Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What Would You Teach Cailie Fischer?">Next Post

GA campus carry (courtesy

The Georgia campus carry bill HB859 passed the Peach State House 113 to 59, and the Senate 37 to 17. It now sits on Governor Nathan Deal’s desk, waiting for his signature. Earlier this week, Governor Deal refused to say he’d veto the campus carry bill. Nor did he say he’d affix his signature to the campus carry legislation. Instead, his office released the following statement [via] . . .

As a lifetime defender and staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights, Gov. Deal has signed every pro-gun bill to reach his desk. However, he believes legitimate points have been made in regards to certain aspects of the ‘campus carry’ bill and he calls on the General Assembly to address these concerns in related legislation before Sine Die [ED: the end of the current legislative session.]

Specifically, these areas of concern include dually enrolled k-12 students who leave school to attend classes at a university or technical college campus, as well as daycare centers on these same campuses.

Deal also believes the governing boards of universities and technical colleges should have the discretion to set reasonable rules regarding disciplinary hearings and faculty and administrative offices.

Addressing these issues is an important step in ensuring the safety and freedoms of students, faculty and staff in our institutions of higher learning throughout our state.

The wording is similar to arguments brought before the Alaskan Senate when the legislature considered campus carry. With these changes, a school administration in The Peach State could prevent a staff member from exercising her Second Amendment rights in her own office. They could also insist that police officers be disarmed before coming into their offices.

HB859 was delivered to Governor Deal on the March 14. He has six days to either sign or veto the bill before the legislature adjourns. If he does not sign or veto HB859, it will become law on Sunday and will go into effect on July 1, 2016. If the governor vetoes the bill, which seems unlikely, the legislature will have four days to attempt to override. They don’t appear to have the votes to do so. Stay tuned.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What Would You Teach Cailie Fischer?">Next Post


  1. Another group that prefers adam lanza have the only gun on campus. Referring to the picture of the young hysteric up there.

  2. Thank heavens non of the 49 people the creep at Virginia Tech encountered was carrying a concealed pistol, someone could have been hurt! Way to waffle Governor “Let’s Make A Deal”! Showing real leadership!

  3. Dual enrollment students (college during high school) are never older than 18, so either that claim is ridiculous or he didn’t speak clearly.

    • I became a dual student in August, turned 18 in December, and graduated HS in June. (If I were born a week earlier, I would have graduated the year I was 17, but I was far from the only 18 year old in my graduating class)

      • Yup. Not many states allow people under 21 to buy handguns, and IIRC Georgia doesn’t unless you’re in the military. Maybe not even then…

    • He’s not worried that the dual enrolled students will be concealed carriers. He’s worried the high school students may come in contact with a concealed carrier. Gasp! In the same sentence he says “… as well as daycare centers on these same campus….” The high school students would typically be in their “gun free zone” at their high school, but if he lets this campus carry bill pass, they won’t have that same benefit on their college campus. It’s a load of crap. And bringing daycare children into the argument is just crazy! He’s basically saying that our children cannot be trusted around these evil concealed carriers. What?!?!

      • I’ve been shooting for 50 years including a 3 year stint with High School rifle team and another 2 year stint shooting on the UGA rifle team. Yep UGA used to have a rifle team before it was dissolved as part of implementation of Title 9 in the late ’70s-early ’80s. Ironically, the majority if the team was made up of women who were suddenly without a sport!

        I’m the third generation of a very pro gun family and I’ve been carrying a weapon for many years. The times we live in have become violent and you literally cannot predict who and when someone will snap and start indiscriminately shooting. If you don’t want to carry for defense (as demonstrated by the sign carrying protesters in the article), then please don’t feel compelled to purchase and carry one. But keep this statistically significant and UNCHALLENGABLE statement in mind “In every incident where a spree shooter was challenged by just ONE armed citizen, the spree ended either via surrender or shooter committed suicide and average mortality ~ 2.1 people.” “In every incident – of similar demographics – where a spree shooter meets no challenge by armed citizens and is ended only by arrival of Law Enforcement the average mortality is ~ 14.2 people”

        So, whereas you may not wish to take responsibility for your own safety, or the innocents around you, please don’t step on my rights to engage in self defense; who knows, yours might be one of the lives saved by a responsibly armed fellow student.

