Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Making policy based on catering to childish gun fetishists and anti-government loons. Unbelievable.
I don't see this as being terribly ground-breaking, earth-shattering or even likely to change behaviors that much. I suspect that people who want to carry guns to church do so already. But your point of catering to a narrow minority is well-taken. In his statement on it, the Gov of GA said 5% of Georgians hold CCW licenses. That means that 95% don't. Calling the gun carriers a minority would be an overstatement. I think that laws ought to address a problem in society and when called for by public demand to address the problem. But all this nonsense over a mere 5% of the population just shows that it is nothing more than what you called it. It is not democracy; it is shameless pandering.
Agreed, business owners should have the final say to decide if they want people carrying guns in their establishments or not. Does anyone disagree with that?
The guns are concealed. How are the owners to know if customers have them? Unless they are required to be used to protect lives and then let the business owners complain that the person who protected them didn't abide the sign.
They can put up all the signs they want, if CC is legal people are going to carry where they go.
Property and business owners should determine carry rules, not politicians.
Agreed, business owners should have the final say to decide if they want people carrying guns in their establishments or not. Does anyone disagree with that?
Sounds good to me.
A business owner can't take away my gun when I walk into his store.
But he can announce that he doesn't want anyone carrying a gun in his store. Anyone (including me) who brings one in after that, is trespassing, and he can have them escorted out by the cops if need be. He certainly has the right to set that standard.
But with rights come responsibilities. If he makes the rule for his store that no one can come in carrying a gun, and so I leave my gun at home and come in without it, and some crook comes in, holds the place up, threatens me, and shoots me, then the store owner has to bear some responsibility for my getting shot since he caused me to leave my best means of self-defense at home (the crook bears most of the responsibility, of course). True that *I* chose to leave my gun home and enter his store, nobody forced me to do that. So the store owner's responsibility in this case is very small... but it's not zero.
As long as the business owner who doesn't want people carrying guns in his business, understands those ground rules, sure I'm fine with his making such a rule for his business. As I said, he has the absolute right to make that rule. But with the right comes a responsibility, even if it's a small one in this case.
Business owners, if you require your patrons to go unarmed, YOU have to bear some of the responsibility for keeping them safe, since you are (partly) causing them to give up their means of self-defense.
It's contained in the bill. How can it be "irrational fear" if it's contained in the bill?
Again, you have an irrational fear that because someone can now carry their weapons in to more places, they are going to start shooting up, claiming self defense. That is an irrational fear. You are placing blame on legal, law abiding citizens who are NOT going to do such things.
It doesn't matter if the gun is legal or illegal, legal, law abiding citizens are NOT going to do what you claim. It is completely irrational. Anyone who uses an illegal weapon, and uses it to justify "self defense" is NOT a legal, law abiding citizen. You don't get to blame legal, law abiding citizens for the actions of those who don't follow ANY law.
You seem to think that MORE people are going to do this because of the law. What I said is that it doesn't matter if there is a law or not, the type of people who do that sort of thing are going to do it no matter WHAT law you put on the books. So, again, your fear is irrational.
As long as the business owner who doesn't want people carrying guns in his business, understands those ground rules, sure I'm fine with his making such a rule for his business. As I said, he has the absolute right to make that rule. But with the right comes a responsibility, even if it's a small one in this case.
Business owners, if you require your patrons to go unarmed, YOU have to bear some of the responsibility for keeping them safe, since you are (partly) causing them to give up their means of self-defense.
That won't happen. You are taking the risk of being unable to defend yourself should the worst happen when you choose to enter that property unarmed, regardless of the owners rules.
A business owner can't take away my gun when I walk into his store.
But he can announce that he doesn't want anyone carrying a gun in his store. Anyone (including me) who brings one in after that, is trespassing, and he can have them escorted out by the cops if need be. He certainly has the right to set that standard.
But with rights come responsibilities. If he makes the rule for his store that no one can come in carrying a gun, and so I leave my gun at home and come in without it, and some crook comes in, holds the place up, threatens me, and shoots me, then the store owner has to bear some responsibility for my getting shot since he caused me to leave my best means of self-defense at home (the crook bears most of the responsibility, of course). True that *I* chose to leave my gun home and enter his store, nobody forced me to do that. So the store owner's responsibility in this case is very small... but it's not zero.
As long as the business owner who doesn't want people carrying guns in his business, understands those ground rules, sure I'm fine with his making such a rule for his business. As I said, he has the absolute right to make that rule. But with the right comes a responsibility, even if it's a small one in this case.
Business owners, if you require your patrons to go unarmed, YOU have to bear some of the responsibility for keeping them safe, since you are (partly) causing them to give up their means of self-defense.
I read a lot of whacky nonsense from those who support gun rights. While I disagree with you-I believe since you choose to enter the store without your gun the owner has ZERO responsibility, I do want to say, this is one of the more reasoned and thought out posts on this sort of topic.
And I think it will be interesting to see the results of this law change. I know the pro gun people are going to go on about how crime will drop, but I don't expect much change at all. The anti-gun people will go on about gunfights in bars, but I don't expect much of that either. Overall the only thing I really expect is...people will have more rights to do as they want. And thats a good thing.
I recommend that those who have irrational fears not skim over words such as, "in accordance with", or "as provided in". When you read those words, it obliterates those claims that certain things are "written" in to the law.
Again, you have an irrational fear that because someone can now carry their weapons in to more places, they are going to start shooting up, claiming self defense. That is an irrational fear. You are placing blame on legal, law abiding citizens who are NOT going to do such things.
It doesn't matter if the gun is legal or illegal, legal, law abiding citizens are NOT going to do what you claim. It is completely irrational. Anyone who uses an illegal weapon, and uses it to justify "self defense" is NOT a legal, law abiding citizen. You don't get to blame legal, law abiding citizens for the actions of those who don't follow ANY law.
You seem to think that MORE people are going to do this because of the law. What I said is that it doesn't matter if there is a law or not, the type of people who do that sort of thing are going to do it no matter WHAT law you put on the books. So, again, your fear is irrational.
And again I'm not referring to law abiding gun owners, and I'm not referring to the carry anywhere part. Reread my post, and read the addendums. I'm referring to the self-defense add-ons. Stop telling others to read this bill when you yourself have not.
The guns are concealed. How are the owners to know if customers have them? Unless they are required to be used to protect lives and then let the business owners complain that the person who protected them didn't abide the sign.
They can put up all the signs they want, if CC is legal people are going to carry where they go.
If a business has a sign that says "No Firearms" I respect the right of the business owner and will not carry a firearm into their place of business, concealed or otherwise. In fact, I will not patronize that business at all. I will find another business that allows firearms instead, regardless if I am armed or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
