One hand on the Bible, one hand on the gun…

It appears that some of our Georgia lawmakers are in favor of House Bill 89 on steroids.

“I personally feel there are a lot of restrictions that should not be there,” said Senate Majority Whip Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg), chairman of a Senate committee that began studying the state’s gun laws Tuesday.

“People who get these [carry] permits are extremely law-abiding citizens,” Seabaugh said. “Those who have no regard for the law are carrying guns anyway.”

Of course there’s the opposition:

Alice Johnson of Georgians for Gun Safety said the meeting lacked objectivity.

“We don’t disagree there should be some comprehensive changes,” she said after the meeting, “but what we saw was only one side having the chance to express themselves.

“Firearms on college campuses and schools, those are some very serious issues.”

Guns on Georgia campuses was attempted last session, but failed due to… bingo, a shooting on a college campus:

Bearden sponsored a bill this year, which didn’t gain traction in the House, that would have allowed people to carry guns onto college campuses. Last year, discussion of allowing guns on campuses was stalled by the Virginia Tech shootings, which occurred during the 2007 session.

The issue of guns on college campuses may be especially hard to accomplish in Georgia due to the independence of the Board of Regents:

Georgia’s public universities are independently governed by the Board of Regents. Because that independence is built into the Georgia Constitution, the General Assembly may not be able to easily force a change on campuses.

University System lobbyists attended the committee meeting. University System spokesman John Millsaps later said the Regents support the current ban.

And of course then there’s always the ultimate question that I have:

Johnson, the gun safety advocate, questioned how police officers would know the difference if faced with someone carrying a weapon.

“The idea that somehow law enforcement can make a distinction between someone who is intending to commit harm and someone who is intending to defend other people, that’s a false distinction,” she said. “That’s not something law enforcement can figure out on the front end.”

That last part is always the one I wonder about the most… how is law enforcement supposed to tell the victims from the criminal if both are holding guns? Maybe a special t-shirt?

I think George Carlin said it best:

A lot of the people who keep a gun at home for safety are the same ones who refuse to wear a seat belt.

26 comments

  1. Painterman says:

    I wonder how many people know that the reason we have these laws on the books was to disarm blacks so the KKK and other racist could shoot at them without having to worry about return fire?

  2. Rick Day says:

    I fully support the Republican position on this and completely oppose the Democrat.

    See, I TOLD you I was an indie!

    Chris: do you think we should offer gun safety classes and shooting teams in High School the way we used to have Driver’s Ed?

  3. Progressive Dem says:

    Absolutely. We should encourage as many people as possible to own and carry guns. Violence will definitely decrease.

  4. jsm says:

    The title to this thread only furthers the argument that liberals operate on emotion rather than principle. “One hand on the the gun” seems scary at first glance, and the principle of defending one’s rights and freedoms with a firearm is lost to false concerns of the return of the wild west.

    I guess if we all turned in our guns and had a big statewide group hug, violence would go away.

  5. Jmac says:

    I guess if we all turned in our guns and had a big statewide group hug, violence would go away.

    Well, instances of lethal violence would arguably decrease dramatically. You’d still have idiots slugging it out after too many beers, but I’d suspect you would see a decrease in violence. Perhaps not a huge one, but a decrease nonetheless.

  6. Tinkerhell says:

    ok, I know how the following would work out with Spacey & he/she/it who shall not be named. Let’s see how it goes with the new front page man.

    I don’t care about the title, assuming Trevor is anti he would desire to spin it his way just as I would want to spin it mine. Fair game. (and to be honest I don’t’ see the title as being that anti. I’d consider that a compliment 🙂 But is Trevor rational & functioning under some sort of factual basis (or what here thinks is factual) or is he an emo libtard?

    Trevor,
    Since you pointed it out specifically, why does that last bit bother you?
    It’s pretty simple the one that’s not committing the crime is the one that doesn’t need to be worried about.

    Are you imagining some scenario where a protracted shoot out is going on where two people are blazing away from the opposite sides of the restaurant when the cops arrive and they don’t know who started what? Or maybe police arriving on the scene where two people both have weapons drawn & are staring each other down waiting to see who shoots first and are both refusing to put a weapon down just because the cops are now on the scene?

    In any situation a law abiding citizen (that is who we are talking about here) is going follow all commands by law enforcement once they show up. As long as the leos don’t feel the need to show up & just start shooting because a gun is present then all should be fine.
    Cop shows up (with his gun drawn) tells everyone to put their weapons down:
    A) They do. Cop then locks up everyone & does what cops do – investigate as to what happened.
    B) One guy doesn’t. Maybe even shoots at the cop. He’s the Bad Guy. Cop shoots him. Or maybe Good Guy shoots him.
    C) Both guys don’t. No one is the good guy here. As soon as you are not complying with the officer in such a scenario you are no longer law abiding. Cop does whatever he’s gotta do to resolve the situation & protect his own posterior.