        PS. In my 50+ years of shooting, I’ve never been involved in any accidental shooting nor any accident due to negligence of a firearm.

  4. So he wants the legislature to rewrite it, to spare him the consequences of vetoing it as is, but he wants special provisions added allowing colleges to render it moot, so he can avoid the consequences of signing it as is. That’s cute.

    In Georgia political science classes this fall they’ll have a new lesson plan to learn. They can call it the Governor Deal Equation: a master politician + a spineless man = a horror of a human being

  5. I support the second amendment, but….

    As an aside, the top image almost exactly fits my image of the typical American anti gunner.

  6. I don’t get his spineless ways. The democrats are weak as Shit here. He straight whipped Carter last election and didn’t even try.

  7. See?? Here is an example of good, common sense gun safety. Yet gun people are all aflutter about anyone objecting (preventing) even the slightest to being forced to tolerate the presence of a gun.

    What do you do when your business associate invites you over for a barbecue and says, “Oh by the way…leave your gun at home.”? Can you not extend that same courtesy to a teacher or school administrator?

    • You do know the difference between private and public property, don’t you? Or is that a distinction you don’t recognize?

      • “You do know the difference between private and public property…”

        Are you proposing that a private citizen rates special treatment that another human, even though a government employee on government property, forfeits? Seems to make other humans second-class citizens, doesn’t it? Requiring government employees to endure a risk that you eliminate for an acquaintance. What if your associate were a government employee inviting you to dinner? Would you then feel justified telling that person to suck it up because you have rights?

        • Please put down the lighter, that strawman did nothing to you!

          How can a sane person think it’s a good idea to give a non-elected person (or any person) the right to arbitrarily remove a fundamental right? Why would a college administrator have any authority to punish a concealed carrier? Any conceivable act requiring “discipline” would be a crime, andd the police would handle it.

          Would people have been safer if a teacher could have put the shooter at VA Tech on academic probation after shooting those people?

        • My apprehension of the law (as reported on the blog) is that a government employee could make their office area (or classroom) a no gun area, while others could choose to not do so. It isn’t a matter of government, so much as a matter of being considerate. If your neighbor said no guns when you visit, but you brought one, you could be arrested for trespass. Not dissimilar from a school employee or other administrator being able to declare a trespass if you brought a gun into their office/room. Just because one human is on private property and another on “public” (government) property does not mean the person on public property has less a right to tranquility as a private homeowner.

        • What an idiotic response, 2asux. I referred to the distinction between public and private PROPERTY and you start ranting about “government employees”. Let me try this, although it probably won’t register: If a teacher, administrator, or other government employee invites me to their own private home for a barbecue, I will respect their wishes not to bring a gun, either by not bringing mine or not going to their home. In that sphere they get the same deference from me as anyone else. But when they try to force me to comply with their preferences on what is as much my property as theirs–no, they don’t rate any special deference. Nor does a non-gov’t employee who wants to curtail my rights in the public sphere in order to suit their personal preference. Got it? I didn’t think so.

        • If public property were just as much yours as the government, how did all these laws prescribing what a private citizen may do on public property come from? They weren’t all invented since 1964. How did they come on the books in less “liberal” times before that? Your tolerance of these restrictions ratifies them as valid conditions to be placed on private citizens. Under your theory, the park at Yellowstone should not be able to fine you for littering because, hey, it’s your property too, to do with as you please.

        • I’ll try to frame this a little differently: Does a teacher get to say ‘no blacks in my class, or no gays’? How about ‘no unwed mothers, no christians/muslims, or no immigrants’? Of course not, and they should not be allowed to either. That would be discrimination based either on a protected aspect of ones being or of an enumerated right. The exact same is true of the right to keep and bear arms. It is a lawful choice based on an enumerated right. No state employee (which is what a professor at a public university is) has the right to discriminate against a right.

