapon. It don’t say nothin’ about concealing your ammunition. So just be on the lookout for anyone reaching into their shirt pocket and pulling out their bullet. You’ll have plenty enough time to take cover and even call the Sheriff before that bullet can be put into the gun and accidentally discharged.
Thank you all and let us prey.
By Shar
May 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Ron @ 12:54 - I can be shot by a bullet from the gun of a “law abiding citizen” just as easily as I can by a criminal when the two exchange shots. If a person is carrying a weapon in a public place, it is more likely to be used there than if it is left at home. Obviously. Far too many gun deaths are attributable to legally owned guns that are not adequately safeguarded or used too quickly, and most of those occur in the home. I respect the right of those who want to own guns to do so, but I expect that my right not to be endangered by that gun should be equally respected.
Today’s posters base their defense of HB 89 on the supposition that armed predators will be attacking them or their families, and the only way to survive is to shoot faster. Self defense and law enforcement advice on avoiding injury in such a situation is to hand over whatever is demanded or to run away. Using deadly force in an emotionally charged, fast-moving situation is not a good option unless there is no other available.
The comparative benefits of different methods, the likelihood of being attacked, the perspective of law enforcement officials, the rights of bystanders - none of these were considered in passing HB 89. Just the largesse or threats of the NRA. There is not a requirement that those who bring these weapons into the public arena should be subject to conditions similar to those for driving a car (probably the most dangerous public activity many of us will undertake) - passing a competency test, having the car/gun in safe operating condition and holding insurance so that if an accident takes place the victims can be compensated. Guns are not even treated as controlled substances, where a professional’s permission in the form of a prescription is needed before access is granted. If guns and ammunition were subject to that sort of training, financial penalty and limitation on access, perhaps more owners would exercise greater caution in their care and use.
My youngest daughter, at 12, became the object of obsession for a classmate with a history of violent fantasies. He stalked and harassed her, and had a plan to slit her throat and drink her blood and then kill himself so they could be together in death forever. The public school system told me that this child had a legally-protected right to make these threats because his psychological profile included the violent fantasies and the Americans With Disabilities Act protected the student from the consequences of recognized disabilities. However, they assured me that they didn’t have reason to believe that he was an imminent danger to her, so I had no right to infringe on his access to her in terms of class assignments, lunchroom access, etc. Needless to say, she was out of there. I regard that removal as irresponsible, selfish behavior on my part,though, as it did not address the danger to the remaining students in the school.
I feel much the same way about HB 89. It is being imposed upon me to the detriment of my safety without impartial analysis or consideration of my point of view, for the sake of expediency. I do not share your faith that “law-abiding citizens” can be universally relied upon to exercise good judgement, skill and control, particularly in a high-adrenaline situation. I don’t think that armed individuals are interchangeable with law enforcement officers or a judge and jury particularly in the heat of the moment. I believe that my safety is compromised when guns are brought into public places rather than left at home. I believe that the number of accidental gun deaths at home due to improper storage and handling can be extrapolated to an increase in accidental gun deaths in public places.
Do I have numbers on this? No. Neither do you offer proof of your position. The decision to circumvent discussion effectively cut off an analysis of the problem and the best means to resolve it. That is as unacceptable in public policy as it was in public school discipline.
By WarrenKuhn
May 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Well folks, a nice day of debate is wrapping up and Happy hour is coming.
What say we head over to the bar for a few cold ones… Ummm, unarmed of course! We’ll be safe,not even the most bold of criminals would date enter a bar with a firearm, what with the tough laws in place prohibiting it.
If someone were to bust in shooting, just grab the nearest Anti-HB89 person you can and use them as a vest!
I jest…
By Slotl
May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
Boxer,
Your quote (not mine) “because you know Bush is right and you are wrong “
Bush hasn’t been right on anything in 7 years. You must be one of those 28%ers who thinks Bush can do no wrong.
January 20, 2009 at noon cannot come fast enough. It doesn’t matter who is elected as long as BUSH is GONE.
By truth fairy
May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
By CHA
May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
The road to Hell in paved with good intentions…, it has extra thick pavement, multiple lanes to carry ever increasing traffic and it goes right through the Georgia State Capital!
The truth is!!!!
95% of all crimes committed in the US are liberal Democrats and illegal alien.
The road to Hell is full of (liberal) Democrats. Paved with good intentions…, it has extra thick pavement, multiple lanes to carry ever increasing traffic and it goes right through the Georgia State Capital!