    The real truth of this situation is that in that majority of cases where a weapon is used in self defense all the noise has stopped well before the police arrive. That’s sort of the whole point to wanting to keep/carry firearms in the first place. Cops are not yet able to teleport or mystically know where they need to be when before something happens.

    From the details I’ve heard the committee meeting sounds like a promising start to next year’s attempts by GCO to return peoples RIGHT of self defense to them. Way to go Rep Bearden and Georgia Carry!!

  7. Progressive Dem says:

    I think we should allow guns in high schools. My boys would only use them for self-defense.

  8. Jewel says:

    Georgia’s legislature has bigger issues to contend with, including transportation, the drought, education, budget. etc. During the 40 day legislative session , would not time, energies and efforts be better expended on matters that have real, lasting effect upon the state and its residents? Why is one minute being wasted allowing the gun lobby and certain members of the legislature to make this a defining and premier issue of the next legislative session?

  9. joe says:

    Progressive Dem ,

    Since 16-11-129 states:

    (b) Licensing exceptions. No license or renewal license shall be granted to:

    (1) Any person who is prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 922;

    (1.1) Any person under 21 years of age;

    I can only assume that your 21 year old boys are freshmen this year. Like father, like son.

  10. Dave Bearse says:

    Joe:

    Prog Dem was thinking that 16-11-29 be revised to reduce the age requirement to under 14 year of age, and that guns be allowed to be carried in schools by licensed holders.

    Some folks have a saying concerning assume, but not me.

  11. Progressive Dem says:

    Exactly. I think guns in schools will improve the education environment. I’m sure it will convince many out of state business considering locating here that Georgia has finally taken the corrective steps necessary to improve education.

  12. Trevor Southerland says:

    Tinkerhell:

    I’m not really sure exactly what would happen in said situations… sure, it could go the way you mention… but there’s just so much room for error.

    And trust me, I haven’t taken a huge position on this issue… when I take a position you’ll know… otherwise I’m just blogging, commenting, and having a good time.

    AND… as Jewel said, the main issue I have here is:

    “Georgia’s legislature has bigger issues to contend with, including transportation, the drought, education, budget. etc. During the 40 day legislative session , would not time, energies and efforts be better expended on matters that have real, lasting effect upon the state and its residents? Why is one minute being wasted allowing the gun lobby and certain members of the legislature to make this a defining and premier issue of the next legislative session?”

  13. Tinkerhell says:

    Thx Trevor. Thus far, in my tiny little book, you already are much more reasonable than certain others. 🙂

    Give us time well get you around on the gun issue.

    As to more important issues. Well I agree. We have lots more that needs to be dealt with, but then again we always do don’t we? I’d be all happy if the gold dome would just have agreed to HB915 last session and then the whole gun issue could basically be behind GCO and the NRA and everyone else on the RKBA bus could move their influence on to those other important matters.

    In the mean time my personal opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd one for a reason and I’m tired of the Fed & the State failing to comprehend what “Shall not be infringed” means…

  14. jsm says:

    “During the 40 day legislative session , would not time, energies and efforts be better expended on matters that have real, lasting effect upon the state and its residents?”

    I guess freedom is not that important.

  15. Ken Roberts says:

    Of course there’s no mention that the shootings at NIU and Virginia Tech occurred despite being gun free zones. This is the ultimate folly of the anti-gun lobby, the assumption that outlawing guns will prevent people from having them. It’s worked real well with the drug war and immigration, right?

    The ultimate stupidity is gun-free zones. You have little areas that are supposed to be “gun free” surrounded by areas that allow guns. There are no metal detectors to enter churches or college campuses, or airport-style security checkpoints. What’s to stop someone from putting a legally purchased firearm in their backpack and then simply walking on campus and shooting the place up? Nothing. The only ones that are disarmed in this case are the ones that *do not* want to commit a crime. That’s supposed to DECREASE violence? You’ve got to be kidding.

    I know many of you think that a complete nation-wide ban on firearms is the right option instead. Well, it isn’t. Besides being unconstitutional, a flagrant violation of liberty, and an invitation to authoritarian government… it’s also completely unenforceable. I’ll refer you again to the drugs and pot examples. Even today, people are illegally importing automatic rifles into the United States. Do you want only organized crime to be armed? I think not.

