Do those who carry a gun for self defense belong here? (AP Photo/Wade Payne)
Agree to disagree. Live and let live, right? This is the attitude of most people in Atlanta today about controversial topics. We all can disagree and yet still get along.
Does this philosophy hold up when applied to the "gun control" debate? I think not.
It does from my side of the argument. I carry a gun every day. I enjoy shooting guns, and I am competent at doing so. I also view my gun as a necessary tool that might save my life or the life of somebody close to me in an emergency situation.
At the same time, I realize most people do not carry a gun on a daily basis. I am ok with that, and I do not seek to force any of them to start carrying a gun. Let's call my position the "pro-choice" position.
Now let us examine the same issue from the other side.
Whenever a debate arises in the legislature over whether to repeal a ban on carrying in a certain location, there are those who support the change and those who oppose it. Those who oppose the change obviously "disagree," but is this opposition related to the "agree to disagree" state of mind discussed in the first paragraph, or to a far more sinister disposition?
As stated, I think people should be free not to carry a firearm anytime they believe they do not desire to do so. I have no desire to force my viewpoint upon others. On the other hand, those who oppose repealing a gun ban in churches think that I should be put into jail or prison for carrying my firearm in church. Do you see the difference in attitude? I am "pro-choice," while they believe I should be forced into a concrete box, such as that pictured above.
In Georgia, carrying a firearm in the wrong location could mean, in some cases, 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, which is the punishment for having a firearm in the parking lot at Hartsfield (the Atlanta airport), followed by the loss of your right to bear arms and to vote, for life. See O.C.G.A. 16-12-127. In other cases, it could mean as little as a year in jail and the loss of your right to bear arms for three years after your release. See, e.g., O.C.G.A. 16-11-127. Do you think your boss will hold your job for you for a year? Will twenty years mean that you miss your children growing up?
So, there you have it. I say live and let live. They, however, believe in forcing me to do what it is that they want. Should I fail to do things the way they want, then they vote for armed men to throw me into prison for two decades should I choose to have the means of self defense available in a location of which they disapprove. Do you see any differences in philosophy? One involves liberty and choice, while the other involves force and prison. While they may cloak their viewpoints with euphemisms like "reasonable" and "sane policy," the end result of their agenda is that I go to prison for their "reasonable" and "sane" beliefs that I do not share.
Some might say I am taking this kind of personally. My answer would be, yes, because it is personal. My rights and my freedom from jail and prison are very personal to me. My message to you is - hands off!
Have a great Fourth of July celebration!
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Armed customer stops robbery
- Austin: The human side of self-defense
- Boston: More Federal and State Government tyranny on the way
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: Let freedom ring.... ALL freedoms
- DC: Under Obamacare, where will Canadians go for medical services?
- Denver: What happens to you when you buy a gun?
- Los Angeles: SoCal Churches go concealed carry.
- Minneapolis: Dirty Deeds in Virginia
- National: Independence requires the will and means to preserve it
- Seattle: Lautenberg’s legislation cloak’s anti-gun senator’s true intention
- St. Louis: Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
Mr. Stone,
Thank you for your work in this area.
How do we get our weapons into the airport if we're traveling with them when we can't take them into a parking lot? Just don't tell until we're inside? Doesn't make sense to me...
There is an exception in the terminal law for weapons that are cased and unloaded to be checked in with luggage and declared at the counter. There is, however, no such exception to the public gathering law, but Atlanta has declared that it will not enforce that law if the weapons are being checked as baggage. The court never explained the discrepancy.
We've all seen how well guns and aviation mix with civil society. I think it's safe to say that there are some places where, if you get caught there with a gun, maybe it would be better for your children to be raised by somebody else. If there were not steep penalties for carrying guns at airports such as the one you mention, imagine the implications for day-to-day business in America. The system works because there ARE regulations, and I can't see how it would be a good idea to make firearms possession on airport property less of an offense. Air transit is representative of American modernism, and when that becomes unsafe, the gears that keep business, culture and society running from day to day begin to grind to a halt. And we have guns to thank for that. Rather than just letting everyone carry a gun wherever they want for 'defense', it makes sense that there are physical spaces where people can breathe easily.