        • Generally speaking, do you agree that the ability to kill instantly is rather small in any other grouping you identified, as relates to their being allowed free access to whatever? The person with a gun in their pocket represents a potential immediate and existential threat, names and groupings do not.

        • Moving the goal posts, as usual. No, concealed carry permit holders, and lawful gun owners in general, do not in any way represent a ‘potential immediate and existential threat’, proven by both statistical analysis and anecdotal evidence, except in your warped version of reality where every argument turns into a shootout and every fender bender becomes a duel at ten paces. You perceive a non existent threat based on your own biases and neuroses. I suggest improving your coping skills and learning to be more tolerant of others outside your social circles and worldview.

        • 500 “accidental” gun deaths a year is hardly a statistic, hardly proof of how really safe gun owners are. 500 dead because no one can determine which among you will be irresponsible, and could be precluded from handling firearms. You would demand that everyone prove they are eligible to vote because there have been a few dozen fraudulent votes, but you want to escape responsibility for the provable deaths caused by irresponsible gun handling.

          Shake it, bake it, twist it into whatever spin you like, 500 unnecessary gun deaths each year is fact (as you guys are so enamored of). Proposing that because there were only 500 people sacrificed to vanity that means gun people are not to be questioned, criticized or required to take those 500 fellow citizens into account. A statistic is only insignificant when you are not one of the losers.

        • 40 thousand people died from traffic accidents last year, and nearly 90 thousand died from alcohol related fatalities. Now, if you publicly state on here you are also strongly in favor of restricting private vehicle ownership and alcohol consumption I would at least concede the point that your are consistent in your nanny state worship and give you some credit. Somehow I highly doubt you’re going to, though. 130,000 accidental/preventable deaths every year from items that are much more readily available than guns, but you want to restrict MY ability because of less than 1% of that statistic due to your pet cause? Because, why? Oh because you enjoy driving and your evening class of chardonnay, but I should submit to your unrealistic expectations. Got it.

          People make mistakes. Freedom is the ability to make mistakes and justice is being held accountable for them.

        • Deflection seems to be the most popular response to the problem of accidental death by gun use. It is the old, “Well, we’re not as bad as X,Y,Z”. Stick to the point. 500 accidental gun deaths a year is unconscionable in the 21st century, in the most advanced country in the world.

        • More children drown in bathtubs than accidental shootings. Your 500 deaths in a nation of 300 million is .00000016666 of the population. To put that in perspective, that’s a 1 in 600,000 chance. Your odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 700,000 in any one year, lifetime it’s 1 in 3,000. Ban lightning!

        • Why do you insist on the fantasy that your proposed policies will reduce the already incredibly low number of 500 accidental gun deaths a year?

          There is no evidence to indicate that the policies would reduce accidental gun deaths.

          The people who have fatal gun accidents are mostly those who do not worry much about risks in general; they are unlikely to treat any additional safety regulations with respect.

          Moreover, there are already close to 400 million guns in the United States, most made with excellent safety systems.

          Making quality manufactured guns hard to get makes cheap and unsafe small shop guns more attractive, and those guns are notoriously lacking in safety devices or quality standards.

          You will also get an increase in home manufacture of ammunition, including powder and primers, conducted without safety standards, licensing, permits or ecological standards. Some of those shops will blow up in crowded, poor neighborhoods, just as we see meth labs do now.

          In short, your policies seem at least as likely to increase fatal accidents as to reduce them.

          You cannot get around those unintended consequences.

          But, with your logic, we can stop all hospital deaths by banning hospitals.

        • “Why do you insist on the fantasy that your proposed policies will reduce the already incredibly low number of 500 accidental gun deaths a year?”

          – Do you have any evidence they won’t? Do you now want to tell 500 fellow citizens that none of their lives are worth the effort to save any of them?

          “The people who have fatal gun accidents are mostly those who do not worry much about risks in general; they are unlikely to treat any additional safety regulations with respect”

          – This is exactly how gun lovers appear to those you oppose.Which makes the case for total, forced confiscation. You guys are drawing the picture, we are only publicizing it through every means available.

