CBS Atlanta poll on constitutional carry for Georgia.
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Ocme on gpdo, vote on there! We are losing the poll right now. I wish they would have worded it differently.
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Let's see, they have not posted a leadership, they have no way to join yet, but they already have a link for donations? Nuff said!murrybird said:
You know what GCO is doing for you, and who's doing it, and they've never once asked for a donation.
It's a no-brainer!
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
[-(
Joined
·
6,127 Posts
I know the fallout here will be unbearable for some, but I can take it.
I have a major problem voting "Yes" on this poll and won't do so. I believe there are people who shouldn't be carrying weapons and this poll doesn't qualify them. I also believe the permit and background check system not only helps to exclude these people, it also helps to raise those who have a permit to a higher level and is a primary reason for the gains in Georgia gun laws through the efforts of GCO and others. I'm not going to vote to make the permit obsolete and meaningless.
I think any attempt to make it legal for any citizen to carry a gun openly or concealed without a background check or permit is doomed to fail and will only serve to damage the overall effort to gain more ground for permit holders.
Ok, fire away if you will......but it won't change my opinion. You're entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine.
I have a major problem voting "Yes" on this poll and won't do so. I believe there are people who shouldn't be carrying weapons and this poll doesn't qualify them. I also believe the permit and background check system not only helps to exclude these people, it also helps to raise those who have a permit to a higher level and is a primary reason for the gains in Georgia gun laws through the efforts of GCO and others. I'm not going to vote to make the permit obsolete and meaningless.
I think any attempt to make it legal for any citizen to carry a gun openly or concealed without a background check or permit is doomed to fail and will only serve to damage the overall effort to gain more ground for permit holders.
Ok, fire away if you will......but it won't change my opinion. You're entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine.
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
We're now at 50/50! The question was poorly worded. "Background check" should've been left out.
If you "refresh" the page, you can vote for other family members. Just sayin'.
ETA: Not really "refresh", but exit and reenter.
If you "refresh" the page, you can vote for other family members. Just sayin'.
ETA: Not really "refresh", but exit and reenter.
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
My response to "Patrick" at GeorgiaGunOwners.org:
Why won't Patrick join this forum?
Joined
·
12,419 Posts
Not at all trying to change your opinion, just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning lest anyone might possibly be influenced by it.Bulldawg182 said:
The permit system is a request system for those who wish to exercise a fundamental God-given right: the right of self-defense. Since the pistol is the quintessential method of defense against criminals, the right to carry a pistol for such purpose does not morally require a permission slip from man's government just because men think it's a good idea to make a malum prohibitum law saying so.
The permit system in no way excludes anyone from carrying a firearm, for criminals carry every day without a permit, and will always do so. Background checks can stop those with criminal backgrounds from buying a firearm at a gun store, but that is a mute point, since criminals will always find other sources such as private sales.
The "higher level" as you mention is completely artificial. The ones with a permit are only "higher" than their fellow decent citizens without a permit, just because of a piece of paper, just because men say so. Morally, all decent citizens are already in reality higher than criminals. No piece of paper needed for that.
Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont allow open and concealed carry without a permit. Do you consider that to be a crime, or an irresponsible act of those governments? Would crime increase or decrease if the other 47 states followed suit? It should be obvious that as greater numbers of decent citizens carry, the more that criminals think twice, and the more that crime drops.
Joined
·
72,328 Posts
Voted yes at home from a different computer. It is now 52-48, but in fairness, since they already mentioned the poll in the news days ago, I doubt it will be mentioned again.
Joined
·
72,328 Posts
You do realize that the majority of the country requires no license to carry openly, right? Only 13 states require a license to carry openly (a few states, like Florida, ban the practice of carrying openly outside of a few situations). In addition, 3 states require no license to carry concealed, and many others have exceptions for carrying concealed without a license in certain situations (even Georgia, such as in the car, business, or on your own property). Please elaborate on how these successful efforts were doomed to failure, and, more importantly, how they have damaged the overall effort, using specific examples, please.Bulldawg182 said:
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Not to beat up on you Bulldawg but...Bulldawg182 said:
As I see it (and I know I am repeating what others have said so consider this a post count increase :lol: ) the
permit system is a great thing... for those that are law-abiding citizen... we will jump on the wagon and PAY to get a permit to do exactly what a criminal will do for free. This "higher level" of which you speak... it's a myth. As we have seen from multiple encounters with LEO's, even with a permit, you are likely to be stopped and questioned on your right and reason for carrying.. often disarmed for no specific reason and subject to repeated interviews because you don't wear this "higher level" on your forehead. A criminal, who wishes the element of surprise (what we law-abiding citizens refer to as a tactical advantage) isn't likely to open carry and lack of a permit doesn't stop them from CC as it is.