C. Richelieu says, "If there were not steep penalties for carrying guns at airports such as the one you mention, imagine the implications for day-to-day business in America. The system works because there ARE regulations, and I can't see how it would be a good idea to make firearms possession on airport property less of an offense."
First, it may surprise or shock you to know how many individuals carry loaded weapons through airport terminals every single day without a single loss of life.
Secondly, who do the regulations ultimately control, the responsible law abidding citizen who has no malice, or the criminal? The last time I checked criminals exist outside the law and could care less about the multitude of laws and regulations already on the books hence the name outlaw.
Thirdly, laws obviously did not stop box cutter armed terrorists from executing the 9/11 attacks. One properly trained lawfully armed person on each of those planes could have mitigated the terrorist threat
Mr. Richelieu,
You do realize that the vast majority of states have no regulations against firearms, and they have not "ground to a halt," right?
I meant no restriction on firearms in AIRPORTS
Mr. Richelieu, I don't understand how me legally carrying a firearm puts you or anyone else in danger, whether in an airport or anywhere else? Just because your fear and lack of familiarity with firearms manifests itself as paranoia, this does not mean that firearms are unpredictably dangerous. Think about that the next time you hurl yourself down I-75 at 70 mph in your 2 ton vehicle... my God, the threat you are to everyone around you!!! But you're an experienced driver and legally licensed to do so by the state of GA... if someone who has never driven a vehicle has an irrational fear of highways, should we outlaw driving?
The 9/11 attacks were carried out with box cutter knives
"I don't understand how me legally carrying a firearm puts you or anyone else in danger, whether in an airport or anywhere else?"
Oh, I think you understand just fine, CCW.
I'm not aware of your background; I have no idea if you have a substance abuse problem, are mentally ill, or if you belong to some kooky group that's watched 'Red Dawn' a few too many times.
I have no idea if you're even competent to use or safely maintain a firearm.
I realize, of course, you're going to reintroduce the topic of killer cars but there are a wealth of differences. There's a very good reason we send our troops into combat with firearms--not a '98 Chrysler minivan. Similarly, if I decide to 'go postal' one day, it's pretty hard to get my Volvo on the elevator to wipe out my boss and coworkers.
Captain Kidd:
You're right, you don't know. But choosing to disarm everyone because of that is acting on fear, rather than logic. The rational thing to do is to acknowledge that the vast majority of gun owners, especially CCW holders, are perfectly peaceful and law-abiding (in fact statistically significantly more law-abiding than the general public), and so allow everyone to be armed, rather than letting the actions of a minuscule minority decide what should happen to everyone else.
And you say:
"or if you belong to some kooky group that's watched 'Red Dawn' a few too many times." What does that mean, exactly?... Typical. Can't argue the facts, so insinuate that your opponents, or at least some of them, are insane. Let me try to set you straight:
People who believe in owning guns for either national defense or defense of liberty are not "kooky," they are merely utilizing the Second Amendment for its intended purpose.
Mr. Stone notes a pertinent trend. I've noticed that a person's view on gun control tends to carry over into most other "controversial" areas. Those who wish others to be controlled in the gun arena usually want them controlled in most other areas as well. Despicable, really.
The only variation seems to be guns vs. drugs. LOTS of gunners are unhappy with the idea of "choice" when it comes to drugs, and vice versa.
Come on, people. Either the average American is mature, careful and concerned enough to handle his guns AND his drugs in such a way as to avoid risk to his neighbors and the community at large...or most of us are not competent enough to get through the day without a (government?) keeper's supervision.
Which way do YOU vote?
Robert S: Given the fact there is no organization, large or small, that advocates or favors "disarm"ing everyone--I'd say your response is a bit hysterical.
You speak of "fear" but let's look at the reality: no group advocates taking everyone's firearms away. OTOH, you and your fellow travellers are so fearful of a nonexistent boogeyman--you are willing to allow felons, criminals, the mentally ill, etc. unfettered access to any firearm.
WRT to my "Red Dawn" comment--please. It 9is insulting to those of us who serve to pretend somebody who buys a firearm is equipped or trained to defend liberty or the national defense. A firearm doesn't make a soldier.