        • “Deflection seems to be the most popular response to the problem of accidental death by gun use. It is the old, “Well, we’re not as bad as X,Y,Z”. Stick to the point. 500 accidental gun deaths a year is unconscionable in the 21st century, in the most advanced country in the world.”

          Translation: I have absolutely no rebuttal to your completely valid point, so I will throw out vague buzzwords and tired ‘if it saves one life’ cliches. Got it.

          500 gun deaths out of 320 million people is so many standard deviations from the mean it is infinitesimal. You know you’re losing when you have to argue that a 0.000001 death rate per capita is unacceptable.

        • “You know you’re losing when you have to argue that a 0.000001 death rate per capita is unacceptable.”

          No one in my family or life is a damned statistic, sir. No one. I even hope to not find you become one of those statistics you are so fond of ignoring.

          If you have difficulty accepting the myriad other forms of accidental deaths, take those concerns somewhere else and solve them. We are talking death and injury due to irresponsible gun handling, nothing else.

          Here are some of your beloved statistics:
          From the CDC (2015)
          Motor vehicle traffic deaths
          Number of deaths: 33,804
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
          All firearm deaths
          Number of deaths: 33,636
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

          From National Safety Council (2015)
          Intentional Self-harm 1 in 97
          Motor Vehicle Crash 1 in 113
          Assault by Firearm 1 in 358

          While you are 3X more likely to die in an automobile, 1 in 358 chance of dying by gunshot is nothing to sneeze at. (Sorry, neither CDC nor NSC broke-out intentional vs. accidental gunshot deaths for 2015)

        • Love how you went from a ‘fact’ based argument to an emotional ‘how dare you classify human lives as mere numbers you monster!’ when the numbers weren’t going they way you wanted.

          Rational, logical adults use facts and statistics, not pearl clutching what ifs. You picked accidental gunshots as your metric, not me. It just happens to be the very lowest possible statistic you could grab, but it was the only one that you could even hope to leverage against law abiding gun owners and concealed carriers.

          No one wants to see preventable deaths, but they are part of the human condition. People have died from shitty luck since before human civilization and they will do so until the last human being standing trips on his shower curtain and breaks his neck. To argue that literally millions of people should have their enumerated rights stripped because of a fantastically low number of accidents is beyond demented. Actually, its not demented at all. It is intentionally designed to twist a statistic into something it isn’t by the intellectually dishonest to convince low info people that there’s a problem that doesn’t actually exist. You know exactly what you’re doing, you know it’s a lie, and you push it anyway. So good for you, 2asux.

        • It is emotion that carries the day. Cold, dry facts buy you no acolytes, no supporters. The world is not convinced (impressed) with the height of your logic, but the depth of your passion (emotion).

          It is why we own the media, the culture, the future. I would rather see good efforts to prevent even more unnecessary gun deaths, than outright gun bans. But when you refuse to recognize people as more important than numbers, you buy your own reward. The pro gun sense movement will take the action needed to contain wild weeds.

        • I believe we have taken this debate to it’s logical conclusion. I will at least admit that I respect the fact that you are honest with your admission that you are using an emotional rather than logical argument and that you know you have an unfair advantage in the mass media. That is considerably more honesty than the majority of gun controllers.

          Assuming things stay the same, however, you will not win this in the long run. The internet has broken the mainstream media’s stranglehold on the truth, and people are becoming more libertarian every day. The massive shift in thinking on gun control in the last 30 years is proof of that. You may sway the intellectually lazy, the ignorant, and the mentally unsound, but those with critical thinking and a passion for truth will side with us. It will not be a quick process, and it certainly won’t be smooth, but it is already happening, and even you can see it.

          You can’t stop the signal, Mal.

        • Good contest tonite.

          Don’t overlook the fact that our future is sitting here already, waiting for citizenship and ability to vote legally. There is a near inexhaustible supply, replenished every year. They believe in the same future for America we believe.

        • Don’t overlook the fact that our future is sitting here already, waiting for citizenship and ability to vote legally.