And... while I as a law-abiding citizen might consider allowing a "pre-background check" and issue of a card that shows I have passed thru the gauntlet to make it easier for me to PURCHASE... I don't see why I should bear the burden of a licensing process and fees to carry, a right guaranteed to me by the constitution of the United States.
As to people that you or I might feel SHOULDN'T carry... unless it is for criminal reasons, the permit system will not stop most of them... so.. still no value added.
Those who are willing to obey the law will do so with or without a licensing system, those that already don't obey the law, won't change their actions because we add more laws.
My 2 cents... another $1.48 and you can even get a cup of cheap coffee... speaking of which....
Joined
·
6,110 Posts
I agree with this part. There are those who should not be carrying weapons. However they are and without permits or legally aquired firearms. They are called criminals. If the permit system in Georgia became optional today I would still get the permit so I could carry in other states. You are wrong about the background check and permit excluding those people. They will not only aquire firearms through theft or private sales (mostly theft), carry them concealed and do good people harm with them. No law, background check or permit will change those facts. If it could it would have.Bulldawg182 said:
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
My cue? :lol:BG_Atl said:
I've got objections to this "higher level" thing too. I don't see my permit as some sort of "writ of honor". Instead, I see it more as a sort of "pre-screen" against potential "pre-crime", something which at the moment is needed in order to make part of the American Promise a reality here in Georgia, and I am very thankful to have my permit.
Yes, I also do find it useful for reciprocity. On the other side of that, there was a time in my life when I thought carrying weapons -- any weapon -- was perfectly legal anywhere in the US as long as the weapon was carried openly. I've since been disabused of that notion, however I still wonder why such isn't the case.
"...shall not be infringed..." doesn't say "after jumping through hoops", or "in accordance with (so called) "reasonable restrictions", or "openly only but not concealed", or "only after being investigated first"... It says "shall not be infringed" without any qualifiers at all.
People have said that we must have hoops in order to make (non-private) purchases of certains machines, again catering to that "pre-crime" nonsense. Okay, well, I find my permit useful for that too. Being already "pre-screened", some of the hoops needed for me to make a (non-private) purchase have already been jumped through, ahead of time.
I am very thankful for my permit, but this "higher level" thing, I don't think so. Ultimately I see the proper place for a permit system to be along the lines of "certain administrative burdens already handled" leaving the question of "what are the proper administrative burdens, if any?" still unanswered. It's a "pre-screen" and nothing more IMHO.
Having, possessing, carrying, even purchasing the means of defense should never be an issue. How those means are used is always the issue. It is in the use where the potential for crime exists and no amount of "pre-crime" nonsense can ever address that -- "pre-crime" doesn't focus on the issue, it only pretends to.
People say "but what about vetting?" The vetting happens in the act itself. That's how real life works. If seeing that I have a permit will help to communicate to a LEO some reassurance or veracity regarding me once he arrives on scene after an "oh sh#it!" moment has occured, well so much the better. Maybe it'll help make his job easier.
Like that old Roman said long ago, "The crime isn't in carrying a sword -- the crime is in carrying a sword with intent to commit malice" (mis-quoted but that's the jist).
Just my two cents. I am very thankful for my permit and the more "administrative burdens" pre-handled by it, the better. The more it helps to reassure a LEO, the better... I volunteered to submit to investigatory scrutiny before such scrutiny became a dire neccesity in response to an unforeseen event. Hopefully doing so will help both me and society.
To my mind, that is the proper function of a "permit" -- not so much to "allow" (which is currently the case) but rather to "reassure" or to "smooth the way"... But "higher level"? I don't think so.
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Join the discussion