Captain Kidd: No, there are in fact very many organizations that advocate complete citizen disarmament.
And what do you mean "a nonexistent boogeyman?" No one's afraid of a nonexistent boogeyman, they're concerned about quite existent violent criminals.
Also, the Founders would disagree with you that a gun does not equip one to defend the country or its freedoms. Of course soldiers are better trained and equipped to defend the country, individually, but armed citizens are more than 100 times more numerous.
And no offense, but though soldiers are certainly well equipped to defend our country, they are not so good at defending our freedoms. Despite the rhetoric of soldiers "protecting our freedom," that's the job of citizens. The standing army *threatens* our freedom, it doesn't protect it.
Captain Kidd, how many people do you personally know that believe they have an inherent right to be armed at any and all times? I think it is safe to say, none. From my experience, everyone I know will use their firearms to protect anyone. Not just themselves. It is not paranoia, it is statistical fact that BIG GOVERNMENT is a threat to everyone, not just the "kooks". Red Dawn happens to be a great movie and, is not so very far being indismissable. The bottom line is, I abide by the law even though the vast majority of them are bogus. I am flawed as with any other human, but I a concerned American citizen. I am for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as were the Founding Fathers. I have a ccdw permit only because the "law" says I have to to be legal. Other than that, my state allows open carry. Good stance, just not that practical.
Captain Kidd, I have two points.
First, after Japan surrendered in WWII, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy, was asked why didn't Japan invade the U.S. west coast after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the successful Japanese invasion the Aleutian Islands of Alaska? He replied, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." He was referring to the fact that U.S. citizens were being trained by the U.S. Government to use firearms from pistols to machine guns through the Civilian Marksmanship Program which still exists to day.
Secondly, civilians and police face the same exact threats on the street every single day. Civilians don't exist in a protective vacuum. You will not find an off-duty police officer who leaves home without his or her concealed weapon...Ever! They are well aware of the threat enviornment that exists on the streets.
Joshua, while i agree with what u are saying, i just want to correct one small fact that was brought to my attention after using the same quote from Admiral Yamamoto. The main problem is that Adm Yamamoto could not have made that comment after the surrender of the Japanese. The reason being is that he was shot down and killed on his way to an inspection of three front-line bases near Bougainville Island on 14 April 1943. The Japanese surrender was 15 August 1945. With that straightened out, I agree with the author in that people should not be forced to believe something because someone else is afraid. If you choose to not carry a gun, so be it, it is not my place to make you. On the other hand, why should I be forced to not exercise my god given, inalienable right of self defense granted in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
...watched 'Red Dawn' a few too many times...
>>That ain't possible.
Folks, Captain Kidd is a cool-aid drinking troll. He must be getting bored with posting his drivel elsewhere. Don't feed the moron - it just encourages him. Fisking his ignorant posts doesn't work. He patently avoids relevant questions on other pages. Let him spout his idiocy, and ignore him in the future. He's got his house and car posted as "gun free zone(s)" of course. His little Utopian ideal works well in his rubber room. We can't get his mommy to revoke his computer privileges, so lets ignore him in the future. One day he'll spill his cool-aid on the keyboard and mom will stop him.
Joshua: Your Yamamoto quote is bogus. He never said it. Besides, any student of WWII history knows Japan never had any intent to invade the US.
EveryTown, USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII
You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”. This number takes no accounting of reloading or reloaded ammunition.
This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.
My reference to Yamamoto was taken from the report above created by AmmoLand.com I stand corrected on date which the quote was made. There are as many references to support the quote as there are against it. Continued.
Joshua: The quote is bogus.
wire.factcheck.org/2009/05/11/misquoting-yamamoto/
My appologies for getting off thread, but as for Captain Kidds' assertion that Japan had no intention of striking the west coast, you can reference any number of WWII historical sites on the Aleutian campaign but answer this, why would the Japanese go through the immense trouble of invading in the Aleutians in June of 1942?
To all concerned. Upon extensive review it appears that is enough reference subject matter exists to cast doubt on the veracity of my previous reference to Admiral Yamamoto's quote. The error was unintentional and I retract it's use here on the Gun Rights Examiner. If I'm mature enough to be a responsible gun owner I can admit when I'm in error.
