zoocrew

You must not have read the entire post. My link Seems like he is saying 2 different things. The point I was making is that carrying when the sign says not to is quite arrogant. If he doesn't carry in places like churches or the other prohibit public places, the post doesn't make that very clear at all.

Just admit what you really want. You want a voucher program so that the students whose parents can afford to put them in private school will do that, leaving the poorest to the public system. In effect, you want to go back to an economic segregation model.

Phil Gingrey was quick to hand Paulding County that check but voted against the spending. Why didn't he and Paulding just refuse the money if they felt that strongly about the spending? Also, stimulus money is an effective tool to "prime the pump" of the economy. Everyone who has taken high school economics understands that concept. Textbooks are very, very, VERY expensive. It is much cheaper to have a classroom set and the CD for the students to use since nearly all students have access to a computer. For what we pay for books, we can keep classroom teachers employed and buses ru

The fact remains it is illegal to carry in a church. Fact is, you are guilty of breaking the law. Whether it is what you think is right or not is irrelevant. You are just like the common thief who hasn't been caught yet. Comparing it a speed limit sign is a straw man. Nice try, but just because others violate the law in some regard is not justification for you breaking the law in another. The law is designed to protect the public at large but you believe you are about protecting yourself while putting others at risk. Selfish and arrogant. The fact is that if guns are allowed in church

If your argument was valid, then the days of the Wild West would have seen zero crime because everyone was armed and hanging was the sentence. Your argument was tried and it didn't work.

Don't Christian religious groups still fight it out? Northern Ireland is still a powder keg. The only reason most of the "Christian" world is not fighting over religion is that secular governments have forced the sects to coexist by not giving one preference over the other. For hundreds of years Christianity did the same thing the Muslims are doing now with various fights over conformity. Come on. Christianity would be doing the same were it not for the secular governments making sure religion doesn't get too much power in the various nations.

Quite disrespectful to ignore the sign where the private property owner expressly says it is not allowed. Arrogant. Why not do the right thing the first time and simply do what the property owner requests with the sign? Otherwise, you're doing what you would not want others to do to you. That is a point. When people are carrying guns, there is an intimidation factor there. In certain places, that risk should not exist.

Bookmarked. Just like you said the car sales for 2011 would be the worse than ever? My link

Not at all correct. I could say the same of you. You are not open to another view, you don't understand the risk and you believe the government doesn't have the responsibility to protect citizens at all.

Being sick is part of the human existence. Carrying a gun in a public place is not. However, we also have public safety laws against intentionally harming someone with HIV; we require safety lighting in privately owned places of business; we require ADA compliance; we require fire safety restrictions. The point is that the public has a reasonable expectation of safety in certain places and the state has an obligation to protect the public in those places by not increasing the risk.

No. You're confusing public safety with private property issues. The public protects itself with public funding of officers for publicly owned places. The public has an expectation of safety on private property where the public is freely invited, and if the private property owners wish to increase protection from would-be intruders, then it must hire highly trained personnel to guard against that. You may want to read the link to understand this issue better. GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. State of Georgia

The court disagreed with your analysis of the law.

The court disagreed with your logic. And you are very, very wrong. Guns neither scare nor offend me. In my house we have 4 shot guns, 2 handguns, and 3 rifles. Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. The state has the duty to protect citizens where there is a reasonable expectation of safety. Guns in certain places escalate risk. Your right to carry ends where my expectation of safety begins.

Might shoot up the bad guy. Might save innocent lives. Might. Might not. 100% certain is that more bullets will fly and that is almost certain to mean more innocent people will get hurt. If there is a fear in the church house, let them hire trained LEO to guard the place. Much safer. Solves the problem. But the issue is that the state has the right to protect citizens expectation of safety in public places.

Apples and oranges. Comparing highly trained LEO and an average Joe with a concealed weapon is not the same. The court was very clear that the public has a reasonable expectation of safety and the state has the right to safeguard the public's expectation in certain places.

Just because some ignore the law doesn't mean we remove the law. The risk escalates when someone pulls out a gun to "defend" everyone else. The presence of a gun pulled to defend the crowd increases exponentially the risk of more innocent people will he injured or killed.

Start your own thread. This is about Bachman's statements.

If you say so. Have a good day. And just like there are public safety precautions taken in those situations (smoking bans in public places, traffic safety laws and features), there is a public welfare rational for banning weapons in certain areas where the public has a reasonable expectation of safety.

Sadly, many believe as she does. At least we know what she is really like. It's the Fascist in the Shadows for whom we should be vigilant.

No one is disputing that. That is not the point at all. The point is not that someone with a concealed permit is dangerous, but that the mere presence of a gun escalates the probability that something bad will happen, in a place where there should be an expectation of safety.

The court agrees with me. Reasonable risk. Drunk drivers present an unreasonable risk and thus are illegal. Texting while driving presents an unreasonable risk. A gun in a public places where families gather have a reasonable expectation of safety is not reasonable.

I took a break from the site for a while. It just got to the point where I realized that it is difficult to reason when ideology is more important than rational thought. Just kinda disgusted with the whole thing.

That is not the point at all. The very presence of a single weapon increases the risk that something bad can happen. Simple math. People have the right to a reasonable expectation of a safety in public places.

It is an unreasonable risk. I don't recall Jesus packing heat.

What an astounding claim meant solely to demonize and marginalize a class of people based only on their religion. This sounds so much like the Nazis and their wild claims about the Jewish population. My link