Georgiapacking.org banner

2381 - 2400 of 2427 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
I didn't know Georgia had a long history with colleges established in Virginia.
Slight of hand. It's also noteworthy that his "evidence of the historical significance of prohibiting weapons on a college campus" has an established record of failure to stop a rather long list of campus crimes. Maybe he's arguing rape, robbery & murder are part of the education curriculum & tradition.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,951 Posts
AtlPhillip,
I had hunting rifles in my room at Ga. Tech in the early 70's. Does that help??
And I carried in the early 90s. But I was looking for something in code or print that would definitively show the statement is false.
 

·
Deplorable bitter clinger.
Joined
·
5,661 Posts

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
Do you have any support for this statement? I need to shut down a few anti's who are regurgitating Deals words like gospel.
I'm less sure now.

16-11-127.1, with the school language, was passed in 1992 (as I had understood Lexis Nexis footnotes). That was about the same time as the Federal GFSZA was going on. The Federal act was passed in 1990. GA was evidently playing "me too". When the first act was declared unconstitutional, they passed it again with the magic "interstate commerce" phrase in 1994.

Lexis indicates Code 1981 as the earliest history for 127.1. That is simply when the entire GA code was renumbered and the precursor to Lexis-Nexis took over the management of it. I didn't catch on to that when I first looked at it.

I don't know of any specific school ban before 1990. Many people here can say they remember bringing rifles to school in the 80s and before, either to go hunting right after school, or to do marksmanship classes.

According to GeorgiaCarry.Org Chronology of Carry Laws, in 1976, the public gathering clause was rewritten, and it defines a public gathering to "include, but shall not be limited to: ... schools" Carrying to a public gathering was a misdemeanor. There is no mention in the Chronology of 127.1 language being created that I can find.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
The letter from the UGA grad student, who wrote strongly in favor of campus carry, is now on the front page of the politics section of the online AJC.

http://www.ajc.com/s/news/georgia-government/
http://getschooled.blog.myajc.com/2016/05/06/uga-grad-student-campus-safety-takes-hit-with-gun-veto/

That's a good letter. I'm sure she's disappointed, but not surprised at some of the comments.

I did find this one interesting:
Well, well, well. After about fifteen anti-gun articles, I see Maureen has finally gotten around to the "fair and balanced" aspect and posted a viewpoint contrary to her anti-gun bias. Oh yeah, the bill was vetoed so NOW she feels compelled to post it. Maureen could have reached out to any number of gun advocacy groups during the period in which the bill was up for debate, but she chose not to do so.
...
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,387

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,389

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,390

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
GunSense Georgia
4 hrs ·
Governor Deal makes it all the way to Atlantic Magazine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/…/when-jefferson-and-mad…/481461/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...son-and-madison-banned-guns-on-campus/481461/

He is on record has having written, “Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks†in a letter to his nephew. But historian Saul Cornell thinks Jefferson was most likely contemplating slave rebellion, not the need for self defense from criminals.
Since dead is dead regardless if it's because of a rebellion or "criminals", this sounds more like rewriting history than from some conversation with Jefferson.

Some other links from "The Trace"
Gun Background Checks Tumble for the Second Month in a Row
New CDC Report Shows America’s Gun Suicide Problem Getting Worse
Gun-Rights Advocates Claim Owning a Gun Makes a Woman Safer. The Research Says They’re Wrong.
Their agenda is clear.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,392
Some other links from "The Trace"
Their agenda is clear.
Oh yeah they are Bloomberg's antigun website. I thought that was an understood, sorry.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,887 Posts
Remember, freedom and rights do not sell anymore. Safety is what sells, and the ends always justify the means. Attack a right's safety value to dispose of that right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
Since dead is dead regardless if it's because of a rebellion or "criminals", this sounds more like rewriting history than from some conversation with Jefferson.
Let's not forget that when Jefferson put together his Commonplace Book for ideas on government," he saw fit to include this passage from another book, which is a wordy way of saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,676 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
Let's not forget that when Jefferson put together his Commonplace Book for ideas on government," he saw fit to include this passage from another book, which is a wordy way of saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."
That's really powerful. I read "only outlaws will have guns" too, but it also says something else very important which plays out in every murder in a GFZ. If someone is so vile to commit murder and risk the death penalty for it, will something as trivial as a No Guns sign or words on paper stop them? The obvious answer is, "No". That will never be brought up by the media.

Eh, never mind. You bold the very important part.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,382 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,399

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Taurus92 said:
If someone is so vile to commit murder and risk the death penalty for it, will something as trivial as a No Guns sign or words on paper stop them? The obvious answer is, "No".
Gov. Deal recommends increased and enhanced penalties as a solution.

I'm not sure how "enhanced" would work for death penalty cases. :-k ... Execute the person twice? Torture them before execution? Execute family members too? How and what exactly? What will deter someone who just doesn't care?
 
2381 - 2400 of 2427 Posts
Top