Thursday, January 23, 2014

Support HB 29 Georgia Campus Carry Act of 2013; enact

With the raise of predator crimes against college students, it's time to let the students rightfully protect themselves.

You let a couple of those predators "hold one" and you will see a drastic reduction of these types of crimes.

Call your state representative and encourage them pass House Bill 29.


Anonymous said...

Heck no!!! I used to work at dkpd and now work at a college in AUC. a by all accounts you don't have the responsible individuals you think you have with college students. Trust me they are book smart but still lack common sense. I believe up to 10% are capable of doing such with proper training. The rest are young students hoping marijuana can be legalized and other party drugs.

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of college kids aren't even 21 by the time they graduate, therefore they cant even apply for a permit to carry.

This notion that someone with a carry permit will magically become a crazy killer the moment they cross the street and step onto a campus is ridiculous.

Is there some magic fence around schools that make them safe because they are gun free? This is ridiculous thinking.

California and Colorado have allowed those with carry permits to carry concealed on ANY school campus for over 30 years, never had a single problem.

PLUS, less than 3% of Georgian's even have a carry permit.

Whats the big deal? Why should we restrict a law abiding citizen when we all know the criminals could car less.

GA Tech and GA State have robberies on or close to campus all the time, the gangs target students because they know they cant be armed.

Anonymous said...

While it sounds good in theory, it'd be an absolute disaster practically.

Yeah, let's give a bunch of binge drinking barely-twenty somethings who've grown up with mom and dad pampering their asses loaded weapons and send them on their way with little to no supervision.

What could go wrong?

Anonymous said...

No way dumb, dumb, dumb idea. I've been to UGA and Moorehouse on criminal cases, trust when I say dumb.

Anonymous said...

When I was college age (19 yrs old) I was carrying an M16 and a 1911 45 handgun and getting paid by the government to do it. I also enjoyed the hell out of my youth too, so I am somewhat familiar. When I became a cop it was a natural transition for me. Make the young ones (under 21 who are NOT veterans) who apply for a CCP take a class and get certified. Young people have a right to be able to defend themselves too. J-1 the stupid asses when the screw up, but don't make the law abiding ones pay for others stupidity. Isn't that what all these gun laws are about anyway, restricting others constitutional rights because others don't know know how to act?
I wished I could have had the opportunity to go to college, and I know if I had been able to go, I would have been armed. Things were very different back then. Folks didn't put up with a lot of stupid laws that weren't needed.

Just an Old RETIRED Cops opinion

Anonymous said...

What I'd really like to see is expanded carry for off duty and retired law enforcement .... specifically, The ability to carry while having lunch with my kids at school or attending school meetings/functions.

Anonymous said...

To Jan 24 at 6:03 PM.....

I think the only reason we dont have that already is the bleeding heart liberals and our own government that refuses to trust even us, much less the average person with a normal job and life aka...THE VICTIMS. I refuse to be one. Also, retirement is damn good!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:11, you are what is wrong with gun rights in America. To think that you or anyone else has the right to tell someone else when, where, and how they will carry a weapon is absolutely an infringement on their right.
everyone else take note of this guys post, it demonstrates the loony thinking that supports magazine capacities and banning assault weapons.
Keep in mind this is a constitutional right. the government has continually infringed on it. ANY attempt to bar arms from citizens is a violation of this right. You are either pro 2nd amendment or you are against it. there is no middle ground.Middle ground is for loons and lawers.

Anonymous said...

6:58am, time for a refill on your meds. You may want to ask about upping the dosage too.

Anonymous said...

Most people eventually mature past such issues and careers. Stay healthy and move on to bigger and better goals once capable.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 06:58

No middle ground you say? You might want to tell that to the SCOTUS who have ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. See DC v Heller.

You don't have unlimited 1st Amendment rights, either. If you believe you do, then yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and let me know how that goes for you.

Middle ground is called "compromise." Compromise created this country and keeps it strong. Only looney-ass fundamentalists believe in strictly black and white terms, and nine times out of ten they're the most hypocritical assholes in the country.

Let me give you a great example:

You know those gun-rights groups that carry their assault rifles to the capitol building and stand up for gun rights, right? Now imagine that they're replaced with 30 or 40 black guys in BDUs and berets.

I bet you five dollars the National Guard would be called in. That's exactly why Governor Ronald Reagan, that great monolith of conservative thinking, signed an assault weapons ban in California.

