This type of bill would pass in Georgia... (Washington, Jersey: violent crime, home)

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by kagmypts

I have not read the bill, but I would gather that it does not allow people to "shoot sumthin" on MARTA and in restaurants... it rather protects their right to carry a weapon in those places

The US leads the western world in gun fatalities, and those of us from less gun-loving countries tend to figure that y'all kill each other with firearms so darned much because you got 'em. Of course, the NRA thinks differently. I just wish you'd all do your gun-totin' on MARTA when I wasn't on the train.

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

The US leads the western world in gun fatalities, and those of us from less gun-loving countries tend to figure that y'all kill each other with firearms so darned much because you got 'em. Of course, the NRA thinks differently. I just wish you'd all do your gun-totin' on MARTA when I wasn't on the train.

Of course, you would wish that until some felon pulls out his gun. As others on this thread have said, true "thugs" do not adhere to the laws, and if people who carry guns solely for self-defense can now do so lawfully, many of the "thugs" will think twice before pulling out their guns. Besides, the right to bear arms is one of the principles upon which this country was founded... please see the Second Amendment of Constitution.

For all of you who are opposed to law abiding citizens carrying guns, I am presuming that you have never been a victim of a violent crime or held up at gunpoint. I can assure you that would change how you would view your right to carry a gun.

[AtlDad]

To follow up on that, for every story of someone killing a stanger with a gun, you can find stories where private citizens carrying guns prevented further bloodshed. Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" and we all know about the tragedy that happened there. Appalachian State's 2002 shotting could have been a lot worse if not for the citizens with their private guns.

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” - Plato

If someone is determined to rob someone at gunpoint or, worse, shoot them, they are not going to concerned about whether or not they are allowed to take a gun somewhere.

For more examples, try goolge or read the excerpt from here.

Recall the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City earlier this year, or the 2005 shooting at the mall in Tacoma, Wash. The shooters in both of those incidents were stopped by people with guns. In Salt Lake City, an off-duty policeman from another jurisdiction happened to be in the mall with his wife, essentially as a private citizen. Fortunately, officer Kenneth Hammond ignored the “no guns” signs at Trolley Square and had his pistol. He traded shots with Sulejman Talovic, sending the gunman running for cover until uniformed officers arrived and killed Talovic.

In Tacoma, gunman Dominick Maldonado was confronted by a courageous armed citizen named Brendon McKown. Although Maldonado seriously wounded McKown, he quickly stopped shooting and ultimately surrendered to police. The Tacoma Mall also prohibits firearms.

Remember Luke Woodham, who shot up Mississippi’s Pearl High School in 1997? His rampage was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who had rushed to his car to retrieve a .45-caliber pistol. Myrick aimed the gun at Woodham’s head and held him until police arrived.

In January 2002, gunman Peter Odighizuwa, who had just murdered three people on the campus of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., was confronted by two armed students who had rushed to their cars to retrieve handguns. He dropped his gun and was wrestled to the ground.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by kagmypts

Besides, the right to bear arms is one of the principles upon which this country was founded... please see the Second Amendment of Constitution.

Just curious, which "well regulated militia" are you a part of?

[cool_mommy]

Didn't the state of FL pass a law some time ago that stated you could actually shoot someone if you felt threatened by them? I wondered how that was going to turn out. I'm not saying that this bill and that law are the same but I would like to know how that turned out.

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by JPD

Just curious, which "well regulated militia" are you a part of?

The Second Amendment reads,

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

It clearly states that the right of PEOPLE (not militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. This is a question (formalized militia versus an individual's right to carry personal firearms) that has repeatedly come up in the courts, and the courts have yet to say that the Second Amendment does not cover an individual's right to bear arms. In light of that, I stand by my previous statment that the right to bear arms in one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The Supreme Court will be ruling on an issue very similiar to this probably some time this summer. The current ruling (the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit) is summarized below:

The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):
“ To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”

The court concluded:
“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

[gt6974a]

just look at the crime rates in Kennesaw once they passed their gun law.

you're allowed to shoot someone here in Georgia if you feel your life is threatened. Not just Florida.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by gt6974a

just look at the crime rates in Kennesaw once they passed their gun law.

you're allowed to shoot someone here in Georgia if you feel your life is threatened. Not just Florida.

That right should be extended to students. Kennesaw State University has a "no gun" policy. And some people wonder why someone can get mugged just outside the university.

[gt6974a]

all Universities should have this.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by gt6974a

all Universities should have this.

I couldn't agree more. After surviving a mugging off campus, I am a bigger advocate for being allowed to bear arms on campus because it does get dark on campus and sometimes I do have to walk home in the dark. It happens.