Thank God for Gov. Sunny Perdue
By Chip
May 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
Hey Doug:
Do you think more lives have been saved by private gun owners protecting themselves and/or their families, or do you think more innocent lives have been taken by yahoos who legally own a gun over some small squabble? Idiot libs like you are what has made Washington DC so dangerous - you know DC, the district where guns are illegal. Don’t forget to include Kennesaw’s crime stats and legal gun owners shooting innocents while you are digging those numbers up for us, Doug.
By RCH
May 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Doug
If we are speaking about the same case it was a registered gun not a concealed weapons permit . Slotl You are right. You shouldn’t carry a gun. After almost 30 years with a license I have never had any of those things happen or known anyone that has happened too.
By Lily Toad
May 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
RCH, if you are too scared to walk down the street to a restaurant, maybe you don’t need to go to that restaurant.
By Boxer
May 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
By Slotl May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
Boxer,
Your quote (not mine) “because you know Bush is right and you are wrong “
Read much Slotl, or do you like not using ALL the words someone says like a good little pos liberal demorat?
Read it again, eggface:
“No, you little pink skirts on the left are hacked off because you know Bush is right and you are wrong on this issue.”
Typical lying pos lib. No, Bush has not been right on everything, like Nancy Pelosi and gas prices, among other things.
Take a walk, you got caught lying and misrepresenting as usual per a liberal demorat, Slutl.
By RCH
May 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
Doug
If we are speaking about the same case it was a registered gun not a concealed weapons permit . Slotl You are right. You shouldn’t carry a gun. After almost 30 years with a license I have never had any of those things happen or known anyone that has happened too.
By dirty harry
May 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
By Bob
May 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Hey, moron … If you are unable to make one post without making five..how can one trust you with a gun? Learn the basics of using a keyboard …OK?
By RCH
May 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Doug
If we are speaking about the same case it was a registered gun not a concealed weapons permit . Slotl You are right. You shouldn’t carry a gun. After almost 30 years with a license I have never had any of those things happen or known anyone that has happened too.
By Dusty
May 15, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
Shar@4:01
I am sorry about your daughter’s experience. This seems more in line with the over reaching of the Disabilites Act. Either it was misinterpreted or written incorrectly. I cannot imagine any school letting a child remain in danger and obviously, it was dangerous.
But you have made a point FOR having guns. That psychotic disabled child will be the same when he grows up. He may have no controlling systems, meds or guardians. He will be on the streets sooner or later.
On account of his type and those who rob & kill without regret, we are left with the desire for self protection. Gun training and the use of guns seems like the best we can do to take care of ourselves.
I prefer other security but we all know that police and others cannot be with you at all times. Total security by others is impossible. Besides guns, have you ever taken other self protection measures such as karate?
By truetoform
May 15, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Speaking as a gay Georgian,I’m so glad law-abiding Georgians can now carry guns into restaurants and onto public transportation, etc. But be warned and think twice you redneck, homophobic Christianists before harrassing us. There is nothing scarier than a mad homosexual carrying a semi-automatic. Thank God for Sonny Perdue!
By cep
May 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
“The Georgia Restaurant Association, likewise, magnified its distress, arguing that servers shouldn’t be put in the position of asking to see patron’s permit before serving alcohol.”
This statement makes no sense. If a patron has a gun, they are not supposed to imbibe. There is no need for a “permit check.” Bartenders have to used judgement about who to serve every day, anyway.
But really most are missing the point of this bill. Consider this scenario: You live in town and want to walk and/or ride MARTA to meet friends out for dinner. That walk is going to feel a lot safer if you have the gun with you when you walk home in the dark after dinner. You don’t NEED the gun on MARTA. MARTA is safe for the most part. Outside of the stations is not always safe. Walking home from the station is not always safe. Before guns were allowed on MARTA, you had to walk home unprotected. I have seen 14 year olds (they looked to be that old) carrying on my street in town - they were showing off the gun to friends as they walked. Do you think THEY CARE about the law?
By David
May 15, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
Slotl wrote:
“Let me get this correct: I carry a loaded gun in my purse for that “just in case” moment. The firing pin is engaged and the bullets are loaded ready to go.
A “bad guy” comes by and steals my purse (not knowing that a gun was in there). So, now he has a gun and I don’t. I am much smaller (and weaker) than he is, so I can be overpowered very easily. When he opens my purse, I am DEAD MEAT!
My children go in my purse and find the loaded (ready to fire gun). REAL SAFE!
