It's cool to take a loaded rifle into the Georgia airports!

[cce1302]

Ok, I was just going to ask if you agreed with this list (some, all, or none)?

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I agree that those are unconstitutional. That's your point, right? that the laws your list reflects are in violation of the constitution that you swore to support and defend?

It ticks me off, too.

At any rate, I'm glad that there are still some who ignore the heckler's veto, not just when it comes from MDA, but also from their gun butter children.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Does it matter? The criminals go thru the justice system, get let out, can't legally buy a firearm, but get them anyways and commit more crimes only to be let back out again. So whether unconstitutional restrictions are placed on guns or not, the ones they're restricting are still getting them

Only a few of those listed are criminals. But I failed to see the "except convicted criminals" portion of the second amendment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree that those are unconstitutional. That's your point, right? that the laws your list reflects are in violation of the constitution that you swore to support and defend?

It ticks me off, too.

At any rate, I'm glad that there are still some who ignore the heckler's veto, not just when it comes from MDA, but also from their gun butter children.

Yep, that's the point. Perhaps ATM sees it the same way you do. Why a dishonorably discharged person is banned from owning a firearm, or any other "free" person, beats the heck out of me.

 

[ATM]

That 'no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms' works fine for me. Apply that to your list.

 

[hopper68]

You violate the rules of a free society you lose the benefits of a free society. A convicted felon should not automatically be allowed back all their previous rights. Anybody who thinks prisons rehabilitate has never dealt with an excon.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You violate the rules of a free society you lose the benefits of a free society. A convicted felon should not automatically be allowed back all their previous rights. Anybody who thinks prisons rehabilitate has never dealt with an excon.

If they're not in prison or jail, and have served their sentence, why not? If they're too dangerous to hold all their rights, why are they free in the first place?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

If they're not in prison or jail, and have served their sentence, why not? If they're too dangerous to hold all their rights, why are they free in the first place?

Yep, lock them up, stretch their necks or let them be real people.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So the list I posted?

Oh, and you forgot "those not actively serving in a militia". Because if its to be taken absolutely literally, You gotta be in an active militia for it to apply.

(thank God every able bodied male citizen is automatically a member of Indiana's militia as I recall)

 

[hopper68]

If they're not in prison or jail, and have served their sentence, why not? If they're too dangerous to hold all their rights, why are they free in the first place?

Because life in prison or the death penalty is deemed to harsh in some cases? Because some people never learn?

I understand mistakes can be made and support a defined path to regain lost rights, dependent on the offense. Sex offenders in Indiana are required after their sentence has been served to register. Depending on the crime, registration is a set number of years or lifetime. With a little tweaking it would be a good start.

Let me put it another way, would you hire a convicted embezzler as a treasurer? Why not? They served their time.

 

[The Sandman]

The bold part is the one I'm debating. So, what is the bigger picture? What history or evidence do you have which supports that carrying a long gun diminishes our rights to carry? There must be something that has happened in order for you to see it this way... otherwise it's just paranoia or that you just don't like the sight of seeing someone with a firearm, which is exactly what the anti's reasoning is. There is actual evidence where people have used a gun to defend themselves, but for the life of me I can't find anything or think of any situation where a responsible and law abiding citizen open carrying a long gun has caused laws to be passed that go against "your cause".

Would you be happy if a law was passed where you are no longer allowed to carry a long gun?

Late to the party, as usual, but as you asked so shall you receive so they say. I can't believe the Mulford Act wasn't brought up sooner. Nobody specified Indiana law examples and since he was carrying in the ATL airport I'm going to guess one example is as good as any. "Radicals" or not, they were carrying lawfully and in protest. What did it get them?

A Huey P. Newton Story - Actions - State Capitol March | PBS

 

[ckcollins2003]

Late to the party, as usual, but as you asked so shall you receive so they say. I can't believe the Mulford Act wasn't brought up sooner. Nobody specified Indiana law examples and since he was carrying in the ATL airport I'm going to guess one example is as good as any. "Radicals" or not, they were carrying lawfully and in protest. What did it get them?

A Huey P. Newton Story - Actions - State Capitol March | PBS

Except I said "responsible and law abiding citizen"... The black panther's weren't known for being law abiding citizens. I'm sure not all of them were criminals, but if you join an organization that is known for committing many crimes including murder, then you've labeled yourself as one of those criminals.

The Mulford Act would be about the same as the police of California trying to disarm MS-13 members if they were doing the same "police patrolling" if that's what you want to call it. This man in the airport wasn't putting officers lives at risk and as far as I know from the article, he's not part of a criminal organization.

 

[Roadie]

Oh, and you forgot "those not actively serving in a militia". Because if its to be taken absolutely literally, You gotta be in an active militia for it to apply.

(thank God every able bodied male citizen is automatically a member of Indiana's militia as I recall)

Just a small correction.. you are taking the false path the Anti gunners take. The 2nd says nothing about being IN a Militia.. nor does it mention the word active...

 

[Roadie]

""A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'"

Can that be taken to mean ONLY a well-schooled electorate can keep and read books?
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[roscott]

If they're not in prison or jail, and have served their sentence, why not? If they're too dangerous to hold all their rights, why are they free in the first place?

This. It also takes WAY too much time/money/effort to try to babysit everyone that has committed a crime.

 

[churchmouse]

If they're not in prison or jail, and have served their sentence, why not? If they're too dangerous to hold all their rights, why are they free in the first place?

 

[Trigger Time]

IBGhgmhmhnhmh

In an article, the Atlanta mayor is quoted as saying:


I'm very curious what these additional measures are. I mean, if they are worried about what might happen with someone OCing an AR in the airport, it seems like a response might be a phalanx of security. Yet, that does not appear to have been the reaction.

And truly, how WOULD you secure an airport against something like this? You would almost literally need a couple hundred similarly armed security. I don't think that's going to happen.

As a citizen open carrying a rifle into an airport if more be worried about my safety from trigger happy cops than the other way around

 

[AA&E]

The cop or soldier probably doesn't freak me out so much because I probably can figure out their motivation. Same with the person I recognize as being a hunter carrying a long gun. I can figure out their motivation.

If I'm in Wal-Mart and I see some dude with an AR slung, I am going to be a bit freaked out if I can't determine their motivation. To be honest, chances are I am going to assume he's an attention whore and attention whores make me nervous because I think they're mentally defective and that leads to them making rash and unfortunate decisions.

Yep. Agreed.

 

[lrahm]

Sure, just not past the security screeners.

It might get you placed on the "no fly list". Do you really want that?

 

[MRockwell]

After ATL incident, Hank Johnson wants to ban loaded guns at airportsoutside airport security | Political Insider blog

Actions have consequences. U.S. Rep Johnson introduced a bill to extend airport gun bans outside security.

 

[ATM]

After ATL incident, Hank Johnson wants to ban loaded guns at airportsoutside airport security | Political Insider blog

Actions have consequences. U.S. Rep Johnson introduced a bill to extend airport gun bans outside security.

Infringements are introduced all the time by clowns like this. It's not a consequence of exercising one's rights.