Thinking Right

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

• Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 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