The politics of packing heat in public places

Why aren’t there any quotes from Ray McBerry? If he was one of the candidates that was being focused on, why no quotes from him?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ray McBerry? Get over it… he ain’t happening

• Link
• Report this comment

At my church we often pray for God to left the fear the engulfs those who feel the need to carry a gun. After all, God’s love is happiness and freedom. Without a doubt, those who sport a firearm are too scared to ever experience real freedom. How sad.

• Link
• Report this comment

Will Jones:

What on earth are you talking about, and what does it have to do with our right to carry defensive arms in public?

• Link
• Report this comment

It is disappointing, but not suprising that the author failed to mention the overwhelming applause that Ray McBerry received when he spoke at the GeorgiaCarry event when he declared that any federal agent who tried to disarm a law-abiding Georgia citizen (as was done during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), would find himself in a Georgia jail. To date McBerry is the only republican candidate to take this bold of a position in defense of Georgia’s citizens. I have recently met several GeorgiaCarry members in the Augusta area and they all support McBerry.

• Link
• Report this comment

When the legislature allows firearms in their building, I’ll accept the consequences in other public places. Don’t let the cowards maintain a double standard.

• Link
• Report this comment

“From my cold, dead hands.” – Charlton Heston. By the way Anita Dunn who works for Obama and is smearing Fox News said one of her favorite two philosophers EVER is Mao Tse Tung. That’s right, a man who is responsible for millions and millions of deaths of his own people. So Mao is good and Fox is bad? Fox bad, Mao good? Something doesn’t add up here. Well these are the type of people the administration admire, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro. Men who were evil dictators and opressed their people. These men were a disgrace and this administration is a disgrace.

• Link
• Report this comment

“At my church we often pray for God to left the fear the engulfs those who feel the need to carry a gun. After all, God’s love is happiness and freedom. Without a doubt, those who sport a firearm are too scared to ever experience real freedom. How sad.”

First of all not all, people who carry weapons do it for protection from crime. Some of us simply enjoy the sport of shooting. Secondly, it’s not necessarily fear that leads one to arm himself. However it is almost ALWAYS fear that prevents the victim from fighting back against his assailant. One of God’s greatest gifts to man is the freedom to choose. I my friend, choose to fight back. To believe that we live in a society that is all love and happiness is to be very, very naïve. It would be nice if that were the case, but everyone here knows that it is just not to be.

P.S. I don’t identify as a conservative or a republican.

• Link
• Report this comment

For every criminal stopped by a law abiding gun carrier, there are twenty accidental/suicide deaths in households with firearms.

May God forgive those who choose firearms over His Grace.

• Link
• Report this comment

Its grace gave America the Second Amendment, by G-d.

• Link
• Report this comment

For a novel approach: try being an American man yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Max Cleland is the bomb! Except for the recent book.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is this really an issue?

Unemployment and foreclosure rates are doing great damage to our country. Politicians should be focused on jobs, jobs, jobs!

Is it really patriotic for Georgia Carry to cry about not being able to carry guns in to a High School football game when our neighbor’s are losing their jobs and houses?

• Link
• Report this comment

Peter, I agree completely.

Brian: “First of all not all, people who carry weapons do it for protection from crime.” So, the thugs and murders are ok to pack heat? Maybe you just shouldn’t go to high crime areas.

To be able to carry a gun anywhere, can’t we also increase the penalties for improper use or accidental discharge?

• Link
• Report this comment

Will Jones you need to be institutionalized. You need help guy.

• Link
• Report this comment

No Will Jones you dumbazz. By the grace of God we have the 4th amendment which obviously a great many of you 2nd amendment lunatics seem to want to turn right over to the authorities. But once the 4th gets trashed we will all needs a gun. You guys can’t see the forest for the trees 99% of the time.

• Link
• Report this comment

I would be interested to see how folks will react when they realize more Black folks on the whole are carrying concealed weapons – Like ME :O)

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s get a couple of things straight. First, to all you gun-toting, vigilantes who want to carry a gun for defense: get real. It takes nerves of steel to point a gun at another person and pull the trigger. You think you’ve got what it takes? You talk big, but the most likely scenario is this: even if you have the presence of mind to get your gun out in time you will pause. You will think, “is this person really trying to harm me?” In that instant you will be cut down like a cornstalk in October. Be certain that the thug does not have any uncertainty as to what he’s doing. To summarize: few people have the guts to pull trigger nor the ability to evaluate the situation quick enough. Your own gun will be your downfall. Next, to the folk who insist that the USA was founded on the word of God: the exact opposite was true. The founders of the US explicitly rejected the divine right of kings and put forth the radical idea that men could rule themselves without God’s involvement. They were Age of Enlightenment disciples, free-masons and other truly inspired thinkers and philosophers. We are very lucky that those men held those beliefs at that time so that our country’s “noble experiment” could emerge. Lastly, regardless of what you think about guns, the Second Amendment is clearly about defending the country against foreign aggression. The way kings and governments raised armies in that day was to put the call out to citizens. Additionally, they had just defeated the British by having a population with rifles and other small arms. There was no Federal army outside of the Marines and a tiny navy until after the Civil War. The Second Amendment, therefore, by its very careful wording as to limit arms to militia, makes it clear that the founders wanted firearms to be controlled and owned only for the purpose of hunting and national defense. Neither of these concern keeping a pistol in one’s pocket at all times.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doesn’t it note somewhere in the 2nd Amendment,even in conjunction with militias, that the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jim, the McDonald v. Chicago case is not yet scheduled for oral arguments.

