A new conceal/carry law went into effect today in Georgia...The new state law, which Bearden(R-Villa Rica) sponsored, permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms in parks, on public transportation and in restaurants that serve liquor.
I predict, contrary to bed-wetting, liberal hysterics about guns, violent crime will plummet as as result of this legislation. When the criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't, they tend to select carefully their victims. Good for Georgia.
Aside: this guy Bearden was planning on taking his weapon to the Atlanta airport to pick up a relative in order to test the TSA's ban on firearms in airports. Wisely, TSA said he'd be arrested the second he steps foot on airport property. Carrying a gun around your neighborhood is one thing but where security is provided, they should have the right to ban them if there is a compelling reason to do so...psychiatric facilities, airports, and police stations are three places that come to mind.
24 comments:
Amen! you said it all Ed. More guns= less crime. genious.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm, Carlos?
Everywhere there are conceal/carry laws, there is far less violent gun crime than in places where guns are banned. Look no further than DC for proof. The most draconian gun ban which yeilded the highest per capita gun deaths in the US.
I've been looking around the internet trying to find an answer to this question:
If the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to carry a firearm
1. Shouldn't it be legal to carry one onto an airplane, or a bus?
2. Shouldn't people in jail be allowed to own weapons.
3. Shouldn't crazy people be allowed to own weapons?
It seems to me that you can't cherry pick when, who and where the 2nd amendment applies.
If it says "citizens" and doesn't specify where, isn't it anyone anywhere???
I'll check back and hope I get good answer
Well you still have to get a permit to carry one. It is similar to your right to assemble. You still have to have a permit to assemble in most areas. They aren't going to give out guns to anyone who will take one. You have to get a license for it, and part of getting a license will be things such as competency tests. Also when in jail, I don't think you are technically a citizen, are you? You no longer have the right to vote. You give up alot of things when you go to jail. As for airplanes, you wouldn't need one on an airplane because you wouldn't need at one at an airport, because security is provided. As for busses, I don't have any idea why wouldn't be able to. I imagine you probably could.
Laws should be made on the assumption that the governed are law abiding citizens. Afterall, most of us are exactly that - law abiding. How can you restrict all citizens as if were were all (potential) criminals? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Excellent point Tracie.
I'd make some good points with which to debate you hamster, but Tracie and Kevin already did.
I am sorry, Ed, if I seemed to display a bit of sarcasm but but you must understand that it's hard to show if one is being sarcastic or not through text alone. I meant to show no sarcasm what-so-ever as i whole- hartedly agree with what you are saying.
Thanks for your responses.
The reason I ask is because I was reading an article about gun rights activists challenging Atlanta's law barring guns in airports.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns2-2008jul02,0,6818195.story
Aren't there some places a gun just shouldn't be allowed...like in a school or in an airplane at 30,000 feet? (I know you can't carry a gun on visiting day at Folsom prison)
What are the limits to the 2nd amendment and , if so, who makes them up? Is it just some arbitrary group saying "OK crazy people, non citizens and people in jail...they don't qualify. Everyone else is OK.
And if we say certain people can own guns but others can't (prisoners for example) who are these people who make up the rules? Are they at the state or federal level?
And if you say mentally unstable people can't own guns, who decides if being depressed is enough reason to bar you from owning a gun.
Hey Kevin
Thanks for your information. I checked the internet and you are right. Almost all the state deny prisoners the right to vote ...except Maine and Vermont.
So I guess in most states you could argue that if you don't have the right to vote, you can't have the benefits of the 2nd amendment
Thanks Tracie
OK maybe being a prisoner sounds a little far fetched. I can understand needing to be a law abiding citizen.
But what about mentally unstable people who haven't committed any crime other than being a little "unusual" and talking to imaginary people a lot?
Do you actually have to have been committed to the nut house before you can't own a gun.
Or What if you've got a reputation around town for having anger management problems...say, the neighbors have called the cops on you three or four times because you pushed your wife around a bit?
Is the right to own a gun absolute?
If not where do the "exceptions" end?
Hi Kevin.
Do you think having to obtain a license to own a gun or having to meet age requirements is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment?
I ask because back in the days when the 2nd amendment was written I don't think you had to have a license to own a gun...even kids were given guns and taught how to hunt.
Guns were just household items...like an ax or a broom.
