The Chamber v. The NRA

From Joe Fleming:

The Senate delivered a stunning rebuke of the NRA this evening when it passed a severely watered-down version of the NRA’s “bring your guns to work” legislation. As passed in committee, the bill clearly reaffirms the rights of private property owners to determine whether or not to permit the introduction of firearms on their premises. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce still has concerns with the legislation, including the vague, contradictory and ambiguous language in the bill. However, we appreciate the support of Senators in recognizing the rights of property owners to set workplace policies they believe are in the best interest of their business.


  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I am marginally satisfied. Private Property rights are preserved. Thanks be to classical liberalism! I am sure some special/single interest groups are not satisfied and may file suit…and I hope they do. It would be lovely for private property rights to be preserved in legislation and by case law…seeing as how these “cons” do not get the intent of our country and states founding framers.

  2. Bill Simon says:


    I’m glad that exemption is in there because I was for the original wording of the bill. That is, for the employee who is concerned with the safety of his life during the drive to and from work, he should have been allowed to keep his legally purchased gun in his glove compartment REGARDLESS of whether that vehicle is parked in his employer’s lot or any lot.

    But, I know, Joe Fleming laughs at the concept of someone wanting to protect themselves 100% of the time they are out of the house. Apparently, Joe thinks the police are “good enough” to protect everyone on the road and no one needs protection.

  3. BubbaRich says:

    That’s a good point, Bill. We shouldn’t rely on school staff to protect students, either. If a 16 year old is old enough to shoot a deer, he should be able to take a gun to school to protect himself.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Hey! While we are at it…why don’t we let bankers and their patrons to carry firearms in the bank…and prisoners to carry fire arms to protects themselves from other inmates. How much more ridiculous can we make this?

  5. cheapseats says:

    Owning a gun, carrying it around with you legally, practicing gun safety at all times still does not mean that a person can shoot straight and hit what they’re aiming at.

    How does this simple fact continuing to elude all you 21st century John Wayne wannabees?

    If I ever find myself in a public place where one crazy starts shooting then I’d rather take my chances dodging the bullets from that one gun than trying to dodge bullets coming from multiple “upstanding citizens” attempting to protect me!

    Geez cowboys! Those things don’t work like they do in the movies.

  6. joe says:

    Some cowboys spent 20+ years in the military or in law enforcement. They all know how to shoot and hit what the target. Go ahead, take your chances dodging a bullet.

  7. Bill Simon says:


    Some gunowners go to the range on a regular basis and practice their aim and condition themselves to the sound of the bang and gun recoil.

    Others don’t….but, I do have a nice shotgun in my house, so I don’t have to worry TOO much about aim.

  8. Bill Simon says:


    My point was to Goldwater’s ridiculously sarcastic comment.

    And, while we are not in the “wild west,” DO let me know how many murders and robberies and rapes have occured in the City of Kennesaw per capita ever since that law requiring everyone (except a conscientious objector) who lives there to own a gun. Compare that per capita to ANY other city, like, say, New York City where they strictly don’t allow handguns.

    Let me know which murder rate is higher, won’t you?

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Wiggle your way out anyway you want…I asked for per capita murder rates, Rugby. “Factors” don’t apply when you normalize the comparison to “per capita.” It’s a fair comparison.

    Don’t make me whip-out my linear programming matrices on you.

  10. rugby fan says:

    No Bill, no its not.

    New York City has areas with extremely high levels of poverty, which leads to higher crime, Kennesaw does not.

    New York City, while having a larger police force, has fewer police per capita than Kennesaw (I am assuming) and more than likely a more mobile squad, decreasing crime.

    Would you like me to continue?

  11. Bill Simon says:


    Do you have statistics backing-up your assertion that everywhere there is a “high level of poverty,” more crime occurs? Or, are you just making a statement based on your “feeling” that you and I perceive that it would because it might be an often-thought assumption w/o any definitive proof?

  12. Bill Simon says:


    When I open and read an abstract of a study that reveals to me right-off the bat that: “We also find that an inrease in law enforcement personnel reduces cattle theft which in Madagascar, is a form of organized crime” AND a mention of a geographical location termed “the highlands of Madagascar”, I KNOW I am reading a research study based on a 2nd or 3rd World country.

    I am sorry. Really. But using a study that uses a non-US Constitutional, non-rule-of-law-based society kinda, sorta, pretty much doesn’t give me any kind of proof regarding what goes on in Kennesaw, Georgia or New York City, NY.

    Furthermore, these guys studied a sudden ramp-up of poverty caused by an outside, catastrophic event. When you stated that the “poverty rate of NY is higher than in Kennesaw,” that presumes a steady-state rate, not a sudden change in the rate.

    Did you know that usual, law-abiding citizens who are suddenly injected into a survive-or-die situation do find themselves willing to break the law or rules of civil behavior in order to cope with their sudden misfortune? (Think about a plane crash a few decades ago in the Andes mountain range.)

    Is there any study that uses steady-state poverty rates to compare one city in, say, California, to one city in, say, Florida? Anything like that, Rugby? Anything REMOTELY RELEVANT like that, Rugby?

Comments are closed.