But the legislature should really postpone any action on gun legislation until the Court rules. Scalia apparently wants to extend the 2nd Am to the states (based on his Heller decision). But to do so he has to use one of two judicial tests that he does not approve, or come up with something entirely new. In short, legislate from the bench.

Here is a clue on his thinking from the Heller decision:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:”

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear GWB,

Here’s a short history lesson for dummies.A group of men wrested this country away from England because they didn’t like England’s oppressive laws.Another group that was here at the time,calling themselves Loyalists,either went home to England or went to what was to become Canada.Since then,the ancestors of group one,the Wresters,Have managed to keep oppressive laws in this country at bay,even though the ancestors of group two,the Loyalists,which includes people like you,have managed to infiltrate back into the country and are trying to take it back.

Now it’s probably true that I can’t match your amazing IQ,but at least I use mine.

• Link
• Report this comment

No you don’t Clyde. You sound like a total moron. You are just a chicken sh%t coward that is scared of anything that walks. Grow a set and that gun won’t be so important anymore.

• Link
• Report this comment

Listen, as a gun owner, AND, as a gun bearer, I bring my pistol EVERYWHERE I legally can do so. Parks, Malls, Supermarkets, Banks, ….everywhere I am REGULATED by the permit in my wallet. So who ever mentioned REGULATED needs to know how to use that word, and realize all permit holders are already regulated….wow, the level of intelligence of some readers is amazing LOL.

All you zealous pansies crying fear of me sitting next to you child, let something tragic occur…guess who will be there to DEFEND you and your child: me. Don’t cry for a cop, when cop means Citizen On Patrol.

WE THE PEOPLE was a phrase used by the founding fathers right? You think it excluded (well it did for my fellow natives and Africans) “people” and meant only “government officials/people” ? LOL Stop, you are killiiiiiiing me morons. It meant ALL “people” in general belonging to that time. AND finally ALL people up to this time.

If all people were legally armed, and legally carried arms everywhere other than in a jail or courthouse, how much you wanna bet virtually NO CRIME would occur???? Criminals would think not once about doing a crime with knowledge that anyone in their circumference could legally make a Citizens arrest. I agree it is better to be armed and not use a gun than to not have a gun and be in a situation where you need one. Chivalry is not dead, otherwise the many brave women and men who elect to become cops/deputies/etc wouldn’t have picked up that occupation. If we solely depend on “law enforcement” to fend off criminal activities, guess what, crime will get worse!

Want some DISTURBING NEWS mr/miss anti-gunner? READ AND GASP:

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981 ), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services , such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T] here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Now, since I just created a mud hole in your whining, wise up and support the Constitution that encourages self sufficiency. If you don’t demand and exercise ANY of our rights, zealot haters will cause them to be encroached upon. “If you don’t use it, you loose it” applies to sex, and gun rights! LOL

Now I dare anyone to defy that court ruling; WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for WE the people. With a murders on the rise in ATL, students being robbed BECAUSE THEY KNOW GUNS ARENT ALLOWED BY STUDENTS, racists plotting, terrorists plotting, thugs plotting, gangs plotting…you need to plot you @$$es to the nearest gun store and be ready to defend your self, your childrem, your spouse, family, our city, our state, and our country with a well-regulated permit in your pocket.

Now run tell that.

OOOOOORRRRAAAAAAH!

• Link
• Report this comment

Straight to the Point it’s not so much “anti gun” as it is pro common sense. Most of you lack that.

• Link
• Report this comment

gwb,

I didn’t put you in caps this time because you’ve been so mean.At last count you’ve called me a gunslinger with a room temperature IQ,a total moron,a chickens#&t coward,a government conspiracy idiot and an almost racist.[I stuck that last in to sort of compensate for the words you've attributed to me that I never said].

Taking into consideration all of your comments I can only conclude that you’re a liberal,and where I hail from thats akin to being called a skunk.You are a dog,sir,and a cur sir, and I don’t think I like you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did I say you have made racist comments Clyde? Reading comprehension is not your forte either huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you will give up rights to privacy or some speech rights, I will leave my gun at home. What say your Ray and others? After all you really do not need privacy right because you have nothing to hide right?

• Link
• Report this comment

LADILOVELY

October 18th, 2009
9:42 am
My family has served in every war since the war between the states. What is the difference? Dying is dying. Have your liberal a77 family done anything except live off the freedom provided by others?

• Link
• Report this comment

GWB

October 18th, 2009
10:21 am
You sound like a wimp!!

• Link
• Report this comment

No William. I don’t have to have a gun in my pocket to give me all that false courage. You William are the wimp and coward. Otherwise you wouldn’t be substituting your gun for a set of cojenes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why would you feel like you should carry a gun in church? Sound like a contradiction as well as you may be in the wrong church. I do feel like any establishment should post a gun policy and if you violate it license or not you face the consequences.That is pretty simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rhonda Atlanta – banned by anyone, anywhere? The Constitution reads “We the people” – not we the mall, we the convenience store, we the car dealership…..

