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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   

TiedDestructor

Phage
reply to post by TiedDestructor
 



The small town I live in has no gang activity and very little crime.
Up until this bill you could go into most any bar parking lot here in Ga and find multiple weapons in the vehicles of patrons.

So why make it legal to take your weapons inside?

edit on 3/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Because dumb@ss criminals don't follow the law. I do.


So, are you saying that by taking a gun wherever you go, you are now going to take the law into your own hands?

That's a slippery slope indeed.




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

TrueAmerican
Exactly as it should be. The 2nd never stated that someone had to be identified by fingerprint or any other means to own a weapon. So lose that too. Good on Georgia!


and because it does not specifically prohibit it the states have some leeway in this area. Remember, anything not specifically assigned to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved to the states.

As for where a person can carry - Leave it up to the individual business owners. Let them decide if they want patrons drinking alcohol while armed or if they prefer the person leave their weapon secured in their vehicle.

As for airports - I'm good with people carrying in the commons areas but not in secured areas.

My biggest concern that comes from my background is -
How does a Police Officer determine, in an active shooting situation, who the shooter is and who an armed civilian is. Even when I am off duty and carry concealed, im required to have my badge right next to my gun (and even then a badge does not officially identify an officer as an officer - the credential card does).

When responding to an incident involving weapons, especially when it occurs in public / business locations, the ability to give verbal warnings decreases immensely.

If an incident were to occur in an airport, where a shooting occurs, and you have uniformed, non uniformed and civilians all producing weapons, who do the uniformed officers decide who the threat is? I ask because Law Enforcement goes through training in terms of how to break the auditory / visual exclusion that can occur during those encounters. Can the same be said for a civilian?

With that said, how does one find a happy median between the 2?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Xcathdra
If an incident were to occur in an airport, where a shooting occurs, and you have uniformed, non uniformed and civilians all producing weapons, who do the uniformed officers decide who the threat is? I ask because Law Enforcement goes through training in terms of how to break the auditory / visual exclusion that can occur during those encounters. Can the same be said for a civilian?

With that said, how does one find a happy median between the 2?


You won't have to worry about it in that case, if civilians are armed. All you'll have to worry about is cleaning up the mess. Because a shooter facing an armed populace might take out 1 or 2, but that sukka's going down. They can respond to the incident much faster than police. And see, that's the case in nearly all these shooting sprees. The lack of weapons caused many more dead. We can't prevent incidents entirely, but we can minimize the damage to innocents. You arm them.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Unless, of course, the shooter were prevented from taking a weapon into the establishment.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Unless, of course, the shooter were prevented from taking a weapon into the establishment.



Yeah right. The great, ineffective solution that always fails. And while the gun grabbers cling to it, more people keep dying. Got any other bright ideas?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Lot of people getting shot in bars, churches, and airports in Georgia?
Those number just keep going up?

edit on 3/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

TrueAmerican


You won't have to worry about it in that case, if civilians are armed. All you'll have to worry about is cleaning up the mess. Because a shooter facing an armed populace might take out 1 or 2, but that sukka's going down. They can respond to the incident much faster than police. And see, that's the case in nearly all these shooting sprees. The lack of weapons caused many more dead. We can't prevent incidents entirely, but we can minimize the damage to innocents. You arm them.


And if life was like a movie, every single bullet would only hit a bad guy..


What you are describing s a wild shootout where innocents would definitely be hit by bullets flying, then what?

Does the shooter (attempting to shoot the bad guy..who hits an innocent) get charged with the shooting or murder of the innocent?

Just because you have perfect aim at the range does not mean crap when you are in a gun fight? It is a lot different when the target is shooting back.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Lot of people getting shot in bars, churches, and airports?
Those number just keep going up?


Not if they pass these laws in GA they won't. You watch and see. What will you do when the statistics bear that out to be true? Discredit the statisticians, but of course! There is just no denying that until all the guns are out of the hands of criminals, there is no chance here of a populace willing to give up their guns- and even then- they'd have to rewrite, limit, or abolish the 2nd to do it. Good luck with that.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 




there is no chance here of a populace willing to give up their guns

Who said anything about giving up arms?
In the "old west" you couldn't take your gun into a saloon.

edit on 3/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Phage
In the "old west" you couldn't take your gun into a saloon.


Correction: In some parts of the old west you couldn't take your gun into a saloon. In many other parts of it though, guns in saloons were the everyday norm.


There were numerous killings inside of these Old West saloons. Just a few of these included Wild Bill Hickok who was killed by Jack McCall while playing poker in the No. 10 Saloon in Deadwood, South Dakota.

Bob Ford, Jesse James’ killer was shot down in his own tent saloon in Creede, Colorado; and John Wesley Hardin was shot and killed from behind on August 19, 1895 in an El Paso, Texas saloon.


www.legendsofamerica.com...


Several noted gunmen of the west owned saloons, tended bar or dealt cards at one time or another. These included such notable characters as Wild Bill Hickok, Bill Tilghman, Ben Daniels, Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Ben Thompson, Doc Holliday, and many others.

But, most notable among the many saloons of the West, was the ever present violence that was instigated or occurred within these establishments. In 1876, Bob Younger said "We are rough men and used to rough ways.” Couple that with the public access, flow of potent whiskey, and the general lawlessness of the times, and the saloon was an inevitable powder keg.


Read through that whole article for a more comprehensive understanding of the situation back then. It's not like you Phage to make such sweeping generalizations. You are usually more accurate than that. But it's ok, I still respect your opinion greatly on space subjects.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
According to the NRA there are 300 MILLION firearms in the hands of the American public right now, and that number increases by 10 million every year.