I get acosted on the street by a “bad guy”. How in the world am I going to have the time and presence of mind to search thru my purse looking for my gun. The robber wants my purse. Without the gun in it, he can have it. With the gun in it, I am in serious trouble. I’d rather fumble for mace.
I drop my purse, or throw it in the backseat of the car. My pen or pencil sticks in the trigger. BOOM, I have shot myself or my passengers.
What is the REAL reason to carry? To make you feel like a “real man” and have a bulge in your pants?”
Sounds to me like: 1) You have an extremely narrow view of the reasons to possess a weapon. 2) Your examples are juvenile and indicate you are very careless. You definitely should not own or carry a firearm. They also indicate a very narrow and biased view. That does not mean it is true for the rest of us. 3) You have no data to support your claims (CCW has been legal in GA for many years). True, accidents happen. They are obviously not as plentiful as you wish to convey. 4) You are quite ignorant of HB 89, among other things obviously. 5) You are sexist. I know quite a few women that carry, they want no buldges in their pants.
People have been CCW for years in this state. Where are all the dead children at McDonalds, Burger King, etc.? Go hug your trees, believe your puppy is human, whatever blows your skirt up. Quit telling me how to live my life. I’m in far more danger of you on the road than you are of my firearm.
By Fred Luger
May 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
“I have seen 14 year olds (they looked to be that old) carrying on my street in town - they were showing off the gun to friends as they walked. Do you think THEY CARE about the law?”
No, cep, and that’s the entire point. Someone else mentioned Washington DC and their banning of guns and guess who are the only people walking down the street with guns? Criminals. The point here is that those who want to own a gun, can, in a public place. Those who really want to own a gun, legal or illegal, will. Something else that hasn’t been brought up is all these killings by pychos praying on female bicyclists and hikers in state parks. There is no sweeter justice than a greaseball criminal getting greased by a law-abiding citizen protecting him or herself. Perhaps that’s just it: those that are against the freedom of legal gun ownership are against freedom of protection and feel they have lost control over said folk. Yeah, I think that’s the more underlying reason since not many examples have been given here of law abiding, concealed weapon carrying gun owners shooting it up like they’re at the OK Corral. What did we have, one whopping example from Florida?
By David
May 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer wrote: “Way to elevate Georgia to No. 1 in redneckism, Sonny! My guess is that the law will be on the books for a maximum of two years. Shortly, we will be reading a plethora of news items about shoot-outs at restaurants, bars, and parks.
Being background-checked and fingerprinted is no insurance against gun violence. It’s a good bet that 90% of those involved in violence and other crimes have never been arrested. And nothing in the new law mandates a check of the testosterone levels that lead to outbreaks of violence.
You can bet that if I see a gun-toting customer other than a uniformed police officer walk into a restaurant I’m patronizing, I’ll be leaving immediately.”
Sir/Madam,
Until you read HB 89 and do a little research (you’ve done absolutely zero, you obviously have not read many of the posts here either), why don’t you quit posting this ignorant, childish drivel.
You won’t see anyone “toting” in a restaurant. It has to be concealed. Plus, it’s been going on for years and years in 80% of the restaurants in Georgia. How many times have you walked out due to someone “toting”?Morons like you never cease to amaze me.
By MILTON
May 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this
SONNY KNEW THE SCORE. NO STATE WIDE OFFICE IN THE FUTURE.PEOPLE GET A GRIP!YOU COULD ALWAYS CARRY IN EATING PLACES THAT DID NOT SERVE ALCOHOL. WILD WEST IT IS NOT! MACHINE GUNS ARE OUTLAWED SINCE THE 30’S 40’S.I LOVE THE BLEEDING HEARTS WHEN THINGS DO NOT GO THEIR WAY.
By Fred Luger
May 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
By Curious Observer:
“You can bet that if I see a gun-toting customer other than a uniformed police officer walk into a restaurant I’m patronizing, I’ll be leaving immediately.”
Boy did Wooten get the left all riled up over this short topic today or what? LOL! For the record, many people carry a small firearm around my ankle. It can’t be seen with long pants on. Second, I’m so sure if Curious Observer threatens to walk out of a restaurant because he sees some Clint Eastwood lookalike, that this law will magically be changed. One thing is for certain: if you want to get the emotionalism out of liberals and the loon left, just bring up tax cuts and gun rights. Guaranteed fireworks!
By Peter
May 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this
Hey Milton Automatic weapons have NOT been outlawed.