The 2nd amendment is not something that any individual or business or government can strip from anyone. Nor are the other 9 in the Bill of Rights.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rhonda Atlanta….. RESEARCH BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH

Man shoots pastor in church near St. Louis
By The Associated Press
Sunday, March 8, 2009 1:42 PM CDT

E-mail Story Printer-friendly

MARYVILLE — (AP) A gunman walked down the aisle of a suburban St. Louis church during Sunday services and shot the pastor to death with a handgun before stabbing himself and two others as parishioners wrestled him to the ground, authorities said.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/03/08/man_shoots_pastor_in_church_near_st_louis

• Link
• Report this comment

Always some idiot that will find an exception to try to drive home the point we need Bradley Fighting vehicles in church.. LOL

Dont people get shot in a billion other locations? Would you feel better Archie if they were stabbed?

Why should we have an license at all. Have establishments both public and private control their own environments. If that policy is broken THEN the state prosecutes.

Hey STP, keep your behind at home Einstein if you are that scared, Anyone in a church full of guns could have shot the preacher. Geeezz Morons on the Internet!

• Link
• Report this comment

RHONDA….. you too are in denial. LMMFAO… You lost the debate, your point was made moot, and I didnt even have to give an opinion. YOU mentioned church. YOU made your bed, so lay in it.

• Link
• Report this comment

RHONDA SAYS:

“Why should we have an license at all. Have establishments both public and private control their own environments. If that policy is broken THEN the state prosecutes.”

Its already that way dear…READ:

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981 ), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services , such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T] here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

• Link
• Report this comment

With rights, come responsibility. If this state truly wants to go down the road of having its citizens walking around armed like the gunslingers of the old west, then the state needs to take some steps to ensure that the general populace is protected.
To that end, I would only support such a bill if the following were attached:

1. MANDATORY 160 hours training by certified arms training experts. This would mean that the gun-toters would be able to hit what they aim at. More importantly, it would train them to know WHEN it is appropriate to draw a weapon. In addition, continual (every 6 months) re-evaluation and re-certification. We require our LEOs to undergo similar training and on-going evaluation before thay can walk the streets with a gun strapped to their hips. It is not unreasonable to expect the same of John Q Public.
2. Mandatory liability insurance coverage in excess of $5,000,000. Because when one of you adrenaline fueled bozos starts blasting away in the salad aisle of the neighborhood Kroger and you pick off my wife or kid, know that I will sue your cowboy *ss for every phreakin nickel you have ever or WILL ever earn.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rhonda Atlanta:

I suppose, by your definition and assertions:

I, or any business for example, can forbid you from attending the church of your choice, make you not voice you opinion, or sue the government if they screw you over (Amendment I)

I or anyone else can make you put up soldiers in your home any old time (Amendment III)

I or anyone else can demand to see anything you own, at any time, and use it against you in court and force you to answer any questions, even if you incriminate yourself (Amendments IV and V)

And I guess your Miranda rights and the right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers, and the right to face your accusers, is gone – on my say-so or anyone else’s say-so. (Amendment VI)

And surely you must believe that you can be jailed and held on a trillion dollars bail for a traffic ticket, and beaten for your crimes with a whip. (Amendment VIII)

The list goes on – and this is apparently all OK with you. You do not get to pick and chose which part(s) of the Constitution apply or where they apply. They all apply to all of us, equally, and everywhere, or it is a meaningless piece of parchment. Is that what you are advocating?

One more time here. sports fans. The problem is not legal gun owners. Yesterday, over 80 million LEGAL gun owners in the US murdered no one and committed no crimes. It is criminals with illegal guns that are the problem. It is CRIMINALS with ILLEGAL guns that are the problem.

In every single state in the US where the decent, law abiding citizens have had their rights restored to keep (which means to own) and bear (which means to carry on or about your person) crime has dropped or increased at a much slower pace than places where it is illegal to have a gun – like NY City, Washington DC, and Chicago.

• Link
• Report this comment

Listen Pastemaster, what did that have to do with there being no gun license to responsible citizens verses a privately owned or public establishment setting their own gun policy? Explain in your words or maybe you could use crayons. LOL

It is simple, you dont regulate firearms by licensing them to responsible citizens. I think our constitution addresses that. However you do give the right to private property owners to regulate. You appear to being standing up for your rights but not the rights of others.

• Link
• Report this comment

I said you make it against state law to violate a private property owners gun policy. I dont care about a sticker Einstein. Geezz you are dense.

• Link
• Report this comment

RHONDA and anyone that agrees with cowardly views:

Its not so much that YOU have to own/bear arms, its the fact that other choose to. Its about CHOICE. I choose to defend my person, and those who I love. That would include YOU if i were in that church and saw him going after you sister. I would have blown his @$$ away. Yes I was trained to do so, but anyone can get firearms training; some states MANDATE you get that before even getting a permit.

I am pro-life…….BUT i am not hatin’ on pro-choicers because i am pro people having control over their lives and their affairs.

The Constitution isnt for you, or some people? Then thats fine, but its for alot more people than just you. If you dont like guns, dont buy one. If you dont like being around them, tough beans. WE are all around you, looking out for you, looking out to protect ourselves, and criminals and cowards need not see us bearing arms since we conceal our guns, so you are safe, and they are not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually Rhonda’s idea is more that of an constitutionalists and protects individuals rights.. All that have challenged her are those with “if’s” and irrelevant scenarios.