The idea that "they're coming for our guns" or than anyone's 2nd Amendment rights are being compromised is ludicrous.

You guys are worried about the guns in bars, I'm more interested to see what happens in the churches.

Nothing like a good ol' scriptural pissing match or a disagreement about which hand to handle the snake in to be concluded with BAM BAM ... BAM BAM BAM BAM.

"Evolution in action" is the ironic fact in all this.

I feel bad for the random kids that will get killed in these ridiculous situations.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Very dramatic.

Overly dramatic posts aside, I can tell you what will happen, nothing wil happen. This is already legal in my state, has been for awhile. And guess what? We don't have problems with people starting shootouts in bars.

Mountains out of molehills.
edit on 16-3-2014 by kx12x because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

TrueAmerican

Note in this bill also:

remove fingerprinting requirements for renewal licenses


Exactly as it should be. The 2nd never stated that someone had to be identified by fingerprint or any other means to own a weapon. So lose that too. Good on Georgia!


I don't want to suggest you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but are you suggesting fingerprint recognition was in common use when the right to carry a gun was introduced?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Unless, of course, the shooter were prevented from taking a weapon into the establishment.



Demonstrate a single mass shooting that involved a place where carrying a firearm was *not* prohibited. If you can do that, count up the number of places a mass shooting occurred where guns were prohibited.

We all know which number is higher, so why do some pretend that "preventing [the shooter] from taking a weapon into the establishment" would solve any problems?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Onslaught2996

And if life was like a movie, every single bullet would only hit a bad guy..


What you are describing s a wild shootout where innocents would definitely be hit by bullets flying, then what?

Does the shooter (attempting to shoot the bad guy..who hits an innocent) get charged with the shooting or murder of the innocent?

Just because you have perfect aim at the range does not mean crap when you are in a gun fight? It is a lot different when the target is shooting back.


It's called felony murder, and it applies quite nicely to the case you present. If someone is committing a felony and someone dies in relation to their commission of the felony, including having a bystander shot by someone trying to stop the felon, the person committing the felony is charged with the other person's death. This is true even if the felon was not carrying a firearm.
edit on 16-3-2014 by Card0 because: clarification



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

TrueAmerican

Xcathdra
If an incident were to occur in an airport, where a shooting occurs, and you have uniformed, non uniformed and civilians all producing weapons, who do the uniformed officers decide who the threat is? I ask because Law Enforcement goes through training in terms of how to break the auditory / visual exclusion that can occur during those encounters. Can the same be said for a civilian?

With that said, how does one find a happy median between the 2?


You won't have to worry about it in that case, if civilians are armed. All you'll have to worry about is cleaning up the mess. Because a shooter facing an armed populace might take out 1 or 2, but that sukka's going down. They can respond to the incident much faster than police. And see, that's the case in nearly all these shooting sprees. The lack of weapons caused many more dead. We can't prevent incidents entirely, but we can minimize the damage to innocents. You arm them.


Sheesh, I can't believe what you are saying. Since when did you become a vigilante? What makes you such a Hollywood superhero that will always be able to take down the bad guy? You really are living in a world I'm happy I don't inhabit.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

hounddoghowlie
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.



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

If you have liberties, you enjoy a certain amount of freedoms within a predefined area
do you have the freedom to do whatever you want? Do you? DO YOU?!!
No..you don't. therefore you don't enjoy total freedom, you enjoy liberties. Freedom is all encompassing, liberties are a bit more narrow.
I used it properly, but the neocon gun nuts have taken over the thread, tossed out logic, and are in full ape flag wave mode..so just respond with 'murika, fark yeah! and you will get a dozen more flags..you don't really have to put much thought into it anymore, discussion died already.
go freedom fries!



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 




there is no chance here of a populace willing to give up their guns

Who said anything about giving up arms?
In the "old west" you couldn't take your gun into a saloon.

edit on 3/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Don't bother.
In this thread, you either wave the don't tread on me flag, or the jerry mob will slam you with endless chants of usa verses actually understand what the discussion is.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

SaturnFX

If you have liberties, you enjoy a certain amount of freedoms within a predefined area
do you have the freedom to do whatever you want? Do you? DO YOU?!!
No..you don't. therefore you don't enjoy total freedom, you enjoy liberties. Freedom is all encompassing, liberties are a bit more narrow.
I used it properly, but the neocon gun nuts have taken over the thread, tossed out logic, and are in full ape flag wave mode..so just respond with 'murika, fark yeah! and you will get a dozen more flags..you don't really have to put much thought into it anymore, discussion died already.
go freedom fries!


I can agree 100% that liberties and freedom mean different things. Within our current system of government, our liberties come with rights. Rights that all free people have regardless of what the current government officials think that the people should have. One of these rights is the right to keep and bear arms, which is a right that "shall not be infringed".

The reason why you have so many people who are vehemently against any gun control whatsoever is that the government has been unconstitutionally infringing on the right of the people for about a century now. Any new laws against guns are opposed because the old laws never really worked, and took away something the government was never supposed to be able to touch.

Inversely, new laws that reaffirm the right, or legislative action that removes previous infringements to the right, are seen as a very positive thing, and are therefore celebrated. It takes far more effort to reclaim a right that has been taken from you, than it is to take the right in the first place, unless we get into an armed conflict, but nobody really wants that.

In addition, I see far too many people saying "Don't be an idiot, nobody wants to take your guns!" All a reasonable person has to do is to look at New York, California, and now Connecticut to see that their statement is false. Some in the gun restriction lobby DO want to take the firearms from law abiding citizens, and now they have laws to do just that. So excuse us if we're a bit touchy on the subject, and call "bull#".




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join