The world isn't black and white. It's subtle shades of gray. Realizing that means that you've put your big boy/girl pants on and you've stopped thinking like a child.

Anonymous said...

None of the ones in berets would be free of a felony conviction thus making it illegal for them to posses said weapons so your argument holds no merit.

Anonymous said...

I carry off duty when having lunch with my kids and at school meetings, where does it say we cant? state law? I haven't seen any that says we cant.

Anonymous said...

16-11-127.1 authorizes officers to carry in school when on duty, en route to work or coming from work.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

(5) The following persons, when acting in the performance of their official duties or when en route to or from their official duties:

      (A) A peace officer as defined by Code Section 35-8-2;

§ 16-11-127.1.  (For effective date, see note.) Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on school property

(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, it shall be unlawful for any person to carry to or to possess or have under such person's control while within a school safety zone or at a school building, school function, or school property or on a bus or other transportation furnished by the school any weapon or explosive compound, other than fireworks the possession of which is regulated by Chapter 10 of Title 25.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

   (1) Baseball bats, hockey sticks, or other sports equipment possessed by competitors for legitimate athletic purposes;

   (2) Participants in organized sport shooting events or firearm training courses;

   (3) Persons participating in military training programs conducted by or on behalf of the armed forces of the United States or the Georgia Department of Defense;

   (4) Persons participating in law enforcement training conducted by a police academy certified by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council or by a law enforcement agency of the state or the United States or any political subdivision thereof;

   (5) The following persons, when acting in the performance of their official duties or when en route to or from their official duties:

      (A) A peace officer as defined by Code Section 35-8-2;

      (B) A law enforcement officer of the United States government;

      (C) A prosecuting attorney of this state or of the United States;

      (D) An employee of the Georgia Department of Corrections or a correctional facility operated by a political subdivision of this state or the United States who is authorized by the head of such correctional agency or facility to carry a firearm;

      (E) A person employed as a campus police officer or school security officer who is authorized to carry a weapon in accordance with Chapter 8 of Title 20; and

      (F) Medical examiners, coroners, and their investigators who are employed by the state or any political subdivision thereof;

   (6) A person who has been authorized in writing by a duly authorized official of the school to have in such person's possession or use as part of any activity being conducted at a school building, school property, or school function a weapon which would otherwise be prohibited by this Code section. Such authorization shall specify the weapon or weapons which have been authorized and the time period during which the authorization is valid;

Anonymous said...

To Anon 1:52

No, you can't yell fire at a theater and you can't slander folks either. But you are talking about an abuse of your right. Just like shooting an innocent person would be an abuse of your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They don't duct tape your mouth before going into that theater to prevent you from yelling fire, do they?

And to "compromise" sometimes means "let me stick it in just a little bit further instead of all the way." No thanks.

I don't care if it's Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton, a Bush or any other turd...the right to self protection is a God given right. The folks mentioned above didn't give us our rights, they can't take them away.

I locked up a lot of folks and investigated a lot of gun crimes in my day. Never locked up or had a problem with folks who had their CCW permit.

No, everything isn't a shade gray. Somethings in life are black and white. And when the founding fathers said "Shall not be infringed"...I think they meant it.

Anonymous said...

Nice to know officers don't even know the law and are committing felonies daily.

Anonymous said...

OUTSTANDING. Intelligent/informative debates.

Anonymous said...

Wow 7:04, Please post what Public School System you were brought up in so I can report it to SACS. Then post whatever religious institution you were raised in so that I can be sure to ignore them whenever they try to butt their way into a political conversation.

"the right to self protection is a God given right."
Oh ow, spoken like Early Cuyler himself. Yeah, yeah, Deuteronomy 9:12 'Thou shalt carry thy piece where thy please and aint no GOT-DAMN GUBNERMENT GON' TELL US OTHERWISE YA HEAR?!'

Actually, it says;
Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

"Never locked up or had a problem with folks who had their CCW permit."
Ya, because obviously if they have a permit, then they have some semblance of knowledge about firearms and firearm responsibility. Never caught anyone with a concealed assault rifle though. I'll be damned people have tried, but I implore you to attempt to stick one of those metal pipes down your britches.

Philosophically, however, I actually do agree with you to a point, I think when given proper instruction, anyone "of age" should be able to carry a firearm. We allow them to vote, we allow them to drive without restriction, we allow them to use tobacco, if we educate them then permit them to carry a firearm for protection, why the hell not. Will some people do stupid things? Yes, hell alot of adults do stupid things, but these folks aint kids no more.


