It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Georgia bill could allow guns in bars, churches and airports

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
guns, yes
booze, sure
guns and booze?
are they out of their cotton pickin minds?

there is such a thing as bottle openers




posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's more than about guns.

It's about whether or not we still have Constitutional freedoms anymore.

Freedom is risky. Freedom isn't always "safe and secure".

Freedom is about individual rights, individual responsibilities.

If we, as a nation, aren't able to maintain and be held responsible for our own actions anymore, then please, take away all our rights because we'll have become a nation of complete sheep *baaa-ing* and being victims and cowards who deserve nothing.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

CranialSpongeActually when you think about it, what a great way to thin out the gene pool.

Just came to the same conclusion myself. If only they'd named it Darwin's Law.
You will really struggle to come up with a better way to regulate that the populace silly enough to support ideology over public safety see that formula through to the conclusion.

On a side note, why is nobody mentioning airports? If accurately naming buildings was a law they've be called Stressed Public Convergence Hubs. If you actually believe that allowing people to be armed in a location deters personal affronts because of the threat of death as a consequence, where's that leave the lady at the counter informing you that your flight is cancelled and your travel plans are ruined? You know, the ones who everyone mistakenly assign responsibility for the situation and can change nothing no matter what you threaten.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I knew I would have to step in...


Arizona legalized guns in bars in 2009. Tennessee, Virginia, and Ohio followed suit, along with North and South Carolina, where Gov. Nikki Haley signed a guns-in-bars bill on Feb. 11, 2014.



The information from the states that legalized guns in bars is very limited, partly because many states do not keep separate crime statistics for bars. However, Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that gun incidents in Virginia bars declined by 5.2% in the first year after that state allowed guns in bars.


Link

Here is an example of how this being implemented could actually SAVE lives...

A story reported on various outlets not just "faux news"


How gun control helped a stalker kill my husband


In April 2009, my husband was shot six times in front of me in the middle of a busy restaurant by a man who was stalking me. I have a permit to carry a handgun but because of the law at that time in my home state of Tennessee, I had to leave the gun that I normally carried for self defense, locked in my car that night. My husband Ben and I ran our mobile karaoke business out of a restaurant that served alcohol and my gun was forbidden there. I obeyed the law but my stalker, who was carrying a gun illegally, ignored it. I noticed my stalker (a former karaoke customer) in the crowd that night and I knew something was not right. This was a man that I had blocked from my social network account due to inappropriate messages he had sent me. He had never threatened me or my husband but he was definitely creepy. My husband Ben had asked him to leave me alone before he showed up at this venue where I had never seen him before. I realized at that point I was being stalked. I asked the management at the restaurant to remove him.When they approached him and asked him to leave, he pulled out a .45 semi-auto and shot Ben. He then stood over him and continued to fire five more rounds into my husband.


Full Story Here...



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
In addition...


At least 20 other states don’t specifically spell out in their laws whether guns are allowed in their bars and churches. Since those laws don’t specifically say either way, that’s interpreted as a green light to bring guns to bars and churches by default.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TiedDestructor
 


You probably won't find many sources that show that lessening of gun restrictions shows a marked decrease in crime.

It doesn't fit into the media/political meme that guns kill people and guns are dangerous and everyone should be all askard.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

beezzer
If we, as a nation, aren't able to maintain and be held responsible for our own actions anymore, then please, take away all our rights because we'll have become a nation of complete sheep *baaa-ing* and being victims and cowards who deserve nothing.

Your being intellectually dishonest.
Never, ever has the individual responsibility of a people worked...if it did, there would be no need for law, government, armies, etc...it would be utopia.
Laws are made not because every single person is bad though, but rather, because the odd few here and there can make it really, really bad for everyone else.
Who in their right mind would get into an argument in a bar where everyone is armed? well, nobody...in their right mind. but there are plenty whom aren't in their right mind. This is why as demonstrated, gun controls in the old west and in inner cities toughen up. They have run this social experiment before and realize that if anyone can own a gun and wander anywhere..then -anyone- will own a gun and wander everywhere..go figure.

You have a right to do what you want, but when your rights threaten my very existence, its time to look into that. I don't want vengeance for the person whom murdered me, I want controls so the person doesn't have a chance to murder me.
if I go onto your property and sneak in with no good intention, then I am threatening you, and that is a good time for a gun...but if I am sitting at some bar, no..I don't want a gun near me unless the person holding it has gone through extensive testing and has been deemed clear headed and sane enough to use it.

