Georgia bill could allow guns in bars, churches and airports

Bassago
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.

Emotionalism my arse
this is a statistical reality.
Emotions aren't displayed on a calculator.

anytime anywhere? sure..bring your gun into my private business, watch how quickly you get ejected into the streets. bunch of nonsense spewing dumb....=walks away shaking head and laughing=

The whole argument is kind of off because these laws specifically state that you aren't allowed to drink if you are carrying and I think most states that have these laws it is also stated that you can't carry in the bar after a certain time.

To address the statement that we won't ever be a self-regulating society.

When we were hunter and gatherers, there will always be a leader because we need to be lead or else we will all walk around like zombies saying "Brainsssss". But those were self regulated societies that eventually fell to the next best society with better weapons and tactics.

So humans having freedom and being a self regulated society is completely achievable, if you force people to earn a living and not hand them a living.

reply to post by SaturnFX


First off, gangbangers wouldn't walk into a place known to have armed patrons. Gangbangers by their very nature are cowards.

Rights. Specifically gun rights. The federal government and many of their followers want to eliminate these rights. They want "privileges" instead.

We live in a unique environment, in the US. We actually have a document that says we have "rights".

I want a safe environment to raise my family. Who doesn't.

I own firearms. Quite a few. I keep them locked in a safe. Kind of silly, if someone ever breaks into my home, but that's my choice. MY decision.

You and I may debate the concept of freedom, but when any "liberty" is inhibited, then where does it stop?

I liken the 2nd to the 1st in that any restrictions "for safety" are a net loss regardless.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Emotionalism my arse

That was an emotional response BTW.

Regardless of your emotionalism the Constitution is quite clear on the matter of gun rights. We have them, end of story. Your private property and what you'll allow there are yours to handle. That's what a free country means.

Shake your head all you want. I'll stick to the Constitution.

Do you SERIOUSLY think a law against carrying guns into bars will somehow prevent people carrying guns into bars? Let's just look at one example: Chicago. Up until a few days ago (court decision) it was strictly illegal to carry guns anywhere in Chicago. You couldn't get a conceal carry permit. You couldn't even BUY a gun in Chicago.

And WHAT is the rate of gun violence in Chicago compared to some other city in America where there is no such law? Is it MORE or is it LESS?

What do you think a sign that says "No Guns Allowed!" with a citation to the relevant law actually provokes in the minds of people who wish to carry? How about those with criminal intent?

All "No Guns Allowed!" means, really, is "Unarmed Victims Inside."

Arguing this is just like those legislators you love to deride. You're pushing paper and pretending you're doing something useful when all those proclamations about the matter mean diddly squat in real life.

reply to post by schuyler


In the 90's while living near Chicago, I was in a bar with some friends. (downtown, Gold Coast) On a bet (dare) I said that I could have a gun in my hands in less than an hour.

175.00 dollars later, I won that bet.

Guns in bars in Georgia will last as long as when some cop is called into a bar to quiet a disturbance and a bunch of drunks kill him.

Or an important civic officials kid is killed as an innocent bystander. Or a hotly contested highschool football game and the ref is killed.

It won't take long...

I have no problem with carrying a pistol in a church or airport; but I'll bet the TSA might have something to say about carryingin an airport.

reply to post by SaturnFX

SaturnFX
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.

lib·er·ty noun ˈli-bər-tē :
the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right plural lib·er·ties
Full Definition of LIBERTY
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
liberty

notice how many times free, freedom is used to define liberty.
the founders knew what words meant, and fought over what ones should be used in both the Declaration and the Constitution.
one shouldn't use words, if they aren't completely sure of the meaning.

just sayin.

Don't you love it when gun nuts use words like cowards or idiots to describe the opposition Pot meet kettle.

I am guessing the usual lies are being told..you know the ones.."more guns means less crime"(yeah because so far it has worked out great for people, a country with one of the highest gun crime rates), "without guns we are powerless against the government"(so far the guns have done nothing to stop the government from screwing them over on a consistent basis) ...etc

Whatever..you can't argue against these idiots, they have been brainwashed into thinking guns can do just about everything.

There are more stories of gun used in a crime than of actually stopping one. In fact the stories of guns actually helping people are so small..kind of makes it them more harmful than useful.

Why is it..when something other than guns is deemed more harmful than useful, the people rise up and ask for it to be taking off the market, but not guns.

The American male..the only men in the world..who thump their chests and scream about how brave they are...but when confronted..whip out a gun to defend themselves rather than actually step up..

Onslaught2996
Don't you love it when gun nuts use words like cowards or idiots to describe the opposition

Pot meet kettle.

I am guessing the usual lies are being told..you know the ones.."more guns means less crime"(yeah because so far it has worked out great for people, a country with one of the highest gun crime rates), "without guns we are powerless against the government"(so far the guns have done nothing to stop the government from screwing them over on a consistent basis) ...etc

Whatever..you can't argue against these idiots, they have been brainwashed into thinking guns can do just about everything.

There are more stories of gun used in a crime than of actually stopping one. In fact the stories of guns actually helping people are so small..kind of makes it them more harmful than useful.

Why is it..when something other than guns is deemed more harmful than useful, the people rise up and ask for it to be taking off the market, but not guns.

The American male..the only men in the world..who thump their chests and scream about how brave they are...but when confronted..whip out a gun to defend themselves rather than actually step up..

edit on 15-3-2014 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)

You speak a big game with a SMALL mind

Here what I want to say when gun nuts say the words.."guns don't kill people"

The pro gunners and their lies...

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

reply to post by Onslaught2996


I could FILL these pages with pro-gun banter.

What's your mo?

If your incessantly rambling to a crowd who has not called you out; what be of you?

reply to post by Onslaught2996


So you are of the group that wishes that the 2nd Amendment was a privilege and not a right.

What other amendments do you wish to deny others?

The west may have been wild, but at least people could defend themselves from thugs, abusers, haters, rapists and thieves.

Except that in many towns (like Tombstone) people were required to surrender their weapons upon entering.

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.

law2.umkc.edu...

reply to post by Phage


Many post Tombstone's law as an example of gun control.

There are places in America where cars aren't allowed. I'll wager that vehicular accidents are far lower in those areas as well. So a total nullification of weapons through draconian rule does not support any argument other than a denial of a Constitutional right.

Yet, where does one draw the line? Is gun ownership a right or a privilege?

reply to post by beezzer

Yet, where does one draw the line? Is gun ownership a right or a privilege?

Ownership is a right.
This is not an issue of ownership. Taking guns into bars is not a really good idea. Drunk people are not generally known for their discretionary skills.
I own a dog. It's not my right to take him where ever I want.

It should be a privilege, like every other object that can cause severe damage. Instead of having every blood thirsty nut armed. A lot of them are in this thread.

reply to post by Onslaught2996

Would have to amend the Constitution to do that.

Onslaught2996
It should be a privilege, like every other object that can cause severe damage. Instead of having every blood thirsty nut armed. A lot of them are in this thread.

Every blood thirty gun nut is already armed, and most of them illegally. So why in the hell would I want to bring chest pounding and mere fists to a gunfight, or defend myself from a several armed robbers with words?

Seems to me there is an onslaught of irritation and shillery amongst us. *Yawn*.