          You mean people with names like Cruz and Rubio? After a few generations they see the light. Also – more than likely – they are already voting.

          Bonus points for the rain of strawmen while having the goalposts moving targets. Also for the “if it saves one life we should do it” fallacy. Or in this case – 500 lives.

        • Saving one, or saving 500 is a proper goal, and I claim it proudly.

          I use the 500 number because gun owners care nothing about a single life, other than their own. As a reward for such steadfastness, how ’bout a rollback of collective emergency services for gun owners who admittedly care only for themselves. There should be a reduction of taxes for those services not available to gun owners. Individualism should be a consistent principle.

        • “You mean people with names like Cruz and Rubio? ”

          Those guys are a product of “the old school”. Society has changed. Those old ideas of social behavior are being overturned, everywhere. Those waiting for citizenship, and their offspring will not want to allow recreation of the free-fire zones they left behind. Those awaiting citizenship have entirely different ideas about the “wild west” nation gun owners are rapidly losing. Might be three generations, but there will come a day when children ask why the country was so insane for so long.

        • Children are already asking that, but in the opposite direction of what you mean. The bad old days of socialist tyranny and control of the flow of information are ending.

        • Do you have a star to hang that wish on?

          Are you convinced all those waiting to be legalized are natural-born conservatives? Why would so many Democrat types be working so hard to increase the number of Republican voters? We know that many people come from countries where the employer is considered to be responsible for their basic needs, in return for which the employees stay loyal to that employer. Secondarily, these people may have very traditional views about things, but the employer/employee relationship is superior.

        • The extraordinarily low static of accidental firearms related deaths would dwindle even further if we as a nation not only allowed, but MANDATED firearm safety courses in our entire educational system.

          Of course, those with the plight of this fear of inanimate objects & apparently freedom would never agree to such. I believe It would eventually shift the balance away from their obsession, permanently within a generation.

          So frankly, the tired montra of “for the children” is empty. If it had any truth, you’d all be pushing for education. Instead, you want to restrict or even remove basic human rights in misguided hopes already PROVEN to be ineffective, repeatedly.

        • “…If it had any truth, you’d all be pushing for education. ”

          You may not have read all the different articles here, but in many of them I advocate strongly for serious, recurring, training and education for gun owners, including EddieEagle programs. I champion those efforts anywhere, everywhere. My position all along has been to find a way to reduce accidental deaths by gunfire, but if voluntary efforts are rejected, then legislative action is the only alternative. If gun owners utterly reject all efforts to improve safe gun handling, confiscation gains momentum.

        • You would demand that everyone prove they are eligible to vote because there have been a few dozen fraudulent votes, but you want to escape responsibility for the provable deaths caused by irresponsible gun handling.

          Why not prove they are who they say they are?
          When I go to buy a gun, I have to fill out a form and have a background check run on me before I can buy it. To me, these things are a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude that we put up with in the name of public safety. Why not apply that same course of action to other rights we citizens have?
          Why not have a background check run on you before you buy a cell phone or tablet or computer? You don’t want someone who’s a known pedophile being able to get on the internet and look up child porn, or lure kids to their sex den, do you? How about someone with a restraining order being able to call and harass the person who took out that restraining order? Don’t want them to be able to do that, do you? If it saves just one child or adult’s life, isn’t it worth going through the hassle of running a background check on buying a cellphone or computer?

          I walk into my voting area, hand them my driver’s license and sign the voting form. They then give me my electronic voting card to take to one of the machines and I cast my vote on the ballots. No muss, no fuss, in and out in less time than it took me to get to the polling area.
          Why is this a problem for some people? It’s not that difficult to obtain a state ID, everyone should have one anyways.

        • An individual’s background check is invisible to the general populace. How on earth do I know you passed? How do I know you passes a criminal check, and are also a very, very responsible gun owner, who never makes a mistake handling a gun? How do I know today is not the day you fail to be responsible? The problem is gun carriers present an immeasurable risk because I cannot make a rational, reasonable judgement simply based on the presence of a gun? Would I be better served to ask every person I meet with if they have a gun, did they pass a background check or inherit that gun, demand that gun owner to present a concealed carry permit? What if the gun owner refuses to answer any of those questions because “rights”?