Same with a car an alcohol.

In regards to state functions...well, would you trust a bunch of radical liberals armed up and standing in front of rush Limbaugh talking?...all it takes is 1 person who is thinking a bit off..just one who doesn't care if he gets shot after because he thinks he is doing gods work or whatever.

We are logical creatures..or we can be. lets use some logic and stop waving a flag to silence out any rational discussion. In the days of the founding constitution, they had muskets and a 30 second loading time between musket balls...not to mention a big thing to lug around. Do you think they would truly feel the same about guns everywhere had they foreseen semi assault handguns with extended mags for everyone regardless of mental status? The founding fathers (praise be unto the holiest of holys) were not idiots.

You know who should have a gun in a bar? the bar owner..maybe even the sober waitstaff. but the average liquored up drink waving his 9mm around while taking tequila shots? hell no...and I would leave the bar should I notice drunks with guns (pretty good rule of thumb there imo)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by TiedDestructor
 


You probably won't find many sources that show that lessening of gun restrictions shows a marked decrease in crime.

It doesn't fit into the media/political meme that guns kill people and guns are dangerous and everyone should be all askard.


Lessening?

There has been a steady incline in gun ownership and a steady decline in crime rates . You've got it wrong. Look harder



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

CranialSponge
Guns and booze...

Actually when you think about it, what a great way to thin out the gene pool.

Sure, there might be a little collateral damage along the way... but the ends justify the means, no ?




Speaking of the wild west:

They had some of the strictest gun control laws around. If you didn't have to check your gun at the sheriff's office when entering a town, you had to check it at the saloon before you could go in and have a drink... for obvious reasons, I'm assuming.

This is the first thing you saw when you rode into Dodge City (circa 1878):



Hollywood keeps feeding the myth that everyone was free to run around town playing "shoot 'em up", when in fact, they were not...


your right the wild west was not quite as wild as people like to think. there were some outlaws, and gunfights. and some people did get killed. but nothing like the movies or the dime novels made it out to be. as a matter of fact it was the dime novels that started the idea of the wild west. that and newspaper reporters.

here are a couple of good article about it.



But as several empirical investigations have pointed out, much to the so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” (actually two branches of social democracy, dogma and fallacy based, respectively) dismay, the less government there is, the more peaceful and prosperous a territory can be with respect to its own cultural potential. Why? Because no area is better served by a monopoly than by free competition: this certainly includes the provision of personal, property defense, and conflict resolution services.





The latest addition to the revisionist’s arsenal (pun intended) comes from John Pierce, taking from W. Eugene Hollon’s book “Frontier Violence: Another Look”. The figures he quotes speak for themselves:
In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east: DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents) New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents) Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents) Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

both quotes come from here.How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?
if you click the blue link “An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, it's a 21 page pdf might be interesting.
and this is a good article, but it's gonna spur on the U.S. bashers.

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality

then something a lot of people don't know is that during the early colonial period and on the out skirts of the towns after settlement, and then the push west, people use to carry their guns to church, because of indian attacks.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by TiedDestructor
 


You probably won't find many sources that show that lessening of gun restrictions shows a marked decrease in crime.

It doesn't fit into the media/political meme that guns kill people and guns are dangerous and everyone should be all askard.



•As of 2009, Americans owned enough guns to distribute one to every citizen -- and then some, according to the National Institute of Justice [sources: U.S. News; Velasco]. (That's 310 million firearms, in case you're wondering.)
•A 2011 Gallup poll found that 47 percent of American homes had at least one gun, and 62 percent of those homes had more than one [source: Velasco].
•Of the 12,664 murders committed in the United States in 2011, 49 percent involved handguns and more than 67 percent involved firearms overall [source: FBI].
•All told, America is the most heavily armed country in the world, with the highest number of gun-related homicides among developed nations and some of the most relaxed gun laws

Thing is, its not about gun abolishment that works. responsible gun owners and sane gun laws are the most critical part, but more importantly, the "gun culture" is highly dangerous.
in middle east and Africa, the highest deathrates and gun crimes on earth, they have a big gun culture (extension of your manhood what caliber your toting). America, in my opinion, should not share a culture equal to that of warlord and strife torn countries.
This isn't saying no violent games or movies, but rather, no NRA waving the flag saying your less than a person unless your packing. this is craptalk.

Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare

Gun culture is the big problem here. a responsible gun owner should be sickened by the NRAs tactics to try and shove a gun into every fat angry slob out there. They are creating a unhealthy stigma on gun ownership in general, and are purposefully pushing shock like this simply to enhance their tribal desires for the states. keep in mind who the NRA truly represents, and that is the manufacturers of guns and ammo and not the simple enthusiast. They are the ones that will push the reaction to a tipping point if this keeps up.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Bon Jour Mon Ami. So your from Canada? So is my Uncle. He has about 300 Guns in his collection. Canadians actuallly do like guns. And rightly so, for a great many of them, no gun, no dinner! Alcohol and firearms certainly DO MIX! Alcohol and POORLY TRAINED individuals are what actually DON'T MIX. Anyway, knowing that the guy or gal in Georgia sitting next to you in a bar or a barbecue joint or a church might be packing is ok. it's Georgia. in a lot of places there, it's just like Canada. No gun, no dinner! and besides, things are a little bit more laid back in Georgia, except maybe Atlanta, and nobody in they're right mind would want to live at an airport anyway! Doesn't anyone watch Futurama anymore !
Bon Chance! and sleep well Canadian person!



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Just to set the record straight btw, I am for gun ownership in a responsible controlled way. as I suggested, in a bar, sure..the shotgun behind the bar by the owner makes sense...not the drunk.
the guards at a courthouse or state house, police of course, and home owners who are scared. (hopefully they wont shoot their son sneaking in after being out with the guys way after cerfew...but that's on them). Matter of fact, every business owner should have a gun, be it theater, mall, etc...not to say if your being robbed, use it, rather, if someone is shooting, then take it out.

And fire the NRA. they are almost a parody at this point and are causing more damage on the perception of a responsible gun owner than any possible positive press.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

SaturnFX

Your being intellectually dishonest.
Never, ever has the individual responsibility of a people worked...if it did, there would be no need for law, government, armies, etc...it would be utopia.
Laws are made not because every single person is bad though, but rather, because the odd few here and there can make it really, really bad for everyone else.
Who in their right mind would get into an argument in a bar where everyone is armed? well, nobody...in their right mind. but there are plenty whom aren't in their right mind. This is why as demonstrated, gun controls in the old west and in inner cities toughen up. They have run this social experiment before and realize that if anyone can own a gun and wander anywhere..then -anyone- will own a gun and wander everywhere..go figure.


Individual responsibility goes both ways. Punish those who violate that responsibility, by all means. But don't punish those who haven't done anything wrong.


You have a right to do what you want, but when your rights threaten my very existence, its time to look into that. I don't want vengeance for the person whom murdered me, I want controls so the person doesn't have a chance to murder me.
if I go onto your property and sneak in with no good intention, then I am threatening you, and that is a good time for a gun...but if I am sitting at some bar, no..I don't want a gun near me unless the person holding it has gone through extensive testing and has been deemed clear headed and sane enough to use it.


You say you want controls. I say those controls infringe on my individual rights.


Same with a car an alcohol.

In regards to state functions...well, would you trust a bunch of radical liberals armed up and standing in front of rush Limbaugh talking?...all it takes is 1 person who is thinking a bit off..just one who doesn't care if he gets shot after because he thinks he is doing gods work or whatever.


Freedom is often ugly. But it is the double-edged sword that we all face, IF we want to continue holding on to said freedoms.


We are logical creatures..or we can be. lets use some logic and stop waving a flag to silence out any rational discussion. In the days of the founding constitution, they had muskets and a 30 second loading time between musket balls...not to mention a big thing to lug around. Do you think they would truly feel the same about guns everywhere had they foreseen semi assault handguns with extended mags for everyone regardless of mental status? The founding fathers (praise be unto the holiest of holys) were not idiots.


And the founding fathers never said one word about the internet, computers or laptops.


You know who should have a gun in a bar? the bar owner..maybe even the sober waitstaff. but the average liquored up drink waving his 9mm around while taking tequila shots? hell no...and I would leave the bar should I notice drunks with guns (pretty good rule of thumb there imo)


Dictating who should and who shouldn't have a gun is the first step in control and removing rights from those who may be responsible.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


The really big difference since the West/Pioneer days, is respect and responsibility. Ordinary cowboys and pioneers had respect for one another.

I hope that is the kind of state Georgia is.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Dictating who should and who shouldn't have a gun is the first step in control and removing rights from those who may be responsible.


