Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

2nd amendment victory in GA

80 posts in this topic

From the article:

“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.”

While signing the bill, he

said:

“Our state has some of the best protections for gun owners in the United States. And today we strengthen those rights protected by our nation’s most revered founding document.”

In addition to allowing licensed owners to carry in more places than ever, the bill

also eliminates the fingerprinting requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses, prohibits the state from creating and maintaining a database of licensed weapons carriers, and repeals the state-required license for firearms dealers.

Read it here

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.”

While signing the bill, he

said:

“Our state has some of the best protections for gun owners in the United States. And today we strengthen those rights protected by our nation’s most revered founding document.”

In addition to allowing licensed owners to carry in more places than ever, the bill

also eliminates the fingerprinting requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses, prohibits the state from creating and maintaining a database of licensed weapons carriers, and repeals the state-required license for firearms dealers.

Read it here

It is a good first step. Now if we could just do away with all the other infringements of my right to keep and bear arms.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of

Guns are allowed everywhere except for A, B, C.

where A, B, and C are infringements

It takes the form of

Guns aren't allowed anywhere except for X, Y, Z.

where X, Y, and Z are exceptions to infringement.

Not exactly 2nd-Amendmentesque. Hopefully a good piece of legislation not destined to fail. Fail how? Not keeping licenses and databases and fingerprints all but begs the feds to come in and do it for them. Some bikers passing through and shooting up the locals at the bar for playing the wrong song on the jukebox and the 2nd Amendment is probably still easy enough for everyone to recognize. Five Muslims walk into a bar shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and do the same thing, and the republicans elected to save our country in 2016, so famous for respecting our gun rights and railing about Obama, will do what they always do, pile more federal bureaucracy on top of the bureaucracy they already birthed to handle their terrorist problem. They're not going to kill their own baby, but it's obviously fun to pretend that the democrat babysitters at the moment are the real extent of the problem. I might even have to make an appearance defending Muslims' rights to carry guns in America; it wouldn't surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State laws trump federal in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State laws trump federal in this case.

In this case, not the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

Add Tennessee to the list because we've have similar laws for several years. Oddly enough we haven't turned into the old wild west.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

They wouldn't want you anyway. I hear Russia is nice this time of year.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite part was the gun in churches and bars part. Made my mind immediately jump to the "booze, bibles, and beer".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the news this evening they said the law was progressive. progressive? more like going back to the way the founders wanted it

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

I would imagine GA is now a very safe place to have a convention less chance of some nut job pulling out a gun. an armed population is a safe population.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only place I disagree with are bars. Alcohol + guns = not good. Every other place is alright in my opinion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only place I disagree with are bars. Alcohol + guns = not good. Every other place is alright in my opinion.

It is up to the owner to decide if they will allow guns in their establishment or not, as it should be. It should also be the owners choice whether to allow people to smoke in their place of business, but that is another topic for another day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

Are you safer in Illinois? Nope. Not by a long shot.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to skip GA as a destination for anything - conventions, tourists, business, etc.

I don't think Oregon does. But if you could add it to your 'skip' list that would be super.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an un-armed person I'm not thrilled about being anywhere where a bunch of people are carrying, most of whom are strangers whose maturity & judgments & weapons training are unknown factors. I have friends who carry and that's fine with me. On the other hand, I know people who carry who are on mood altering meds & drink alcohol who definitely have diminished capacity. One almost shot the family dog late one night. It's the Oscar Pistorius syndrome: late at night, in bed, knowing there's other living beings in the house, the security alarm didn't go off, a big dose of meds had been taken a couple of hours previously, heard a noise (it was the dog), assumed it was an intruder, grabbed a gun, and was ready to shoot.