Anonymous said...

Anom 1:52
So the SCOTUS has never been wrong? they have never overturned one of their own decisions?

Just because they ruled on DC v. Heller does not make it the end of the discussion or that it was a correct ruling.

“You don't have unlimited 1st Amendment rights” I am not surprise that I have o debate the meaning of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED with you.

So you say I can not yell fire in a theater. For arguments sake I will acquiesce to this point and add that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment that states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”; therefore, your using the First Amendment to illustrate a point about the Second Amendment is inaccurate and often done by people who fail to grasp an understanding of the Constitution.

“Compromise created this country” Uh wrong!
Compromise was the Olive Branch Petition in sent to England in July of 1775. Un-compromise was the Declaration of Independence sent to England one year later.

“replaced with 30 or 40 black guys in BDUs and berets.” WOW, less than 24 hours is all it took for someone to through race into the mix. WTF does race have to do with the second amendment?

You are correct that the world isn't black and white. What you fail to understand is that there is no red tape in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment does not exist so that people can hunt, target shoot, and collect guns. It exists so that we (the people) can protect ourselves from people who intend to do us harm and as a means of redress with our government when words fail.

BTW, Anon 7:04, thanks for the backup.

Anonymous said...

You are correct, only the second amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed" but the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." The fact that congress does makes laws regarding speech, religion, and the right to free assembly shows that nothing in the constitution is absolute. You can have laws the regulate free speech, etc... that are not unconstitutional. I know a lot of you who pleasure yourselves to "Guns and Ammo" every night think you're constitutional scholars because you listen to right wing talk radio crazies, but you're not. You think the second amendment and the phrase "shall no be infringed" is the only thing that matters in the whole constitution. I doubt you've read any other part.

Anonymous said...

Officer Zero,

I see you study Alinsky. When you ridicule the messager I mean. But when you don't have the facts on your side, I guess you have to resort to such.

I have a Bible verse for you...Luke 22:36. Jesus and His disciples are getting ready for a trip. He tells them if they don't have a sword, to sell their coat and buy one. That tells me that God considers self defense pretty danged important.

And just so you know, I'm not worried about not having my rifles. I doubt that the folks that don't want me to have them have the guts to come get them

montieth said...

Actually you CAN yell fire in a theater.

You are NOT fitted with a locking ball gag prior to entry.

You WILL be charged wit a crime if you yell fire in a theatre to cause a panic. If you yell "fire" in a theatre because there is a fire you will NOT be charged with a crime.

If someone is old enough to carry, they're old enough to carry on a campus. PERIOD. If that's not the case then NOONE should carry on a campus, period, not even cops.

There is no magical force field that makes a person stepping onto a campus an irresponsible lout.

There are plenty of folks going on campuses who are and in fact do carry on a regular basis.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:38 you're very right, I'm sure God does favor Self-Defense. I'm positive he doesnt want christians to just "call upon his name" whenever someone tries to hurt or kill them. But when you take my verse, and your verse, what do you get? You get that God "apparently" (And this is a non-theological interpretation, I'm a cop, not a pastor) meant, and that is that he believes that people should be able to protect themselves, but that Weapons are in no way always necessary nor mandatory. Which is where my ridicule of 7:04's comment comes in, which he was using to indirectly say "I have an undisputed right to my gun says god, so suck it." Is ridiculous. And I also don't think it's logical to implore religious beliefs into a political argument, because that's what this is, a Political Argument. The Bible also says it's okay to Have Slaves and Murder kids that curse at their parents. So I'd rather not take my ques from the bible. Thanks. And yes, I do practice Christianity, but I'm smart enough to not blindly follow religion on every subject that has no modern application.

And Infringement and Regulation are not words that cancel out each other. Surely you don't believe that there should be zero regulation of firearms. And when I say that, I don't mean regulation for YOU. That's a mistake commonly made when having a gun rights argument "I dont need no regulation, I'm a responsible gun owner" Well I'm not talking about you. It's not always about you. Every gun owner is not responsible. Belonging to the NRA doesn't make you responsible. Buying the Gun/Gun Safe combo alone doesn't make you responsible. There's a time and place for guns. You can't tell me that a restriction of guns at Airports, or Schools, or Courthouses, or Jails is an infringement of your 2nd amendment right and therefore needs to be abolished. Is a "No guns" sign going to stop a person out to cause destruction? Absolutely not, but saying "Ok well then fuck it, everyone take your guns every where" won't help. It'll just cause more random acts of violence, crimes of passion, etc. At the end of the day, we can't stop gun violence, especially at this juncture of our history, but we can slow it by ensuring that weapons aren't just randomly given away and that the right most responsible people receive them.