By TW
May 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
Really very shocking that we’ve not seen any concern from the right for the devastaion guns bring to areas like New Orleans, St Louis, Detroit, etc…the altruistic rightwing silence on this is shocking…
As far as the law - moot point. There will be no difference. If the rightwinger needs to pack some heat to feel like he’s got some of his pecker left after what the ‘w’ admin has done to them over the past eight - than so be it…yee-ha…
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By BStockdale
May 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs - There are lots of areas of Atlanta where fingerprinted individuals with well known, documented backgrounds like to play shoot’em up. Shirley and Cynthia and the MARTA unions are all in a tizzy over GUNS. I know how many GUNS are out there. When you have some snot nosed teenage punk (any race) steal your bookbag and textbooks at gun point on the East Line on your way back to civilization on a Friday night from GA State after a final exam and everyone else on the car pretends you aren’t even there…. yeah, ya’ll just keep on whining.
As for the APD being there to pull your backsides out of a “situation”, it would appear to me that with all the “danger” in the city with GUNS, we could find a better use for APD assets than to commit 6 squad cars and 9 uniformed officers to license / belt checks in Midtown.
By Winfield Scott
May 15, 2008 7:01 PM | Link to this
Get to the part about the chickens, George.
By Shawn
May 20, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw….That is an interesting…though flawed assesment. Restraunteers CAN in fact have a “GUN FREE” establishment. If your caught, you will be asked to leave, and if you don’t, you can be charged with criminal trespass (not a weapons violation) But since you are talking about the choice of a business owner, Do you remember when ole Sonny decided that a restraunt owner didn’t deserve the responsibility to decide whether or not they wanted their patrons to smoke inside their place of business or not?
By jimbo
May 22, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Well, looking at these posts.. I see a lot of people who didn’t bother to read the law, only the poorly written news coverage of it.. and people who have opinions and “feelings” but no actual facts to back them up and haven’t bothered to do any unbiased research to support their position.
Concealed carry permits have been allowed in this state for YEARS. Many years in fact. This law clarifies some of the more vague portions of the original law and allows carry into three additional areas.
You ignorant knuckleheads who don’t think you already eat around people with guns need to get with the program. This changes.. very little.
Parks. Most of the parks in Atlanta or sort of overrun with seedier folks. You can’t tell me this wouldn’t be good women who go to parks alone. Mace and Tasers are ok I suppose but they aren’t foolproof and in fact may be more dangerous than guns to the user. When you mace someone a lot of times you mace yourself and with a taser you have one shot, what happens if you miss?
Public Transportation. MARTA is currently the get away vehicle of choice for bank robbers. A woman was walked off a MARTA bus last week at gun point by a guy who stopped the bus. Obviously people with permits are the LEAST of MARTA’s problems. If you think that people like me are going to make MARTA a different or more dangerous place than it already is.. you’re high.
Now, why would someone want to carry in a restaurant or MARTA? Because of the places we go to get there. If we go to a restaurant that doesn’t allow carry our option is to leave the gun in the car where it can be stolen. That IS a recipe for criminal gun violence. Leaving it on my hip is safer for everyone involved. MARTA takes you places and acts as a disarming portal when you use it. When you get where you’re going, you want to carry but.. you can’t.
As for you ignorant savages who think that their business lost the ability to ban armed patrons.. How can you possibly be good at business when you refuse to understand how that law operates? If you go to American Heritage Furniture in Duluth, near Dave and Busters you will see a sign on the door that says “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED ON PREMISES” Holy crap, that’s all it takes for a law abiding citizen like me to turn around and go put the gun in the car. I don’t like it, but it’s not my place to violate their right. So if you don’t want people with guns in your place of business put up a sign. It will at least keep those of us who obey the law from bringing guns in.
As for those of you who feel that those of us with concealed carry permits are just going to shoot up the place.. well..statistics from the Department of Justice and local city statistics seem to indicate that you don’t know what you’re talking about Chicago and DC and New York are much more dangerous than here on a per capita basis and they all have significant gun bans. Philadelphia has more crime than most of the rest of Pennsylvania, but has the most restrictive gun laws and year after year gun crime has been on the rise in the UK. We’re not the problem, those criminals who don’t mind the law are. We shoot less and with typically fewer mistakes than cops and a lot of times we don’t have to shoot at all. Our “rules of engagement” are very specific and if we mess it up we go to JAIL. Yeah I get angry and frustrated all the time and I have a gun on my hip often, but none of you people are worth prison time and I’m not the murderous sort.
So before you open your trap to speak about permit holders and what we will or won’t do, or what this law means for you.. why don’t you try learning a little bit about both from something a little more reliable than your local news outlet.