This type of bill would pass in Georgia... (Atlanta, Franklin: appointed, bankruptcy)

[south-to-west]

JPD,

That was a great Bookman article! This "Rambo" fantasy has really gotten out of control. I still don't understand the justification of bringing firearms on public transport. There's simply no justification.

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by BGS99

Seems to me that putting the emphasis on personal responsibility is a principle. But I guess its more of a conservative vs liberal thing for you.
Hey, I'm all for Sunday alcohol sales and legal drugs and prositution.
You want to get out of a deficit? End the money waisted on the war on drugs and tax the sales of it. Same thing with prositution.
For what its worth, I dont own a gun or do drugs or even drink for that matter.
Am I still conservative enough for you?

My apologies, BGS, in retrospect my post reads like a personal attack on you. That wasn't what I intended, and I have no problem with your views at all. I'm frustrated by the many cherry-picking conservatives there seem to be out in the public sphere (politicians, journalists) and posting on forums.

[BGS99]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

My apologies, BGS, in retrospect my post reads like a personal attack on you. That wasn't what I intended, and I have no problem with your views at all. I'm frustrated by the many cherry-picking conservatives there seem to be out in the public sphere (politicians, journalists) and posting on forums.

Hey, I can take it just as much as i can dish it out

Originally Posted by south-to-west

JPD,

.There's simply no justification.

Thats such a backwards sense of freedom.
How about instead of restricting everything and only allowing the justifiable, we allow everything and restrict the justifiable?

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

This is where conservatives drive me crazy with their lack of principles. If you believe this kind of stuff, I want to see you voting in favor of full legalization of Sunday sales not just of alcohol, but drugs and prostitution too. Let the almighty guiding hand of free enterprise and personal responsibility determine where these things fit into our society. If you took this position, I wouldn't agree but I'd respect your ideological consistency.

I agree that the government should not be legislating alcohol, drugs, or prostituion. As I have alluded to before on this thread, most things are not bad in and of themselves. The abuse of those items are what create the problems, and I do believe that our government has not only a right, but an obligation, to make abusing those said items illegal (that way the we have established rules on which to punish offenders). Everyone obviously has a vested interest in making sure the public is safe. In my personal opinion, safety should not be acheived by outlawing any item which could potentially be misused (for then everything we be outlawed) but by regulating the actual abuse of the item (as we currently do with alcohol - mind you alcohol consumption is not banned on Sunday, just its purchase at retail location, cars, etc.). Now for things which are dangerous in and of themselves (cannot think of any specific example right now), those things are within the right of the government to regulate. Just my two cents.

I think that once again this all gets back to personal accountability.

[AtlDad]

Originally Posted by BGS99

Thats such a backwards sense of freedom.
How about instead of restricting everything and only allowing the justifiable, we allow everything and restrict the justifiable?

I completely agree with that. I also agree with you that we should legalize things like purchasing alcohol on Sundays and legalizing drugs and prostitution, obviously heavily regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco but still freely available to those that want to make the personal choice.

RainyRainyDay, I agree with you that there are many cherry-picking conservatives out there and that is unfortunate. And, just to be fair, there are just as many cherry-picking liberals out there as there are conservatives, albiet on a completely different set of issues. Cherry-picking and hypocrisy are certainly not limited to one side of the political spectrum.

[south-to-west]

Look, I'm not intersted in having a discussion about libertarianism, Ayn Rand, or Adam Smith. I'm just talking about wanting to ensure a safe enviromnent on public transport by not allowing firearms. We already have the MARTA police that are armed and ready to deal with any serious situations. We don't need an armed populace riding the trains. I shouldn't have to be at the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness while they are armed with a deadly weapon sitting in close proximity of me. To me, it infringes on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[kagmypts]

As for the Rambo fantasy article, the fundamental problem with the article is that the one stat that he mentions is totally meaningless in the context of he point he is trying to make. He says that about 98% of homicides are not justifiable under the context of the law. He seems to imply that by arming additional people in more public places that the murder rate will also go up. However, he does nothing to look at how that homicide rate breaks down between legal and illegal gun possession. If you were to examine the 98% of illegal gun homicides, what percent of those crimes were committed by a person with a legally registered gun? If most of the gun homicides were committed by people who illegally possess guns, then it really makes sense to allow people to carry legally concealed weapons. Heck, that is 185 innocent lives that were saved (Rambo fantasy stat). Even if it saves just one innocent life, I will take that chance.

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

Look, I'm not intersted in having a discussion about libertarianism, Ayn Rand, or Adam Smith. I'm just talking about wanting to ensure a safe enviromnent on public transport by not allowing firearms. We already have the MARTA police that are armed and ready to deal with any serious situations. We don't need an armed populace riding the trains. I shouldn't have to be at the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness while they are armed with a deadly weapon sitting in close proximity of me. To me, it infringes on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

First, do you really believe that by not allowing firearms on public transit it becomes safe? Unfortunately, people who want to harm other people will do so without regard to what is legal. Second, are you implying that people are not already carrying guns on MARTA? That is just absurd to think that is the case. Third, the MARTA police cannot stop everything. If they could, why have there been 3 homicides and an additional 3 violent crimes committed in the past 4 years on MARTA? Fourth, why should riding public transit be any different than driving your car? Each time you get behind the wheel you are "at the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness". Fifth, allowing others to carry guns on MARTA does nothing to infringe upon your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you decide that by allowing others to possess guns you are too scared to ride MARTA, then you have the choice to stay home. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not mean that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and in the manner that you so desire. The beauty about this country is that even if you opt not to ride MARTA you can still get to where you want to go - now that is freedom!

[BGS99]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

Look, I'm not intersted in having a discussion about libertarianism, Ayn Rand, or Adam Smith. I'm just talking about wanting to ensure a safe enviromnent on public transport by not allowing firearms. We already have the MARTA police that are armed and ready to deal with any serious situations. We don't need an armed populace riding the trains. I shouldn't have to be at the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness while they are armed with a deadly weapon sitting in close proximity of me. To me, it infringes on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Wow. Not interested in taling about other views but somehow "ensure a safe environment by not allowing firearms". I wasnt aware that would ensure a safe environment. You say we already have MARTA police, then in the next sentence you shouldnt have to be the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness. I'm with you an that one. Which is why I choose to be at my own mercy. I wont even ask how your rights are infringed upon. If you think you have a right to never face risk or danger, then guns on marta are the least of your concerns.

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by BGS99

Wow. Not interested in taling about other views but somehow "ensure a safe environment by not allowing firearms". I wasnt aware that would ensure a safe environment. You say we already have MARTA police, then in the next sentence you shouldnt have to be the mercy of someone's judgement, skill, and level-headedness. I'm with you an that one. Which is why I choose to be at my own mercy. I wont even ask how your rights are infringed upon. If you think you have a right to never face risk or danger, then guns on marta are the least of your concerns.

BGS99, I am on the same page with you - not only on this point, but basically with everything you have said as this thread develops/continues.