P.S. Alinsky ain't such a bad guy to study my friend.


Anonymous said...

Alinsky is a great one to study if your goal is to control people instead of allow people to be free and responsible. Or, if you just want to collapse the system and destroy a nation.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:24, well said.
Off Zero, actualy I do believe that ANY gun regulations are an infrindgment. I have heard a lot or arguments for various regulations and laws.
Everyone should have a background check. Felons should not have guns. Barrel lengths should be #". Assault weapons should be banned. You should not have more than 10 rounds, You rounds should have serial numbers on them. etc..., How many of these regulations actually lower gun violence? Less than 2% of all the leagly possed firearms in this country are ever used in a crime. Bicycles and bath tubs kill each kill more children in America than guns do. More adults are killed in vehicles accidents than are killed by guns. But hey, lets continue to restrain the citizens only real means of resistance.

Anon 7:28
Actually the First amendment roughly says Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speach. Abridge is a big difference from Infringed. However, to your point. Since you are such a Constitutional Scholar, exactly where in Article One the United States Constitution do "we the people" empower congress tho regulate firearms? I will even help you out, Article One, Section Eight, "The Congress shall have the power to...".

As for everone else, I stand by my original statement. Anon11:11is what is wrong with gun rights in America.

Anonymous said...

This is crazy. The subject was started on the idea of the bill of allowing students to carry weapons on campus. Once again I say no. Is there crime on campus? Yes 98 percent is property crimes of students stealing from students such as computers and phones. This occurs because students on majority on campus are lazy and being sold a dream that the college and surrounding area is like the brochure. This is far from the truth. I wrote the 1st post on this thread. I work at Morehouse college. I left DKPD believing working at a college and getting away from politics would be better. I was wrong. I came up with a motto. The grass is not always greener, it's all about the grass you want to eat Back on subject, giving students or any person this the right to carry on campus is ill advised. There is a fine line between your 2nd amendment right and pain ole common sense. Put yourself as a role of a parent not a freedom fighter of rights 100 percent. I swear some officers forget about the social contact. ( look it up, you give some rights up to get services in return) Trust me I believe in the 2nd amendment too. I served in the Marines, a state CO, and a DKPD officer. In all those situation I learned about deadly force, respect for human life, liability, and responsibility. Ask that from a young college kid taking 6 courses, working a part time job, subjected to negative peer pressure all the time from drugs, alcohol, gangs, trying to impress a girl, and a lot of things which includes the typical college life. You really expect a student should carry a weapon on campus? Really?! Truth is students get robbed or assaulted 99 percent of the time off campus and the most of that is students trying to buy drugs and getting ripped for being naive. Or representing a gang from another state and then realize the gangs in Atlanta don't fight fair. You guys on the street know for every 10 people you stop one guy always thinks he knows the law better than you because he read one book in c.j class and you been in law enforcement at least 5 years. Now reverse that. For every 10 students you stop, 9 think they know it better than you. They will think on book smarts than common sense and respond with impulse than the average adult. Any rebuttal ti my reasoning u would gladly respond

Anonymous said...

I would glady rebut, if it was a coherent message. But I have to admit, I had a little trouble following you there.

If I am correct and read in your message that you think creating a safe little "gun free zone" around a college campus, mall, or other such place is the best way to keep pepole safe, I would point out the incidents of recenet history. Why do you think the wacked out SOB's that want to create mayhem go to these "gun free zones"?? Because they know they will be the only one there with a gun...duhhh. And every piece of video I see of these incidents, I see a lot of good guys coming there and bringing their guns. And as it would turn out, that's when the bad guys are either stopped or stop on their own...imagine that. So why can't you see that if there were, or may be, good guys already there with guns, the bad guys may not be so anxious to go there with theirs.

The Second Amendment was put in place for self protection, period. And I mean from predators, tyrants, foreign invaders or what ever. And history has shown when your ability to protect yourself is limited, the results can be fatal.

Anonymous said...