• Link
• Report this comment

JIM you are incorrect w/ respects to me. I have provided case law, articles, and experience.

• Link
• Report this comment

JIM: “I agree that it should no be up to the state to tell a responsible citizen where to take a gun. Just like it is not up to tell them where to smoke. I also agree that a person that owns an establishment has that right to do so.”

Agreed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obviously Justice Scalia disagreed with you in Heller vs D.C. Jim and Staight to the point.

At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

• Link
• Report this comment

All of them Darren. They are scared not to. That gun is their security blanket.

• Link
• Report this comment

Darren – I never answer my door unarmed. In this day and age it is stupidity to answer the door unprotected.

I have 3 pistols in the house – in 3 different locations. If someone tries to force entry, no matter which direction I head I am headed toward a loaded and ready to fire weapon. When I leave the house I always take one of them with me, and if my fiancee stays home, I always tell her which one I am taking so she knows where the 2 remaining loaded weapons are in the house.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just because a justice dissents makes no difference. All judges dont always agree on everything. Hello?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well Straight to the point, seeing as how that is Justice Scalia, a judge on the highest court in this land makes all the difference in the world. And that was Scalia speaking for the majority opinion. I would think that it clues you in that lower court opinions differing with the SCOTUS will die a quick and dirty death. DUHHHHH!!! Sorry that the SCOTUS is in such contrast to all those cherry picked cases you nutters come up with.

• Link
• Report this comment

It seems rather obvious that Heller vs D.C. pretty much decided that the states can regulate a multitude of firearms cans and can’ts. Only the dimmest bulbs in the pack seem not to get it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Like the article below PROVES….. guns stay, crime goes away…..

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

* Link
* Report this comment

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank God no shot was fired moron. Otherwise someone in your family would probably me minus a few toes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here are the lies and facts about gun control:

The lie: If we allow people to have guns, there will be shootouts in the streets and blood will run. We will go back to the days of the Wild West.

The truth: “As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” – John Holmes, former Harris County (Houston – the 4th largest city in the United States) District Attorney, several years after the passage of the law restoring right to carry in Texas.

“I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn’t happened,” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association told the Dallas Morning News. “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”

After ten years, the Concealed Handgun Law in Texas is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in the citizens they represent. The record in every other state which allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons is virtually identical.

Just a note here – if your Federal, state, or local representatives think you are too stupid or too untrustworthy to be allowed your Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, don’t you think it’s about time to reciprocate and vote them out of office because they are too ignorant of the facts, too arrogant in their mistrust of you, and too untrustworthy to govern you? As ye sow, so shall ye reap…

The validity of the second amendment is, thank goodness, is not something you personally get to decide for everyone. You can decide for yourself, but only for yourself. For every other American, you have no say in the matter. Get used to it.
The bill of rights is sort of like the 10 Commandments in that the 10 Commandments are not “the 10 Suggestions”. Same with the Bill of Rights – they are not 10 suggestions that can be ignored or stepped on by any person or government – local, state, federal, or foreign. The main difference between the Bill of Rights and the 10 Commandments is that you are judged by the Bill of Rights while you are alive, and the 10 Commandments after you die. All of you out there who do not want a gun? Then don’t own one – that is your right, and I have no right – moral, political, or otherwise to stand in your way of exercising that right. But what you must understand is that you have no right – moral, political, or otherwise – to stand in the way of any responsible citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Keeping means owning one and bearing means having it on or about your person. If that qualifies me in anyone’s mind as a “right wing gun nut”, then, by that definition, I am. And proudly am, at that.

The lie: Banning guns keeps the people safer.

The truth: Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

Flash back to March 30th, 1981. John Hinckley Jr. shoots President Ronald Reagan outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington DC. But how could that have happened? Virtually all guns had been banned in Washington for 5 years! Gee – maybe it is true after all that criminals will consistently ignore just one more law, tote their gun with them anyway, and use that illegal gun to commit a crime! Ya think?

Reagan was also surrounded by Secret Service agents and police officers when he was shot. So much for some people’s belief and assertion that a ban on guns and law enforcement officers nearby (or 20 minutes away) will prevent gun violence by criminals…

The lie: If a law is passed to allow people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons on our college campuses, because of all the drug and alcohol use on campus, there will be mass shoot-outs.

The Truth: Drugs and alcohol are less prevalent on college campuses than they are at off campus apartments and parties. Since licensed handgun owners can carry their weapons off campus, why haven’t there been mass shootouts at college parties? The answer is simple – they are not going to happen. Licensed carriers are responsible people. Eleven U.S. colleges currently allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry their concealed handgun on campus. There have been no shootings with legal guns, accidental shootings with legal guns, no gun thefts, no suicides with legal guns, or drug / alcohol handgun murders with legal guns. Not one.

The lie: Citizens being armed makes the job of the police more difficult.

The truth: Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence and warned that the “Sunshine State” would become the “Gunshine State”. The founder of NOW (the National Organization of Women) Betty Friedan issued this statement: “lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence.” Oh really? In the first 10 years of the good citizens of Florida being issued RTC permits, only one permit holder out of over 350,000 in the state was convicted of homicide.