          If you bring a gun into my presence, the onus is on you to convince me you can be trusted to be safe,

        • Paranoia much?
          If gun owners were as violent and trigger happy as you think we are, how are you still alive? Wouldn’t we gun owners have killed every last anti-gunner in this country already?

          I mean, 100 million plus gun owners, 300 plus million guns, billions, if not trillions, of rounds of ammo in our possession. Yet, firearm accidents have been going down, firearm related deaths have been going down, overall crime has been going down.

        • 500 accidental deaths by gunfire every year, and we gun sense people are the only ones who care about that, and are trying to do something about it.

          I don’t care how many bullets are shot, how many guns abound, how many gun owners there are. I do not want me or any of my friends or family to become one of the “statistically insignificant” sacrifices to your fetish.

          I cannot consider any bystander being killed accidentally by an irresponsible gun owner to be expendable, even it one should be a gun owner.

          Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.

        • Since you admit to being paranoid, perhaps a change of venue would help alleviate that fear.

          I hear China and North Korea are nice this time of year. In those countries, only the government and police are allowed to own guns, so you should feel safe knowing that.

    • There nothing ‘gun safety’ about this, no matter how bad you try to twist, reframe, spin, or revision this in your alternate version of reality. Gun safety has a meaning, it means the safe use and handling of guns. It does not mean restricting use or availability of firearms to law abiding citizens.

      • “Gun safety has a meaning, it means the safe use and handling of guns.”

        Yes, I agree. What could be a safer handling of guns than to not bring them into the presence of people who do not want to risk someone going off the reservation without warning? If you don’t have a gun while I am present, I am safer from unnecessary death than I am when you have a gun in your pocket,

        • Once again untrue based on both statistical analysis and anecdotal evidence from states with campus carry. Concealed carriers have, accidentally or intentionally, shot exactly zero innocent people on any campus in the united states over an infinite time span. You are, at worst, just as safe in a room with a lawful concealed carrier as without, and at best you are infinitesimally safer due to possible protection from criminal activity.

        • Again with the statistics. 500 deaths are not meaningless, are not proof of how safe gun owners are. 1000 dead due to gun “accidents” would be worse, as would 2000 or even more. But just because a situation could be worse does not justify accepting the situation that is. Next time there is an accidental gun death in your town/city, please schedule an appointment with the remaining friends and family to explain how the death of a loved one is statistically insignificant. You might see things from a different perspective (if you survive).

        • 500 deaths are not meaningless, in fact even 1 preventable death is tragic. However, accidental shootings are one of the least prevalent forms of accidental deaths in the united states. Here’s a short list:

          All unintentional injury deaths
          Number of deaths: 130,557
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 41.3
          Cause of death rank: 4

          Unintentional fall deaths
          Number of deaths: 30,208
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 9.6

          Motor vehicle traffic deaths
          Number of deaths: 33,804
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

          Unintentional poisoning deaths
          Number of deaths: 38,851
          Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.3

          But you want to restrict MY rights over less than 1% of that? If this were actually about saving lives you would be trying to ban alcohol sales, or ladder sales, or private vehicle ownership, because all of those have orders of magnitude more deaths than accidental gun deaths. But you’re not, are you? Please just admit this has nothing to do with safety or saving lives for your part and everything to do with your warped reality. At least I’ll have some respect for you then.

        • “But you want to restrict MY rights over less than 1% of that?”

          I would restrict, not remove. But again we have defelction as a defense for the unnecessary killing of 500 people each and every year. Reducing human life to an abstraction of math is the worst kind of irresponsibility….”I have a right to do what I want no matter who is killed as a result. If another gun owner (who is not an infallible being such as myself) somehow kills your kid walking to school, well tough s…; stuff happens. It’s for the greater good”.