Yep and that's how we got to a point where the Constitution is being trashed in favor of the emotionalism of people who are too afraid to take responsibility for themselves.

Shall not be infringed means just that and it means anytime anywhere. Constitution haters remind me of some of the bad guy characters from that old book Animal Farm.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 




Alcohol and firearms do not mix.


But guns dont drink, people do...or some other ridiculous argument along those lines.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
And for those who are arguing consumption...


Specifically, the bill stipulates that while a CWP holder may bring his/her concealed firearm into a restaurant or bar, he/she is prohibited from imbibing while there. In short, permit holders will have to make a decision before heading out: it’s either the gun or the booze. Moreover, establishments that serve alcohol are given the choice of whether they want to allow patrons to carry on their premises in the first place. They can ban concealed carry by simply posting signs that say “No guns allowed.”



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Bassago


Shall not be infringed means just that and it means anytime anywhere. Constitution haters remind me of some of the bad guy characters from that old book Animal Farm.


"All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

beezzer
Individual responsibility goes both ways. Punish those who violate that responsibility, by all means. But don't punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

For some reason, I always feel I can almost talk to you as some rational person verses talking to a talking points machine...almost.
Anyhow
I am not saying ban guns, I am saying control the access in public places.
its like that damn religion v government debate where you gotta bring up racist crap (it invites sharia) in order for them to see the light.
Fine
So, lets say you and your partner are having a nice drink at a quiet little restaurant, then 20 gangbangers roll up armed to the teeth. Walk in, sunglasses and gold teeth everywhere, all looking at you two.
Now, you would know right away if there would be a problem if they walked into the place with guns where no guns were allowed, but nope..allowed, so you got to wait till they are all in position and can shut the place down in a cold second..otherwise..meh, their rights, right?
See, now you will no doubt replay the same ole line, but there are a few out there reading this that will come to the holy jesus revelation of it not being a bunch of good ole boys with their smith and Wesson but rather them others that will also have the same ability and conclude some gun control in public areas may be a good idea.
-lives in reality-

Anyhow, same thing can happen, but with your typical biker gane, or ninja schoolgirl squad, etc...basically, it removes the reaction time to nothing should anything go bad.
But hey...freedom..right?


You say you want controls. I say those controls infringe on my individual rights.

yes, it sucks when I don't have the individual right to strap TNT to my chest and walk into a mall...everyone gets all weirded out..but its my right to carry my legally owned tnt how I see fit!!!
-le'sigh


Freedom is often ugly. But it is the double-edged sword that we all face, IF we want to continue holding on to said freedoms.

We don't have freedom first off. We have liberties, freedom is what animals in the wild have. liberties under a well structured rule of law to enhance for all is what we want/desire/need. Freedom is me dumping toxic waste in my canal at the back of my yard which then carries it downstream and contaminates the entire supply..but hey, its muh freedomz cause its muh property!!! Freedom to not pay taxes, freedom to blast my music and rock the neighborhood at 4am, freedom of etc etc etc.
Anyone whom screams freedom is an idiot..and your not an idiot..so stop feeding the idiots!!!
There are enough of em already..no need to make more there braveheart.


And the founding fathers never said one word about the internet, computers or laptops.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand
But I bet Ben Franklin would be very pleased with some areas of the net..just sayin...


Dictating who should and who shouldn't have a gun is the first step in control and removing rights from those who may be responsible.

Well no kidding its the first step in gun control
and no, this is who should be allowed to enter a public place with a gun. losing your rights is your ability to own a gun in your own home. As far as where you can openly display it..well, if the argument is that the gub'ment is skeered of the citizens who are armed, well, chances are, the impending Nazi aliens won't be bumrushing the local Walmart to control the population anyhow, so why the absolute necessity to be armed every sodding place you go?
That is extraordinary paranoia...paranoia is a sign of mental instability

...
and mentally unstable people shouldn't own guns.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

TiedDestructor
And for those who are arguing consumption...


Specifically, the bill stipulates that while a CWP holder may bring his/her concealed firearm into a restaurant or bar, he/she is prohibited from imbibing while there. In short, permit holders will have to make a decision before heading out: it’s either the gun or the booze. Moreover, establishments that serve alcohol are given the choice of whether they want to allow patrons to carry on their premises in the first place. They can ban concealed carry by simply posting signs that say “No guns allowed.”


Oh goodness!

Giving rights to business owners to determine who they can and cannot serve?

Go figure!




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join