After the right-to-carry law in Florida went into effect in 1987, the Dade County (Miami) Police began keeping records of all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. From September of 1987 until August of 1992, Dade County recorded only 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The program was subsequently scrapped because there simply were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred in Florida:
Florida Nationwide
The homicide rate minus 36% minus .04%
The firearm homicide rate minus 37% plus 15%
The handgun homicide rate minus 41% plus 24%

But what about Right-to-Carry (RTC) influence around the country? According to FBI statistics gathered for 2004 – 2005:
The seven least violent states are all shall-issue (meaning the state must give you a concealed carry permit if your background checks out) right-to-carry states.
The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC.
The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC.
Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC.
Statistically, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states.
Yes, violent crime rates increased in 2005, especially in the categories of murder and robbery. Most of this increase occurred in large metropolitan areas and in cities not part of a larger metropolitan area that reside in non-RTC states.
Right-to-carry localities are for the most part the safest places to live, and non-metropolitan counties in RTC states are the safest places for women.

Can someone from the Brady Campaign or any other gun ban organization please explain how significant drops in crime because citizens have (finally!) once again been allowed to exercise their God given right and constitutional right to keep and bear arms makes the job of law enforcement more difficult? Of course they can’t – because it simply doesn’t make law enforcement more difficult – and in fact the opposite is true. Lower crime rates make the jobs of law enforcement officers easier, and statistics prove it. It is not now, nor has it ever been, about guns – it is simply about control. But one thing you had better believe – it amounts to victim disarmament – plain and simple. I sometimes think that is part of the plan.

The lie: The passage of “Castle Doctrine” laws will inevitably lead to massive bloodshed as people will feel empowered to “shoot first and ask no questions”. The Brady Campaign even went so far as to take out ads in foreign newspapers and pass out leaflets in the Miami airport warning tourists to be very cautious and not argue with residents or they would be shot.

The Truth: The Castle Doctrine became law in Florida on October 1st, 2005. At this writing that’s just short of 3 years ago. OK – first of all, where are all the dead tourists in Florida? Where are all the protests from foreign embassies and governments screaming about their citizens having been executed by the “gun crazed NRA wacko” citizens in Florida? There are none – because there have been no mass murders of innocent foreign tourists in Hawaiian shirts with cameras around their necks.

What this law actually does is pretty basic. When you are outside your home you can only meet force with force and then deadly force only if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. In your home, they break in, you can use whatever force you choose. You are no longer required to retreat until the criminal has you backed into a corner, and you are no longer required to let them shoot at you or try and stab you before you use deadly force to defend yourself, your loved ones, or your property. It rightly allows you to presume that your life is in jeopardy simply because the criminal broke in to your home. Gee – what a concept! It also prevents the criminal or the family of a criminal from suing you for wounding them or killing them.

What the Castle Doctrine does not do (as the Brady people are trying so desperately to convince everyone) is give you the right to hop out of your car at the stoplight and gun down the clown in his car who just cut you off in traffic or flipped you the middle finger. What it does give you the right to do is shoot the person who gets out of their car and tries to reach through the window and beat you senseless or open your door and drag you into the street to “teach you a lesson” about why you shouldn’t have honked your horn at them. Whether that person is a Czechoslovakian tourist in a rental car or a gang member bent on proving his machismo to his posse in their car is immaterial.

Over 20 states have passed virtually identical laws – and guess what? The tourists are even safer in each and every one of those states because of right to carry laws and Castle Doctrine laws reducing crime. You see, a criminal doesn’t know if the person they are eyeballing is from 3 blocks away or 6,000 miles away. Again, most people wouldn’t hunt deer if the deer shot back.

The result of Castle Doctrine laws? No “wild west”, no shootouts over who has the right-of-way at a 4 way stop sign, no murdered Dominos pizza guy at someone’s door because they mistook them for a criminal, no oozing rivers of blood in the streets, and no corpse wagons like the ones in the days of the Black Plague picking up scores of dead tourists and citizens on the roads and sidewalks of America. The Brady Campaign and other gun control advocacy groups propaganda is nothing more than an 8 letter synonym (which begins with “bull”) for male bovine droppings.

The lie: 12 children a day are killed with guns in the United States.

The Truth: The gun ban misanthropes magically arrive at their “12 a day” statistics by including all deaths of “children” up to 19 years old which are firearm related, including suicides. If there were no guns these same “children” would overdose on drugs, jump off a building or bridge, or just drive their car into a block wall. Their “statistics” also are purposely and deliberately inflated by including 18 and 19 year old drug gangsters blowing each other away in random gang related drive-by shootings and over drug turf, and even 19 year old “children” righteously shot dead by police officers or law-abiding citizens while in the act of committing rapes, murders, drug deals, and armed robberies.