        • MY actions have killed and/or injured 0% of the world population, and the same is said for 99.99% of the US gun owning population. Restricting any part of my rights would have no reduction of death rates on any scale, accidental or intentional, and may actually increase them by a small percentage, but here comes the ‘if it saves one life’ trope. Newsflash: It won’t, because the people you’ll be restricting are not the people committing the crimes (and yes, the vast majority of accidental discharges are actually crimes). Not that you give a damn. I just wish you had the integrity to admit that.

        • “Restricting any part of my rights would have no reduction of death rates on any scale,”

          Statistics are cold comfort to a grieving family. Of the .01% of gun owners who do accidentally kill someone, how many of those human victims do you think had lives they valued, lives their families valued? If statistics justify your position, please inform your loved ones that if you die of accidental gunshot, it was just a statistical anomaly, not to be concerned, as being killed by an ND, would not represent a reduction of the death rate on any scale.

        • Unless you have a peanut allergy and I load peanuts in my cartridges, you will not be affected in any way to me having a gun on my person. Guns are not a communicable disease. Nathan Deal is acting like this bill allows pornography on t shirts. Don’t know why he is concerned about high school kids and babies. GA law already allows WCP holders to bring guns to day cares and schools.

        • “Unless you have a peanut allergy and I load peanuts in my cartridges, you will not be affected in any way to me having a gun on my person.”

          Unless you adjust your carry, or re-seat your gun in the holster, or drop the gun, or somehow snag the trigger on an object, or leave it in the bathroom, or dozens of other “mistakes” gun owners make. I might be more trusting if I knew you better, knew you attended frequent recurring safety, handling and proficiency classes. Maybe then I would accept the risk of you more readily, like driving in traffic, or getting a measles shot. Problem is, I do not know you, your background, your state of mind, your sensibility, your ability to handle a deadly weapon properly.

          To borrow from THE gun handler of the century, Jeff Cooper, “Be polite to everyone you meet, but have a plan to kill them”. I believe I am one of “them”, and you have a plan.

        • Paranoid much? The fact is that you are safer with Michael in your office armed than you are by yourself. There is a MUCH greater chance that you would be mugged, raped, shot by an active shooter, or killed by some other bad guy than by Michael. A concealed carrier would increase your protection unless you are trying to kill that concealed carrier. He probably does have a plan to kill everyone he comes in contact with, but that plan is only carried out if the other person is a “deadly” threat. Before you start arguing that he may execute his plan if you and he have a disagreement, please notice I said DEADLY threat. Michael (the sheepdog) doesn’t attack you (the sheep); he only attacks the bad guy (the wolf). I say again: you are much safer with Michael in your office with his firearm than you are left to your own defense against the wolf. Before you call me paranoid or act like there aren’t bad people out there you should check out crime statistics. You’re likely to find they’re higher in areas where the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens are restricted, because if you hadn’t noticed criminals don’t follow the law or your office rules and restrictions.

        • “… if you hadn’t noticed criminals don’t follow the law or your office rules and restrictions.”

          On the whole, I do not go places where criminals (gangbangers. etc.) are MOST LIKELY (caps for emphasis only) to be. Government offices, schools, places like that are not noted for being popular hang-outs for, as you say, “bad guys”. So the threat you perceive as hiding just around the corner, seconds from doing me harm, is, also as you say, “statistically negligible”. The gun owner standing in front of me, with a deadly weapon in his/her pocket is current, present and unpredictable. I would have no way of knowing that gun owner is reasonable, responsible, proficient, or benign. However, the gun owner who is prevented from having a gun at the school/government office (because the gun owner is law abiding) cannot immediately harm me with that deadly weapon. So, if the gun owner then becomes hostile, leaves and comes back with a gun to harm me, that gun owner is now a “bad guy with a gun”. So much for being law abiding. I simply do not want to be forced to take the risk that someone in possession of a gun will always act without malice. No one should have to rely on the the benevolence of a stranger with a gun.

          Until you and all other gun owners can assure me that there will never be an ND, nor ever be a case of a gun owner “going ballistic”, I will continue to support whatever efforts are available to get as close to zero accidental deaths by gunfire as possible.