To January 30, 2014 at 12:32 AM.

Your an idiot... There's no way you left DeKalb to work for Morehouse, you probably got fired and they were the only department that would take you. If you are a law abiding citizen, you should have the right to carry anytime, anywhere anyhow.... Period.......

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:32

"giving students or any person this the right to carry on campus is ill advised."
Who gave you the power to decide what is and isnt allowed for legal citizens?????
I was 18 when I joined the Army. I went to war and killed my first human when I was 22. Was I mature enough to carry and fully automatic machine gun (M-60) at 18? The U.S. Government thought I was.

Your post is full of assumptions. You dont get to limit freedoms based on assumptions. And, if we bring this back to a discussion about the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment; it was Benjamin Franklin who said ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Oh I noticed that you failed to take up my challenge to demonstrate where Congress is empowered to limit gun rights.

In our Country, incidents like Sand Hook swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and instigate these calls for more gun laws. The left wing loons spin the idea that some how less guns will be a safer. Or that gun laws actually deter criminals from obtaining guns. In reality, its about disarmament and control of the population. Just like the affordable healthcare act is about control of the population and has nothing to do with providing health care. I do not think you are a bad person, just one who simply because they had a badge at one time, has earned the right to tell other Americans what they can and cant do.

You may still have a badge, I do not know; but you should really read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and comprehend exactly what you swore to uphold.

I encourage you to consider Oath Keepers ( Before you make another anti-right wing conservative insult, take the time to read the 10 order we will not obey.

If you really want to understand the gun debate in America, check out this:

I think Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp has a very personal and unique perspective on the Second Amendment.

Anonymous said...

8:21 is right. Any gun law is an infringement on our rights. In fact, we should be handing out fully automatic assault rifles and bazookas to convicted felons the day the are released from jail. "Here's your suit, here's your bus ticket, and here's your M4A1 assault rifle. Thank you for choosing Coastal State Prison. It's been our pleasure having you as a guest!" There's no threat to public safety there! I'm sure that's what our founding father's intended when they wrote the second amendment. Are you f&@#!^g kidding me? Violent felons should be able to legally possess guns? What the hell are you smoking?

My Uncle Webster says that one meaning of "infringe" is "to wrongly limit or restrict." Wrongly limit! If you think it's wrong for a law to prohibit violent felons from owning guns, you're an idiot! You're probably not getting enough air in that underground bunker with the Ron Paul wallpaper. Come up for some air! Maybe check that CO2 filter while you're at it!

"Abridge" means to lessen, limit, or cut short. So our founding fathers were basically saying there shall be no shortening on our limits on free speech. And yet, we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Why not? Because the Supreme Court over the last two centuries has recognized that our founding fathers, while clumsy and loose with their language, had common sense. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Our congress can pass laws that regulate our rights so that we don't have complete chaos or anarchy, which would ultimately lead to us having zero rights. Regulation of our rights to protect our rights isn't infringement or abridgment.

"Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

That grants them the power to pass laws that anyone with common sense would recognize do not infringe upon the 2nd amendment, like convicted felons not being able to own firearms.

Anonymous said...


Yes, but Uncle Sam didn't just hand you that rifle at 18 and hope for the best. They put you through a background check, a psychological evaluation, and then gave you a ton of training! That's called "regulation!" Even the military has gun regulations! Was Private Pyle supposed to have live ammo in that rifle in the barracks?

Anonymous said...

n July 22, President Bush signed into law H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. The law will allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the country, regardless of state or local firearms restrictions.

The law will exempt qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from state and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. To qualify, officers would have to maintain appropriate firearms training and carry identification showing their affiliation with a law enforcement agency.

Anonymous said...

Schools still prohibited:(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


LHR 218/Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

LEOSA, as Amended by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (Jan 2, 2013)

(Changes have been italicized.)

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Anonymous said...

I love how some of you think that 21 year old college students aren't mature enough to carry a weapon...

And somehow you were more mature at 21 when you became a cop and carried one.

monteth said...

Gentlemen, there's more than the 2nd amendment at issue here. There's the concept of equal protection under the law at issue.

It is simply beyond reason to argue that an otherwise responsible adult off campus who steps onto a campus should be treated as a criminal for possession of a firearm in that locale in an otherwise lawful and orderly mode. To argue for that sort of restriction thus requires that you ignore the sheer number of late 20 and 30 something adults who might traverse, work or attend a university.