Having said that, Captain Kidd, it is still my opinion that you have a slanted, one sided, myopic view of the Second Amendment and responsible law abidding gun owners. It's a free country. You have a right to state your opinion as do I according to the First Amendment and I will cling to and cherish my Second Amendment because it guarantees the First.
How can Animal Farm be reality if all R free to choose to have a gun? Any potential threat to the status quo is eliminated except when those at the top would be bothered or lose money by removal of such. That is why most everyone accepts being sprayed by chemtrails (weaponized military chaff, have you looked up in the sky lately?) and says nothing. The Civil War didn't free any slaves, it made slaves of us all. Worse, many slaves are glad to act as if masters. Its not a right if you have to ask permission first. Seems as if we all grovel at the feet of the Empire, or treated as outlaws, attacked for trying to be free. The non-violent solution is succession, draw a line, those who love to be slaves in one State those who wish to accept the dangers of freedom in the other. Animal Farm cannot be a reality if this is allowed to happen, who would want to remain a slave? The lesson of E. and W. Germany? Is The Wall now between every individual & legally having freedom to own and carry a gun
"We've all seen how well guns and aviation mix with civil society."
Right. When guns were banned on airplanes, the passengers became relativly defenseless to anyone with even rudimentary weapons. Thus a handful of individuals were able to hijack plane with the most absurd weapons known to man. Hey, at least no-one had a gun....
"If there were not steep penalties for carrying guns at airports such as the one you mention, imagine the implications for day-to-day business in America. The system works because there ARE regulations, and I can't see how it would be a good idea to make firearms possession on airport property less of an offense."
I carry a cocked-and-locked 1911 openly throughout the non-secure areas of the Tucson, Pheonix, Salt Lake City and Manchester NH airports frequently. It's not an "offense" and it causes no problems. Heck, last week I picked up one of my Airmen returning from deployment, while carrying. No one even blinked...
"Air transit is representative of American modernism, and when that becomes unsafe, the gears that keep business, culture and society running from day to day begin to grind to a halt. And we have guns to thank for that. Rather than just letting everyone carry a gun wherever they want for 'defense', it makes sense that there are physical spaces where people can breathe easily."
Well, the first sentance is fluffy rubbish. "Representative of American modernism..." What the heck is your point?
As for the remainder... well, I'm sure the passengers on 9/11's hijacked flights were breathing easily... all the way to the moment of impact.
You, sir, are a fool.
I am pro-choice on reproduction and on CCW. I consider no power to come between a woman and god where pregnancy is concerned. god gave ME the power, and no one else.
I carry. No one has the right to get between me and my dignity, property, and safety. I carry in part because of being repeatedly stalked, abused, threatened, while going into my OB/GYN clinic for a routine health check. And in one case lunged at and narrowly missed by a lunatic protestor (violent mental case, long history of beating women and children, egged on by antichoice men). I went to the women's self defense training the third time this creep showed up at my house. It was a joke.
So I quickly learned to use my 2A right to self protection and Castle protection.
Nothing is more personal than someone else interfering with me, my god-given power, and my self and home. Unfortunately most RKBA people I know are meddlers in my relationship between god and me. That's why we need 1A and 2A together.
You've written my thoughts. Great job. I'd like to continue the conversation but I don't care to quibble with anything you've said here.
For Captain Kidd: You're correct; a firearm doesn't make a soldier. But, a bunch of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens does create severe headaches for an invading army or a misused military turned against its citizens. One needs only to read the news or look at a little history to see just how effective small, armed groups can be at bogging down even a well organized army.
And that, I believe was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our basic government is defined by checks and balances and the 2nd Amendment is simply a final failsafe against abuse of power by the government. Indeed, it is in effect, a "continuation (of the 1st Amendment) by other means."
Granted (and thankfully) we've never had to deal with a military coup (or anything similar) in this country, but many other nations have. And it is, in my opinion the epitome of ignorance and arrogance to assume that our nation is immune to those dangers even if we give up the very basic, built-in checks against it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!