      • “Common sense is when all the good guys have guns to shoot the bad guys.”

        And you guys wonder why anti-gun citizens think you are just a bunch of irrational gun nuts.

        • No, we generally marvel at those who refuse to accept the reality that- backed up by statistics- it really does work that way. There is a term for such denial of reality- it’s called being delusional.

        • If you are talking about “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, common sense dictates that you not be in a place where a “good guy” needs a gun. Someone on this blog wrote that the first rule for being in a gunfight is to not be there (or something close to that). Common sense dictates that when you believe you are about to be attacked, do everything to flee the scene.

          The face value of your comment is that “common sense” is when “good guys” start shooting “bad guys” just because “bad guys” are “bad guys”.

        • Most of AmericA agrees with us, boy. Now why don’t you get your plans to move together for when Trump wins, like the rest your libturd ilk.

        • “Most of AmericA agrees with us, boy.”

          If by “most” you mean overwhelming majority, you are delusional. Only a singe poll indicates that pro-gun opinion is 53% vs. 47%; a statistical (which you guys love) tie.

          Look around you. If “most” of America agreed with you, do you think this blog would exist? That we would even be having these discussions?

          I will agree that we 47% happen to hold the reins of political and cultural power, so, due to low voter turnout across the board, we “minority” can be the effective majority and legislate a safer America.

        • I really hope someone is paying you to stick around and carry on…

          Otherwise, it’s sad. Well, sadder, at least.

        • “I really hope someone is paying you to stick around and carry on…”
          “Otherwise, it’s sad. Well, sadder, at least.”

          You need to up your game, mate. Grown-ups working here.

        • So what you are saying is that you want us to give up our rights to someone who doesn’t understand common sense.

          That’s nuts.

        • “…you want us to give up our rights to someone who doesn’t understand common sense.”

          Thought I addressed this yesterday. But it was a fun day and I may have planned a response, then forgot to send it.

          Anyway, my response is:
          Your statement, at first blush (first impressions, remember?) was that “common sense”, as you defined it, was “good guys” shooting “bad guys” at random. Perhaps that understanding was not your intent. People who read/hear your statements must make judgments, and part of the responsibility for that judgment is on the sender.

          I personally do not see much real value in attempting gun confiscation, but when the opposition to true gun safety refuses to consider any attenuation of their right to kill people, drastic legislation is the only alternative. Like the child who refuses to eat their vegetables, standing in the corner for an hour is the earned reward for defiance. The onus is on the child, not the parent. Drastic measures to remove guns from society is the earned reward for hard heads who believe they are completely unique, special and removed from society, such that they have no obligation to consider their actions in light of damage to society.

          If you lose your gun rights, you earned that.

        • “You need to up your game, mate.”

          Nah, no money in it. So, it would mean I have to care about your opinion. Or think it was worth trying to change. There’s no reinforcer present.

          “Grown-ups working here.”

          I will take that as a yes. And, thank God.

          It worries me when SJW do this crap for free. It is beyond me why one would be a shrill without getting paid.

        • Are you telling me that all the people shilling FOR unrestricted gun usage on this site are being paid? Where do I sign up? Somehow I got the impression that vigorous defense of principle was honored among POTG, and here you are indicating, as we thought, gun nuts are unprincipled. Blogging for hire? Wow.

        • Not exactly.

          Talking about things you enjoy with people who also enjoy the same things (which is a reinforcer in reinforcing verbal community) is the positive reinforcer, unto itself. And is really common amoung cultures and human history.

          However, the only two reasons, I can reasonably see, one would venture into a non-reinforcing verbal community is to learn other’s view points or to argue their own. And, since you’re not interested in other view points and you don’t seem to care if you change anyone’s mind (given your insulting demeanor), the only two reasons I can see you would stick around is money or for the sake of argument.

          Meaning you would likely find argument reinforcing. And that would be the really sad part.

          People who find conflict and discourse with others reinforcing usually have bad or tramatic things in their history, which have shaped that odd or abnormal behavior.

          Like I said, sad stuff. I hope you are getting paid