  16. fatattack says:

    Maybe the 40 day legislative session should be 80 days, that would double the time they really spend working to 8 days.

  17. TBILL says:

    I agree, the Legislators have more important business than wasting their time every session on Firearms legislation. Let’s just get it right this time and completely remove the restrictions for GFL holders and prosecute criminal offenders to the fullest extent of the law. The two states who have come closest to doing this have the lowest crime rates in the nation (Alaska and Vermont). The streets won’t run “RED with BLOOD” and the “Bad Old Nasty Guns” won’t magically jump away from their owners and “Murder People”. GFL holders won’t transform into “Wild-West Gunfighters” (who never really existed in the first place, the press and Hollywood made them up). The violent crime rate will go down, some idiots will still do stupid things (just like they do with anything requiring responsibility), but maybe we’ll put some of the resources wasted on bothering Law-Abiding Citizens now, into punishing the stupid people (we might find a way to punish murders like Brian Nichols before we spend millions protecting their rights). Violent criminals and terrorists will be uncomfortable and very concerned about their rights. Cowards will have more people to cower behind and second-guess when the danger has passed. The Elitist Narcissists in the press can find some other delusion to harp about instead of quoting the opinions of a burned out old stoner with the reverence due Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, and the Law-Abiding Citizens can spend our time watching our Legislators do something constructive, instead of constantly defending our God-Given rights from the moronic few who long to relieve all of us of our Freedom and tear the beating heart of Liberty from our Nation.

  18. curtis41 says:

    Alice Johnson has a catchy name for her organization of few members. Who cannot be for gun safety in Georgia, or anywhere else, for that matter? It is most interesting that there is no place to “join” her organization. She is a typical liberal gun-grabber and anti-gun activist and speaks for very few Georgians. One reason, among many , that people join various pro gun groups is that so many misguided and foolish people substitute their good judgment for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was true (IS true) in D.C., NYC, Chicago and San Francisco, and nearer home, in Atlanta and the airport authority. The Atlanta case is so weak in principle that the Transportation Safety Agency has been asked to prohibit firearms anywhere on airport property, and NOT just in the secure gate areas of the airport. First, firearm laws are preempted in Georgia, purchase, sale, transfer, carry, transport, etc. Second, to my understanding, the TSA does NOT have the legal authority to regulate firearms in non-secure areas of the airport. Ms. Johnson’s take on having Georgia enforce its own code in the airport (Hartsfield, ATL) and not have the TSA start regulating firearms across the U.S. seems to be giving her nightmares. Unclear thinking and not following the law will do that in the case of Atlanta. A high school district in Texas on the north border has carry permitted teachers in their school now. At least one Principal and school district has some sense to try to protect students by having just a few trained, permitted teachers volunteer to make the school safer for students. Despite Ms. Johnson’s rhetoric, guns, properly used, SAVE LIVES. I am most proud to be a member of SAF, the Second Amendment Foundation, and GCO (Georgia Carry Organization). In the some 40 states or so that have shall issue type firearm regulations, violent crimes are DOWN overall, but Ms. Johnson does not address that “problem”. Despite the innate anti-gun rhet9ric of the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC), Alice Johnson gets unrebutted line space. I would like to be among the first to inform her “organization” that NOT all Georgians are card-carrying members of the NRA. In fact, the NRA AND the Brady Campaign joined together on the Virginia Program to prosecute 100% of the violent crimes committed with firearms, so there is a middle ground among these groups. Realize I am not in favor of arming all the people in a house of worship. You might remember that the preacher in one church who DID have the good sense to have ONE person armed during the service, many lives were spared that day. My sense is that at this time in our history, we have at least three vital security concerns; Criminals who would do us harm, Terrorists who would attack us and our allies abroad and on our own soil, and last Anti-gun activists who would remove firearms from law-abiding Americans, leaving them unable to defend themselves and their family in their own home. I personally put Alice Johnson in the same graduating class as Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, Fenty, Nagin, Obama and Biden on any issues involving the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For the record, the U.S. Constitution is NOT a document suitable for ignoring parts with which you do not agree, or revising it at will by social engineers and those who believe it is a “living document. That, in practice has been a means to make a legal decision along ones’ ideology and political lines, and then select cases to justify the decision, like militia only and not individuals. Our forefathers were not stupid, despite what you may be lead to believe. They had a good understanding of human nature and the possible tyranny of government over its citizens.

  19. joe says:

    Curtis,

    I think that you will find that the people on this site have much greater support for GCO than for the NRA, aka Frigtards, as the frigtards tend to push their agenda, and not worry about what is actually right.

Comments are closed.