[paraclete]

How would you feel if it was a restriction on your ability to say anything about anything else... that right is no less sacred... they are BOTH constitutionally guaranteed. If one can be restricted... so can the other. THe crime rate is gong to take a drop in that state as it has in other states that favor the right of gun owners over the rights of criminals. THe highest murder and crime rates are in the places with the strictest gun control laws.

I see nothing there that improves law and order just a licence to kill, the whole philosophy of this thing is a nonsense, just a successful marketing campaign by the NRA. This is macho culture at its worst. You want to kill or be killed keep going down this path, I prefer to live in peace

[smoothy]

I see nothing there that improves law and order just a licence to kill, the whole philosophy of this thing is a nonsense, just a successful marketing campaign by the NRA. This is macho culture at its worst. You want to kill or be killed keep going down this path, I prefer to live in peace

Criminals deserve to die... someone breaks into my house... I have the god given and legal right to ensure they never get a second chance to do it again.

That is a concept people who do not have that right can not understand. THey feel it's their duty to hand over everything and sit back and watch while their wife and children get raped then killed. WIthut doing anythig because they would be violating the rights of the rapist and murderer.

I do not feel that way... nor did the founders of this country... thank god.

[talaniman]

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

[smoothy]

Expand what... those are all rights we should have always KEPT to begine with... and would have if some gun grabbing liberal had not denyed outr constitutional rights to begin with.

Let the welfare bums get off their butts and work... there are over 20,000,000 illeghals that can find work... so can they.

If they want dignity... they will cat like human adults and earn a living. I don't HAVE to respect anyone leaching off the system because they are lazy.

I certainly don't have to treat a criminal that thinks they are more entitled to the thinks I actually went to work to earn and pay for take from me by any means.

I have a RIGHT to not support the lazy... I have a right to live free of crime... I have the right to not have to see the trash welfare bums and drug users pollute the planet with.

THey have a fair shake... it requires they get up in the morning.. shower dress is something presentable... and go out and get a job like everyone else does.

Beyond that... they aren't entitled to squat.

Round up the roughly 20 million illegals....march them across the border at gunpoint...and presto.....jobs for everyone without one overnight.

[Wondergirl]

Round up the roughly 20 million illegals....march them ac;ross the border attention gunpoint...and presto.....jobs for everyone without one overnight.

Clean motel rooms? Pick fruits and vegetables? Work at a carwash? Scrub who knows what off the floors at nursing homes? No one I know.

[paraclete]

all this talk of rights but who gave you the right to carry a gun in a church, your own constitution says you cannot make laws governing religion, so no guns in church no matter what your stupid legislature says. Your education is wasted on you, you cannot understand the written language

You want to kill someone who enters your home illegally on the pretex you feel threatened, this isn't about rights, it is about being a vigilante, about bloodlust. Noone says you shouldn't defend yourself in a life threating situation, but beyond that is just lawlessness and playing God

[Tuttyd]

Criminals deserve to die... someone breaks into my house... I have the god given and legal right to ensure they never get a second chance to do it again.

No, you have a natural right to defend yourself, not a God given right.

[Catsmine]

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

The crux of this discussion is the philosophy of governance. This law is a step in government getting out of the citizens' way while the alternatives in this particular post are examples of government intruding into commerce.

[Tuttyd]

Expand what... those are all rights we should have always KEPT to begine with... and would have if some gun grabbing liberal had not denyed outr constitutional rights to begin with.

Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.

[cdad]

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

How much is the cost of this law going to cost the State of Georgia? By expanding medicare the money may or may not be there. That is a decision that has to be made by the State. I find it lunacy to have no limits on spending regaurdless of who is doing it. We as private citizens can not spend beyond our limits. Why would you demand your government to do so?

[Catsmine]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right.

Another point to disagree on. The right to self-defense is the most basic natural right. The bear and you both have a right to life, according to the theory of Natural Rights. Whose right to eat takes priority? The one who can most ably defend it. If you have a tool, that would be you, and you have dinner. Without tools, the bear has the full stomach.

Now feel free to nit-pick and stretch the example out to non-relevance.

[paraclete]

Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.