It's my opinion that not everyone should be armed because of various contributing factors like the ones above, but I also don't see how the right to bear arms can be preserved without putting weapons in the hands of people with diminished capacity due to prescription meds, alcohol consumption, or a history of poor judgment. It's a quandary, for sure.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the tension between civil liberties like private property rights and the right to bear arms? If I own a bar, and I enforce the policy that the only three people packing heat in my establishment are me and my two bouncers, the 2nd Amendment doesn't cease to exist because concealed carriers walked into my bar, and yet I infringe on their right to bear arms anyway. Neither right is sacrosanct when each opposes the other. It must become a matter of picking a right and picking an infringement by extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Georgia what do you expect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How about the tension between civil liberties like private property rights and the right to bear arms? If I own a bar, and I enforce the policy that the only three people packing heat in my establishment are me and my two bouncers, the 2nd Amendment doesn't cease to exist because concealed carriers walked into my bar, and yet I infringe on their right to bear arms anyway. Neither right is sacrosanct when each opposes the other. It must become a matter of picking a right and picking an infringement by extension.

Life is seldom black and white, is it? Personally, I'd rather walk into a room where no one is carrying than into a room where anyone and perhaps everyone is. I would feel safer and most likely statistically be safer. I'm not likely to get shot if no one is carrying a weapon in the first place. Now here's where I'd like to see the guns put out in the open. If people are packing I want to know who they are so I can decide whether to stay or leave, or who to avoid or who not to annoy in any way. The very fact that someone is carrying can be an intimidation factor.

Edited by Beany
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or gunmen who aren't intimidated at all because they know they're the only ones in the room with a gun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting in Georgia.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3S0GO20140429?irpc=932

Quotes from this very thread. Are all of these still making sense? Seriously. I know it could've happened anywhere, but since it was in Georgia, and that's the state this thread is about, it seems relevant here.

"I would imagine GA is now a very safe place to have a convention less chance of some nut job pulling out a gun. an armed population is a safe population."

"It is a good first step. Now if we could just do away with all the other infringements of my right to keep and bear arms."

"Are you safer in Illinois? Nope. Not by a long shot."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of

Guns are allowed everywhere except for A, B, C.

where A, B, and C are infringements

It takes the form of

Guns aren't allowed anywhere except for X, Y, Z.

where X, Y, and Z are exceptions to infringement.

Not exactly 2nd-Amendmentesque. Hopefully a good piece of legislation not destined to fail. Fail how? Not keeping licenses and databases and fingerprints all but begs the feds to come in and do it for them. Some bikers passing through and shooting up the locals at the bar for playing the wrong song on the jukebox and the 2nd Amendment is probably still easy enough for everyone to recognize. Five Muslims walk into a bar shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and do the same thing, and the republicans elected to save our country in 2016, so famous for respecting our gun rights and railing about Obama, will do what they always do, pile more federal bureaucracy on top of the bureaucracy they already birthed to handle their terrorist problem. They're not going to kill their own baby, but it's obviously fun to pretend that the democrat babysitters at the moment are the real extent of the problem. I might even have to make an appearance defending Muslims' rights to carry guns in America; it wouldn't surprise me.

If the Muslims are US citizens they have an ABSOLUTE right to possess firearms. This law will be challenged by the Feds almost certainly but Georgia did the right thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the ironic nature of someone from Illinois suggesting they are not going to Georgia because of possible gun Violence from folks who carry legal guns....

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the ironic nature of someone from Illinois suggesting they are not going to Georgia because of possible gun Violence from folks who carry legal guns....

It IS pretty funny, isn't it? :w00t:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS pretty funny, isn't it? :w00t:

LOL I second that

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting in Georgia.

http://mobile.reuter...140429?irpc=932

Quotes from this very thread. Are all of these still making sense? Seriously. I know it could've happened anywhere, but since it was in Georgia, and that's the state this thread is about, it seems relevant here.

"I would imagine GA is now a very safe place to have a convention less chance of some nut job pulling out a gun. an armed population is a safe population."

"It is a good first step. Now if we could just do away with all the other infringements of my right to keep and bear arms."

"Are you safer in Illinois? Nope. Not by a long shot."

So you have statistical proof that these quotes are actually wrong, or you just have an opinion and a single story?

Anyone can go find a story where people are actually attending conventions and no one is killed.

And I think you'd be hard pressed to show that Atlanta is more dangerous then Chicago due to this law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.