Campus carry should apply equally to all. If you have a license to carry under 16-11-129 or are allowed by virtue of employment via 16-11-130 then you should be allowed to carry under state law on a campus.

If you're a police officer and you're attending a school, how would you feel about a presumption of guilt for possession of a firearm on a campus? That's how it works for folks like yourselves who should be able to carry under the same statute (16-11-130), this would be the numerous soldiers who can carry under the same authority as a police officer.

There is no magical anti-crime barrier or magical "loss of sense" field around school campuses either.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for individuals who responded after 1125. Its so funny when people say they leave DKPD for another dept, that I had to be fired. Well guess what I didn't. Go to class 76 in east precinct and you can ask about badge 2581. What You don't realize what private schools do. 1. More money 2. Pay for college up to a PhD 3. Networking 4. Unlimited training 5. Unlimited overtime without doing comp time buildup. 5. All your kids go to any state college for free, but you have to buy books. Don't always assume the negative in people and different views. All I ask is to look at different views and I'm explaining first hand what happens at colleges. Sandy hook shouldn't even be up for discussion because kids can't carry weapons and teachers in the most part don't want to hence the establishment of SRO officers. I found a new appreciation to college police. I'll admit I thought they did nothing at all, but they put up with more BS and politics than you can imagine. To the poster after me, unless you walk a mile in my shoes don't judge. Trust me I did walk in yours and instead of crying of not getting a raise year after year I moved on and I'm using morehouse to my advantage and it's paying off now. Is this place great? No,no dept is the greatest, it's all about what you are seeking.
Back on subject. No one on this post is against the 2nd amendment I'm assuming, but I do concur like one poster said common sense is the issue. The same intelligent poster said at 18 you had to do a background, mental evaluation, and so forth to receive a M16 to defend this proud country. But everyone had to acknowledge that the bill of rights were written over 200 years ago. To believe they had the perfect system in place is silly. They knew the system and our rights had to evolve and that's why we have amendments. You let poster 1232 have his way we would go by the original set of laws verbatim. To 1232 you forget the majority of those founding fathers had slaves, thought women had no right to vote, and that was OK. Do you believe that know since you believe in the Bill of Rights verbatim? If so why are the amendments? The issue of the 2nd amendment isn't the problem, it's the fact of having on a college campus. I doubt the english teacher is going johnny for his beats by dre headphones in the parking lot after class since it's a gun free zone. Grow Up poster 1232.

Anonymous said...

Damn Zero,

You sure laid into 12:32 didn't you? I sure am glad I'm not 12:32. But from reading the posts, it appears that YOU are 12:32.

Is it possible that attempting to defend an undefendable position, watching inane cartoons so that you have names to insult people with and trying to convience people that the Constitution is a "living and breathing" document that you have been chasing your own tail and now you have your own weapon pointed at yourself, ready to bite the sights??? Don't do it man. Take a deep breath, lay the weapon down and step back. Maybe with a little rehab, we can get you ready to police those college kiddies again.

I'll make it as easy as possible. My post times above are as follows: 7:04, 5:38, 12:24 and 10:55. This way you won't be confused. Now, let your theripist, mommy and college professors read them so they can point you in the right direction.

God's speed and be careful out there.

Harry Callahan said...

Anon 06:58
What typical left wing drivel. This country was NOT built on compromise. It was built on strong faith, common sense and rugged individualism. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular were written to protect and preserve the rights of the people. You don’t “compromise” your principals and basic beliefs. That is a fool’s folly. The left loves to tell everyone ELSE what it can and cannot do. As for the SCOTUS, please, they have screwed up many times. They aren’t Gods. One colossal example would be the Dred Scott decision. Your comment is complete with typical left wing, holier than thou, name calling and half-truths. You lefties never miss a chance to attack Reagan or play the “race bating” game. You frame your comments so anyone who disagrees with you is a child, a Looney-ass fundamentalist, or a hypocritical asshole. Look in the mirror buckwheat.

It is you “shades of gray” compromisers that will be this country’s undoing.

Harry Callahan

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:47
"But everyone had to acknowledge that the bill of rights were written over 200 years ago. To believe they had the perfect system in place is silly. They knew the system and our rights had to evolve and that's why we have amendments. You let poster 1232 have his way we would go by the original set of laws verbatim. To 1232 you forget the majority of those founding fathers had slaves, thought women had no right to vote, and that was OK. Do you believe that know since you believe in the Bill of Rights verbatim? If so why are the amendments? The issue of the 2nd amendment isn't the problem,"

Actually, I believe the founding fathers were divinely inspired and that is why our country has prospered under the system they established.