Here are the real statistics, as researched by John Lott, Jr., the author of Freedomnomics and a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Maryland:
“Accidental gun deaths among children are fortunately much rarer than most people believe. Consider the following numbers.”
“In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.”
“These deaths also have little to do with “naturally curious” children shooting other children. From 1995 to 2001 only about nine of these accidental gun deaths each year involve a child under 10 shooting another child or themselves. Overwhelmingly, the shooters are adult males with long histories of alcoholism, arrests for violent crimes, automobile crashes, and suspended or revoked driver’s licenses.”
“For example, those unfamiliar with guns don’t realize that most young children simply couldn’t fire your typical semi-automatic pistol. Even the few who posses the strength to pull back the slide on the gun are unlikely to know that they must do that to put the bullet in the chamber or that they need to switch off the safety.”
“With so many greater dangers facing children everyday from common household items, it is not obvious why guns have been singled out. Here are some of the other ways that children under 10 died in 2004.”
“Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children’s lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.”
“Yet, the real problem with this gun phobia is that without guns, victims are much more vulnerable to criminal attack. Guns are used defensively some 2 million times each year. Even though the police are extremely important in reducing crime, they simply can’t be there all the time and virtually always arrive after the crime has been committed. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal.”
“The cases where young children use guns to save their family’s lives rarely makes the news. Recent examples where children’s lives were clearly lost because guns were locked and inaccessible are ignored.”
“Recent research that I did examining juvenile accidental gun deaths for all U.S. states from 1977 to 1998, found that sixteen states mandating that guns be locked up had no impact. What did happen, however, was that criminals were emboldened to attack people in their homes and crimes were more successful; 300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in these states. Burglaries also rose dramatically. The evidence also indicates that states with the biggest increases in gun ownership have had the biggest drops in violent crime.”
“Asking patients about guns not only strains doctor patient relationships, it exaggerates the dangers and risks lives. Yet, in the end, possibly some good can come out of all this gun phobia. If your doctors ask you whether you own a gun, rather than sarcastically asking them if they own a space heater, why not offer to go out to a shooting range together and teach them about guns?”
Just as a side note, more children die each year in this country by being left by their idiot parents in a sweltering car with the windows rolled up than die from guns.

The lie: Large numbers of criminals get their guns at guns shows.

The truth: There is not, as gun the ban crowd would love for you to believe, what has been called the Gun Show Loophole. Every commercial dealer at a gun show is required to run background checks. Statistics by the U.S. Department of Justice conclusively show that, worst case scenario, a mere 2 percent of guns used by criminals were purchased at gun shows. Furthermore, the bulk of these were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

The lie: The massacre at Columbine High School shows the defects in current gun control laws.

The truth: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold ignored and violated roughly 20 firearms laws, not to mention a myriad of laws against murder. Does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that more laws might have stopped them? The two shotguns and a rifle used by Harris and Klebold were bought by a friend who would have passed a background check, and the handgun used by Harris and Klebold was already illegal. Remember, too, what ended the Columbine killing spree? Someone ran out to their car, retrieved their own legal gun, and put an end to it.

The lie: To keep and bear arms and have a concealed weapons permit is, like a license to drive a car, a privilege, not a right.

The truth: The analogy between a driver’s license and a right to carry license is fundamentally flawed. As the right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the Constitution, it is indeed a privilege. However, the Constitution does guarantee me the individual right to not only keep, but to bear arms – which by any definition means carrying it with me. It, therefore, is an inalienable right.

Granted, rights can be taken from you, but only by due process of law. Convicted felons lose, among other things, their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms – but these rights must be taken from an individual on a specific and distinct case by case basis – again due process in a court of law. A blanket ruling or ordinance denying everyone a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not due process, being obviously flawed in that, while it may strip a few people of the right to bear arms who may not warrant having that right, it also inherently and by its very nature arbitrarily strips the majority of the citizenry of that right with neither just cause nor due process. This is nothing more than the government, be it local, state, or federal, telling citizens they are guilty until proven innocent and indiscriminately stripping them of their rights with no trial, no jury, no evidence, and the citizen having no right to face their accuser or defend themselves with legal council – another whole set of Constitutional violations.

The lie: Waiting periods are effective and necessary in reducing crime rates.

The truth: Many studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. They all show one thing in common – there is no discernable connection between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University professor, collated and compared statistics from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”

While it may (emphasize may – there is no data to support this one way or another) sometimes be true that a waiting period might allow people to cool off before they do something they could regret, the fact remains that people many times are being stalked or threatened, and waiting periods make it difficult for them to quickly obtain a gun for defense. In such cases, the threatened individuals often become nothing more than another “victim” of gun violence themselves, thereby bolstering the statistics of the gun ban crowd, when in fact they could have (and rightfully should have) become part of the much larger statistic of those who had fought off or scared off a criminal.

Oh, to be sure, there is so much more. Google Gun ban lies and peruse the 286,000 hits you get. Like more children drown in bathtubs every year than are killed by guns. Like more children under the age of 5 are killed by adult beds every year than are killed by guns. More children die every year from being poisoned by common household chemicals than are killed by guns. So how come we haven’t first and foremost banned bathtubs, Clorox, and beds? Like Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin insists (and illegally, I might add) on banning licensed concealed weapons permit holders from carrying their weapon into non secure areas in the Atlanta airport. Aside from the fact that she’s going to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on this and still lose big time in court (as she already did in trying to ban licensed carriers from carrying in city parks) national statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people in the United States die from medical malpractice every year than die from guns. Hey, Shirley – why not ban all doctors from the airport instead? You would save more lives.

“Know guns, know peace, know safety, know freedom. No guns, no peace, no safety, no freedom.” – Unknown

• Link
• Report this comment

Forgot to mention that part huh Straight to the point? Nobody in Kennesaw has to own a gun and the law doesn’t even propose a penalty for “violating” that “law”. Keep cherry picking jackass and people will keep picking you apart.