Sorry to ask so many questions but this 2nd Amendment ruling leaves me with more questions than answers
Thanks for your opinions
I think maybe the easiest and only explanation is that the times are changing and the world is different now. This leads the powers that be the task of interpreting the laws a little differently than they would have 200 years ago. The reason we put these people in power is so that they can decide who should and shouldn't be able to own a gun, i.e. convicts, mentally unstable people, and non-citizens. If we didn't have people to interpret the laws, we would have no way of knowing exactly what the law states. Times and technology are changing, so the interpretations of the constitution should logically change as well. However I do believe that citizens should be allowed to carry guns for protection when protection is not provided. That is why citizens can't carry guns into an airport, when they visit someone in prison, at sporting events, etc.
Kevin
What you say sounds reasonable...that times change and so do laws. And that in the absence of the founding fathers, someone has to be in charge of deciding what they meant. Sort of like what the Catholics have...a pope to decide what Jesus meant.
I agree. People do change over time. Look at the changes in attitude towards homosexuality over the last 50 years...from hiding in the closet to general acceptance
People change over time. So the laws get interpreted differently from time to time.
Who knows. Several hundred years from now people might even revert to thinking that women shouldn't vote or that blacks are genetically different and shouldn't intermarry with whites.
It's makes me uncomfortable that there aren't any absolutes...that everything get's interpreted differently in different generations....even in different cultures.
But it is true there are different strokes for different folks.
Carlos, sorry about the suspicion but I rarely get wholehearted support from readers unless it's sarcastic. Thanks for chiming in. We gun nuts needs to stick together.
Yes we do Ed. I find it rarer and rarer to find fellow gun nuts everyday. Also I was looking at you music section and noticed thats its been 2 or 3 months since the last "Whats in Ed's music player?" If your music taste has changed any since then, you might consider doing another one so that we may ridicule you or put our own music tastes out for ridicule.
I think hamster is raising some good tough questions.
I am glad to see new faces, and names to go with them, so many people like to hide behind anonymous. But yes, hamster those are excellent questions.
@hamster,
in the absence of the founding fathers, someone has to be in charge of deciding what they meant.
That would be the Supreme Court. If you read the bill of rights, you will see that every single one guarantees individual rights, except the tenth which is collective. They don't grant rights, they legally guarantee God-given rights. It's difficult to imagine the framers ensuring individual rights in the amendments, and then saying, "Oh, that one about guns, that's only for the National Guard, not individuals." It's ridiculous!
FYI - I'm not new - I'm AKA Freedom or freedom2learn - when I signed up i just used my gmail as my screen name - I never bothered to change it - until now.
Haha ooh, mind if i continue to call you freedom? I always thought the name was cool
That would be fine - Maybe I should have changed it to freedom rather than my name - i might do that.
I kind of like Tracie.
Ed.
The question you raised the right question in my mind: "Is the constitution and it's amendments documents that outline "God given rights" that are good for all Americans at all times?
Or are they just rules that were written hundreds of years ago meant to apply to the original 13 colonies...rules that don’t necessarily apply to future generations?
Was the 2nd amendment written for a specific purpose 200 years ago?
(I don't think back then they had any issues with gun ownership. Back then everyone had guns to hunt for food.)
Or was it meant to send a message to every succeeding generation that guns are a God given right of every American…throughout all succeeding generations?
If it is a god given right then it would seem that once a ‘Supreme court rules on the issue, no future court with an "anti gun" bias should be allowed to change the rules. Once the court rules...that's it. That’s how God meant it to be.
But that doesn't seem to be the way the courts work.
In one generation the court decides that abortion is legal...in another generation they could very well overturn the previous court's ruling
Or Like the the 18th Amendment that prohibits alcohol...being followed by the 21st amendment that repeals the 18th amendment.
That doesn't sound like something God would do...change his mind.
Here's how I am starting to think.
People change over time. So do the laws the create to govern them.
The constitution was good for the original 13 colonies and the bill of rights served a useful purpose 200 years ago.
But as times change as do the way people think.
It's not the hand of God that wrote the constitution or the Bill of rights. Just very wise men who were seeking some solutions for specific problems of THEIR times.
But times change
Homosexuality a "no no" 200 years ago; today, a perfectly acceptable lifestyle to most
Women's right, a no no 200 years ago; perfectly acceptable today
Slavery, perfectly acceptable 200 years ago; but a definite no no today.
Gun rights...very acceptable today...but no telling how many more gun massacres it will take to turn public opinion. 20 years from now the tide may turn against gun rights.
How about this: Rather than letting the courts decide what is right for each generation, I think people should decide.
Folks in gay and liberal San Francisco can have their gay marriages; people in conservative Oklahoma can have a ban on abortions.
Gun rights. Why not let each state or city vote on it?
After all, that's Democracy.
Post a Comment