We shouldn't have bazookas and M-4s???? The government has them???? How are "we the people" to hold our government accountable if not by force of arms???? I am not talking about now, today; but perhaps in the future when this right and so many others are eroded and we are subject to a tyrannical government. What then? Well the military has all the "fully automatic arms, large caliber arms, explosive arms... This is exactly what the founding fathers sought to prevent with the 2nd amendment.
Federalist No. 29 "... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence states "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So the government is the only entity that should posses bazookas? Tanks? explosives? That worked out well for the citizens of Germany, Poland, France, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Russia, Libya, etc... An armed citizen is a free citizen.

Montieth said...

If you make the argument that the bill of rights is old and dead, then you make he argument that your oaths are made to a lie. Adhere to the Constitution as amended and as it stands or be honest and say who you really bear your loyalty to sir.

The Constitution has a method for amendment, that's Article V. You do not get to hand wave it away based upon age or how it was originally written because you don't agree with it now. You can no more rationally hand wave it away Han I can tell a judge that even though the sign and the law says "Speed Limit 25" in the school zone, that it's really not appropriate for the situation.

You make an argument for common sense and yet seem to argue that campus carry should be forbidden for anyone on campus save police officers, ignoring that many of those students may also be police, military, mature adults or not students at all, hey could be staff, visitors, faculty or someone cross through a campus that happens to be a pedestrian area intersecting a walking path (like Emory and some bicycle/pedestrian trails).

If a criminal is not going to be disarmed upon crossing the threshold of the campus from Marietta street to Georgia State University, why must I, a 43 year old individual if I were to take some additional classes on that campus? What function of protecting society does that serve? I can estimate that it serves no function what so ever.

Common sense you say? What sort of common sense is that.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I have read the on-going debate with an open mind; many of you make valid points based on personal beliefs; however, they are only beliefs. What I am not hearing is any factual evidence that if a Bill is passed allowing students (age is not specified) who are of 21 years of age, without a felony and are granted a CCW my their local Sheriff, instantly become fools when they step on to campus property. The fact remains these young, crazy, pot smoking clowns as some of you see them already have the right and ability to get a CCW. With that in mind those that have or plan to get them will. If you feel they are such a threat then why are you not lining up at the Capital with you Anti-Gun picket and rallying against the CCW in general? If a student legally carries off campus and does so responsibly why would he/she not do so on campus?
As for partying and such let us take a look at ourselves for one second. We all know or you may be “that guy” who has gone out for choir practice or to club with you fellow officers incognito and all is fine as you enjoy yourself while consuming mind altering beverages that diminish you cognitive reasoning and inhabitations, all the while you are toting your trusty, never leave home without it back up. I can tell you from working Morning Watch too many times, from too many Agencies, local and federal alike this happens. So who are we to make a real judgment call and speculate what “may” happen.
Last year the buzz was the collapse and ruination of Colorado because they legalized marijuana yet nothing has changed. No drastic upraise in violent crimes or motor vehicle accidents, nothing note worthy. If anything the convenient stores and fast food joints are booming with revenue. If we are willing to train and arm a 21 year old and expect them to make good decisions regarding personal liberates and criminal law and send them out to enforce the law, why is a 21 year old in college any different?

Anonymous said...

Harry Callahan,

What are you talking about? This county was founded upon compromises. One of them was called, "The Great Compromise." Compromise is only a dirty word to you tea party idiots. Let me guess, you were valedictorian of your home school class?

Anon 10:35am,

You any good at flying stealth fighters? Didn't think so. The world is a much different place than it was in 1780's. One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson to be exact, believed the constitution should be scrapped and rewritten every 20 years. He believed following a constitution longer than that "enslaved you to the previous generation." I guess we're enslaved to 11 generations ago?

Anonymous said...