• Link
• Report this comment

Straight to the point what do you not understand here? You have the right to your precious gun but the state and federal government have the right to regulate what you do with it. Or do just have a reading comprehension problem? Nobody on this blog has said you don’t have the right to your gun but you keep ignorantly trying to argue that your gun can’t be regulated. In the immortal words of Coach Paul Johnson, “are you that stupid”.

• Link
• Report this comment

CINDY are you okay?????????? I stated that they can regulate! LOL
Are you really okay????
I know you didnt read all my posts here….otherwise you wouldnt have said that.

• Link
• Report this comment

CINDY: i will quote one of my posts today..:

“The right to bear arms has been REGULATED by the states to exclude felons. So we have no choice to be screened for backgrounds for permit applicants, and for non-permit gun purchasers.”

See? Thats one example, all is forgiven.

• Link
• Report this comment

So what has your panties in such a wad Straight to the point? You can have your gun and the state can tell you what you can do with it. You made a totally asinine statement about Heller vs D.C. when you couldn’t acknowledge that the decision in that case decided that issue for the time being. And that was a decision by a majority conservative court. According to your statement you placed more value on lower court decisions. But I get your redneck logic. If the President of your company tells you no, go to the shipping supervisor. He’ll overrule it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obviously you didnt read my post in its entirety, so im not going to help u learn how to read.

• Link
• Report this comment

Furthermore, I never not ones stated the Gov’t cant regulate arms, DUH “…a well regulated militia” Hello???? Maybe u suffer from poor SAT scores but I’m from up north, so sorry we Yankees have always had high scores, sorry charlie. Especially those of us who attended presidential blue ribbon schools, so go there and you too will loose.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now its eveident you’re not a reader..if u read on page one here, you will see that i NEVER said that genius, nice try trying to put false words in my mouth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Will you non-reading Morons go learn how to read???????? PLEASE.

Before you open your mouth read someone’s posts..all of them…especially if u are just joining the convo.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, you just dont get it!!

I NEVER…let me spell that: N E V E R said gov’t cant regulate. Are you blind????

Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981 ), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services , such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circui t Court of Appeals ruled, “[T] here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GUY?

• Link
• Report this comment

I pointed out the cites regarding the need to protect one’s self/family/others LEGALLY with a permit, ESPECIALLY when the cops are not MANDATED by law to protect any particular individual.. Simple. You are all in left field.

• Link
• Report this comment

The entire purpose of all the restrictions on where I can and cannot carry concealed is simple. The anti gun paranoia loons want to make it so difficult to go anywhere with a concealed weapon that they hope most will just give up and leave it at home.

Sorry – that is a thinly veiled backdoor method to denying every responsible and law abiding citizen their 2nd Amendment rights.

How would you like it if you couldn’t drive your car to any public gathering, sporting event, or government building? Guess that would be OK by some of you. Similar principal – and all of you would be screaming about it.

And the laws are so vague and fundamentally unenforceable. What is a public gathering? A Tea Party rally? A Taste of Atlanta? 5 people standing in line to get ice cream at Brewster’s?

I can carry into a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages – but ONLY if the derive more than 50% of their revenue from food. Are they required to post their sales figures on the door so I know? Nope. So I may unintentionally violate the law – because the law does not require the establishment to let me know.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ooooooh TAILGUNNER, ouch… LOL

Nice quote

• Link
• Report this comment

And I do believe that Heller vs D.C. is the latest gun rights case decided by SCOTUS.

• Link
• Report this comment

George, i meant POST not POT LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

Which was Justice Scalia’s majority satement in Heller vs D.C. In case you forget again what you said. Words mean something Straight to the point. Nice try though.

• Link
• Report this comment

And in case you don’t know how it works Straight to the point, “that judges opinion” is the one that matters. All the others got trumped.

• Link
• Report this comment

JEEEEEZ!! Straight to the point you tried to say it was just another opinion. It is THE opinion. You are making yourself look ignorant now.

• Link
• Report this comment

WOW are you dense????

Im not talking about HIM and HIS opinions, im talking all judges opinions are just that. Obviously you are taking your ignorance to bliss.

I dont need a judge to tell me “a well regulated militia” means they can regulate. DUH, its spelled out in the constitution.

Please spare me the non-sensible thinking.

• Link
• Report this comment

she felt the need to bring up something ** I ** never brought up, nor ever felt was wrong. Duh!

• Link
• Report this comment

regulate – definition of regulate by the Free Online Dictionary …
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates. 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate – Cached – Similar

Law: constitution

Shall, or not: …..Shall NOT be infringed.

Go fly a kite anti-gunners.

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way – all you anti-gun zealots need to stop reading and memorizing all the garbage from the pamphlets and start reading the Constitution and the SCOTUS decisions relating to it. Sorry – your narrow little minds do not trump the Constitution or the SCOTUS. If you have deluded yourselves othersise, then see your shrink and get some serious meds….

• Link
• Report this comment

…and of course, Daedalus – you know FAR better than anyone else. You have never met me, but we ALL can tell – because of your multiple PhDs from Harvard in Psychiatry, Psychology, Human Behavior, Constitutional Law, and Criminology that you are FAR better qualified to judge me than some rinky-dink outfits like the FBI, the GBI, and a county judge.- who have all agreed I am qualified to have a CCW. And then there’s that pesky old Supreme Court that says I can. too.