I fail to see they have the right to legislate murder by gun. Governments exist to preserve order not create opportunity for mayhem. You need to examine why the right to bear arms exists, it is directly associated with military service, but this is conveniently forgotten. The right to bear arms has been continually expanded which suggests the government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect its citizens. You have more police forces than any other nation and yet you demand arms to keep order. Don't you see that something is wrong, you have a self fulfilling prophesy

[smoothy]

Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.

It is a natural right... it is also a legal right and a codified constitutional right.

The government is NOT entitled to take away that right... because the controlling documents for the government, our Constitution... clearly and specifically spell them out as a right. Not as a priveledge. And its #2 on the list with all the other basic rights we are entitled to.

[Tuttyd]

It is a natural right... it is also a legal right and a codified constitutional right.

The government is NOT entitled to take away that right... because the controlling documents for the government, our Constitution... clearly and specifically spell them out as a right. Not as a priveledge. And its #2 on the list with all the other basic rights we are entitled to.

Correct. That's what I said.

[talaniman]

Thanks for making my point, since there has been NO move to take any ones guns, so your rights have not been infringed upon, you just think they have, and fear any changes so you expand your rights and talk about the ones who also want THEIR rights (Under the constitution no less... not just the one amendment YOU guys like) expanded, defined, AND PROTECTED. Can't conservatives, and guys like you enjoy your rights without undermining someone else's? Obviously NOT.

Back to the facts of the subject about Georges law (Thanks Cats for putting in the link so it can be READ), because imbedded into the law is a prohibition of localities to govern their own communities with respect to guns, and more onerous, the ability to hold accountable in a court of law for anyone other than the governor against gun manufacturers, sellers, by the citizens of Georgia. Now tell me how the right to sue being eliminated has anything to do with a right to bear arms?

Further, resisting the federal money for expansion has not only left hundreds of thousands uninsured, but blows a big hole into the state budget unnecessaraly. I mean how is that even fiscally responsible? So while you holler about your rights, it would behoove you to recognize the rights of your fellow citizens as well.

More than half the citizens want nothing to do with guns, don't care, but we all want to be safe, and secure, while enjoying the fruits of the country we live in. This is the lunacy and hypocrisy of the conservative plan of action, you think you can pick who deserves the rights you hold precious, and who doesn't.

Doesn't work that way. Its "Liberty, and justice for all", not just your like minded buddies.

[tomder55]

I fail to see they have the right to legislate murder by gun. Governments exist to preserve order not create opportunity for mayhem. You need to examine why the right to bear arms exists, it is directly associated with military service, but this is conveniently forgotten. The right to bear arms has been continually expanded which suggests the government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect its citizens. You have more police forces than any other nation and yet you demand arms to keep order. Don't you see that something is wrong, you have a self fulfilling prophesy

Absolutely incorrect. The right to bear arms did not come from government service. It originated from the right to self defense against among other things ,a goverment that would oppress. It is no small coincidence that the Revolution began with the Brit attempt to disarm the colonials.

[tomder55]

No, you have a natural right to defend yourself, not a God given right.

a distinction without a difference.

[Tuttyd]

a distinction without a difference.

Nonsense. I went through that ages ago with you. The whole idea of the Enlightenment , Locke and the Founders was to make that very distinction.

[Catsmine]

Perhaps a caption can better comment:

[cdad]

Back to the facts of the subject about Georges law (Thanks Cats for putting in the link so it can be READ), because imbedded into the law is a prohibition of localities to govern their own communities with respect to guns, and more onerous, the ability to hold accountable in a court of law for anyone other than the governor against gun manufacturers, sellers, by the citizens of Georgia. Now tell me how the right to sue being eliminated has anything to do with a right to bear arms?

Where are you reading this? It says no such thing. I looked through section 1-9 starting at line number 659.

It just defines how it is to take place and doesnt remove any rights from its citizens.

Direct from the law as posted:

(2) The authority to bring suit and right to recover against any weapons, firearms, or
679 ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer by or on behalf of any
680 governmental unit created by or pursuant to an Act of the General Assembly or the
681 Constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement,
682 or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture,
683 marketing, or sale of weapons, firearms, or ammunition to the public shall be reserved
684 exclusively to the state. This paragraph shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local
685 government authority from bringing an action against a weapons, firearms, or
686 ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or express warranty as to
687 weapons, firearms, or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local
688 government authority.