To certain individuals you are correct. I did let anoy.1232 get me out of character. This is a discussion board to share views. Are my views perfect? I'm sure they are not but they are mine unless I see a more valuable alternative. But once again I have no issue on the 2nd amendment. i think I'm anti gun. That's not the case. My point is on a college campus. I did advise with proper knowledge and those who can obtain a ccw should carry. I know people go back to college later in life, hell I did. And Morehouse paid for my Masters. I'm just looking for the 95 percent that go to college. I might have some tunnel vision because I work in the AUC, but from what I've seen this is a smoking issue for college campuses. Everyone can see the positive, but weigh the pros and true cons. All I ask is to ask any SRO or campus police officer and weigh their responses and see how they respond and the logic behind their answers. If anyone feels its B.S I'll live with that. Some may feel the topic of stopping guns on campus is a prelude to other infringements of where and when to carry violating their right to carry lawfully and infringement on the 2nd amendment. If you feel that way I can respect that, but MY opinion is squarely on college campuses only. Thanks for the meaningful debate and opinions with those who make this board meaningful. I am not so one sided as people think as most of you are not. But feel free to stop with derogatory insults like buckwheat or etc. If you did have meaning in your rebuttal all you did was hurt yourself and your argument.

montieth said...

Before anyone says that arms larger than small arms don't belong in civilian hands, look at the War of 1812 and compare the 500+ privately owned warships which fought to the 12 Warships used by the US Navy. If you can show how there was congressional action to define arms as small arms then you might have a point. Lacking that....

Anyone seen the British armoured car trundling around DeKalb in the Tucker area off and on since 2003? Seen those tanks in war movies? They're not government owned.

Anonymous said...


I wasn't the one who made the "Buckwheat" reference, but I am the one you called "Early Cuyler." I just thought I'd point out how you "hurt yourself and your argument" (your words). But like I said, when you don't have the facts on your side, insult the messenger. I guess it's different though, when the shoe's on the other foot...hunh?

Montieth said...

You want more responsible behavior out of college students? Stop infantalizing them and presuming they will all not be responsible.

When they turn 21 and can carry, I would expect those that take the time to obtain a GWL (or equivalent out of state license) will in fact already be more responsible than their peers. This tends to be the case for most folks who go through the hoops to obtain such a license to begin with. What are the stats for criminal acts when comparing carry permit holders and the general population?

Anonymous said...

ZERO, what are you talking about? The college police officer made a statement, what is your opposing view? I see why no person responds on here. People express their views and when they do, you guys won't to go for the neck. I sit here and read both views and both have merit, but damn you guys in my opinion take this way too personal. If this situation was perfect then no one would need a gun. I like the fact that when the college police made a comment about students exercising their 2nd amend rights, no one makes a comment how the state of N.York does it and they are a GOP state. GO FIGURE. This post is dead and going in circles. God forbid if this acts gets passed and the college police officer is right, then what will you say? I always say we are entitled to certain rights, but if you don't use them responsibility whats the point. Only in America can you have your

Anonymous said...

When we look over our lives at some of our most irresponsible behavior, we can look no further than our college years! Just the AD's, lost/stolen guns alone would be a nightmare. Additionally, in the event of an active shooter scenario, you'd simply have a bunch of students running for their lives (like all civilians) dropping their guns while doing so. Just like the club shootings we respond to where we see all of the perp guns dropped on the floor because in reality, NO ONE wants to be that Clint Idiotwood/call of duty character they dream of and everyone wants truly just wants to get home to see their mommy's. Same way everyone's a UFC fighter until they get facepunched!Did I mention all of the 911 descriptions of the active shooter perps that would be innocent kids with guns and mistakenly shot by responding officers too? 50 innocent kids with guns having to decoded with while with the real perp mixed in the middle? Good intentions but BAD IDEA!

Montieth said...

One other thought? Perhaps some of the folks who think legal firearms on a college campus is a bad idea can point to some credible statistics showing how concealed carry holders have used their guns illegally in the 7 or so states that do allow firearms on campus?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The perp pulled into the church parking lot. He already killed one baby. What were they supposed to do? Let him walk into the daycare and hope for the best? Who are you accusing of not thinking?

Anonymous said...

To anon 11:08

They attempted to serve the warrant at Farmington and Chupp Road near Wal-Mart. He fled and it ended up at the church. It wasn't planned to be at church obviously....

Anonymous said...

Less than 3% or Georgian's even have a carry permit...less than 2% of those are 21 years old.

Again, this notion that if the law is passed every other undergrad will have a gun (and somehow start committing crimes) is a ridiculous baseless argument from the anti-gun left.

Most undergrads graduate before they even turn 21.

California has allowed concealed carry in all schools and colleges to those with CCW's since 1974...never had a single problem from a CCW carrier.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.