So tell us all – when are you appearing before the Supreme Court to state your case to ban all guns? I’m sure your suave, debonair, and learned arguments will persuade a 9 to 0 canceling of the Constitution.

But thanks for the laughs….

• Link
• Report this comment

I would just love to know the thought process behind some of the restrictions. I can, for example, carry concealed at the mall, but I cannot at a church or the Post Office.

Am I somehow magically 1000 times more likely to decide, on the spur of the moment, “gee – I think I’ll shoot a couple of parishioners just for the fun of it?” Or “Gee – I think I’ll go postal on everyone in here just for laughs?”

Of course not. So would someone please explain the defective theory behind all of this? Are criminals and ILLEGAL gun owners going to faithfully abide by all of these restrictions?

I somehow have the right to protect myself here, but not there? Please explain. and while you’re at it, please explain why you think a criminal with an illegal gun will obey any or all of these rules and restrictions as well.

If you wish to, you can bet that gun laws will stop criminals, and I therefore have no need to carry. You are willing to take that bet. Tell you what – if you can absolutely guarantee me the exact time, date, and place when I will need my weapon to defend myself, that is the only time I will carry it. Of course you’ll take that bet – because you have nothing to lose – you are betting with MY life.

Sorry – I’m not taking that bet.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Second Amendment should be the only “carry permit” needed. It works extremely well in Vermont, where any citizen (except those who have been convicted of a serious crime) has the RIGHT to carry a concealed weapon.

• Link
• Report this comment

That was me that brought up Jews and Negroes. I am not in any way prejudiced – I was just making the Constitutional point that businesses open to the public cannot bar people based on race or creed, so Constitutionally they cannot bar people on any other Constitutionally guaranteed right, as in the Second Amendment. As the Constitution does not end at their front door in terms of race or religion, neither does it end at their front door for the Bill of Rights in general, and the 2nd Amendment in particular.

You’ve made some great points, Sttp. I just wish some of these anti-gun and anti-Constitution misanthropes would take the time to read the Constitution, a few SCOTUS decisions, and stop reading and memorizing the BS pamphlets from moveon.org, the Joyce Foundation, and the Brady Campaign.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There also could be an issue of full faith and disclosure, as for example all states recognize for example the drivers licenses, marriage licenses, divorce decrees, license plates, custody orders, and more from each and every other state and US territory – all NOT Constitutionally guaranteed rights at all, but they refuse to recognize the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens under the Bill of Rights.

• Link
• Report this comment

For anyone wondering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkXTQ8

• Link
• Report this comment

While I still loathe what the gun industry has done to this country, I’ve seen the reality. Right-wing fear mongers and haters have escalated their nasty rhetoric to panic levels, and they’re walking around blaming people like ME (non-neocon-wingnut) for all their problems. And when poop hits the fan (as Katrina showed us), there will be no cops around to defend lil’ ol’ me or my silly lil’ ol’ rights. I hate that I have to fear my mentally-disturbed neighbors, but my visit to a town hall meeting (filled with right-wing Obama haters who blame people like me for all their imagined woes) taught me that I should take their psychotic delusions seriously and pack my own piece.

• Link
• Report this comment

…and well said, Eric. Although, that was a tad too cogent and unemotional to be found on the internet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tailgunner, I think you SHOULD take your gun to church. That way, next time some right-wing whack job comes in to shoot up a church for being “too liberal,” (Knoxville, TN, July 2008) you can take him out. Apparently, ALL the right-wing whack jobs are armed. Now, so am I. Feel safer yet?

• Link
• Report this comment

Liberal White Chick YOU ROCK!

• Link
• Report this comment

Mention guns or immigration on a blog and every trailer park in Georgia comes alive. What a bunch of rednecks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe you need to move tailgunner. We don’t even have to lock the doors where I live. Of course I understand the irrational fear of all the what if this and what if thats you paranoid chicken littles can dream up. Any puzzy that has to have a gun in his hand to come out from under his bed has serious manhood issues. Guys like you tailgunner are nothing more than delusional wannabe gunslingers that more than likely lose a foot if ever confronted with the fantasy encounters that drive your irrational cowardice and fear. What a punk you are. Congratulations. You are nothing more than a Barney Fife with the logic of Jethro Bodine.

• Link
• Report this comment

And you probably can’t document 10 cases of CCW holders in Georgia stopping or detering a crime with their gun either. Put down your beer, belch, fart, and start googling you cretin.

• Link
• Report this comment

I just hope your bullets don’t hit an innocent bystander while you’re busy playing cop.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seriously, why did this article ignore McBerry? He actually has a sample bill that would repeal almost all restrictions on gun ownership for law-abiding citizens; you can see it on his website. Why wasn’t that mentioned?

• Link
• Report this comment

I am White an proud also a coward,but I wish some of you would come to my house an break in I would make your dreams come true,also save the taxpayers some money.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] is a member of Georgiacarry, an advocacy group for the right to bear arms. And according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he’s stated he “believes so strongly in gun ownership,” that he bought his [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] No, apparently Georgia State Rep. Sean Jerguson — a real live elected official soaked in the gun lobby’s Kool-Aid — actually boasted of purchasing a pink .22-caliber pistol for his 4-year old daughter, according to reports. [...]

• Link
• Report this comment