Governor Kemp (Georgia) wants to pass open carry gun law.

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
4,769
3,392
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
So there's this:


“In the face of rising violent crime across the country, law-abiding citizens should have their constitutional rights protected — not undermined,” he said in a speech at Adventure Outdoors, a massive gun range and firearms store in Smyrna.​
“And while this position has recently become popular for others as we enter the campaign season, my position has remained the same,” Kemp said. “I believe the United States Constitution grants the citizens of our state the right to carry a firearm without state government approval.”​
And here's the typical rebuttal:

“The same guy who pointed a gun at a teenager on TV now panders with reckless proposals threatening Georgia lives,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, Abrams’ campaign manager. “As her opponents run to dangerous extremes and fight desperately to salvage their political careers, Abrams is fighting for Georgians and their safety.”​

This issue has always had me more than a bit torn.

On the one hand, you don't want to go back to the days of the Wild, Wild West and have shootouts on every street corner over all manner of disagreement.

On the other hand, we're already there. In fact, we never really left it.

To get a carry license in Georgia is a bit pricey ($75.00 for the application, I think a $50.00 fingerprint fee plus a $25.00 licensing fee) and takes considerable time (weeks for the FBI background check to take place, and your license to be mailed to you) all for an alleged "right" that the constitution allegedly guarantees you.

Meanwhile, the criminal doesn't care. They're packing heat everywhere they go with absolutely no regard whatsoever for any law.

So is Kemp really wrong?

I mean, who do they expect will suddenly take to the streets with guns to start murdering people? Those people are already there. We read about them in the news and see them on the TV news every single day.

The only people that would start carrying are the very same people that really didn't want to jump through all the hoops and bureaucracy of getting a license. And frankly, I don't think very many people would.

I do agree that more guns isn't an answer for anything, but at the same time is it really that big of a difference when we already live in a world where there are no gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to begin with?

Like private sales: there are no laws on them at all. The local gun store has to jump through all kinds of hoops but I can literally sell anything I want to anybody I want with absolutely zero accountability.

It's the same with carrying. No typical, law abiding citizen can carry a gun in public but any criminal can and does.

It's a really tough row to hoe. Like all things in our nation, the system seems to be an all or nothing proposition; and we can surely see by now that those never, ever work out well over the long haul.

A part of me wonders: what if permits had no fees? Would that encourage more people to actually get licensed? Is that a possible option?

Or

What if carrying a gun illegally was a 20 years in prison offense? Would that deter criminals? (The answer is no, it wouldn't. Nothing actually deters criminals. We know that by now or at least we should.)

It will be interesting to see where this goes and what winds up happening. I can see both sides of the issue but when it comes right down to it I think Governor Kemp has a point: Why is it that only the law abiding citizen is the one restricted from exercising a right?

It is food for thought on both sides of the issue.
 

Hugo Stiglitz

Resident Vigilante
Dec 7, 2020
1,476
1,556
113
As far as I'm concerned most Americans have lost sight of the fact that the right to bear arms was for defense of homeland from foreign invasion/subversion - nothing more.
There's a good reason for that. The piece of shit SCOTUS ruled that it was an individual's right years ago so they pay no attention at all to why it was really written to begin with.

I can see the argument too Gomez but to me it's stupid to add more guns to the mix. As shitty as a criminal shooting up a Quicky mart, killing the clerk and hauling ass is let's go ahead and add 2 or 3 bystanders carrying and now you have 8 dead from a fucking hail of bullets flying in all directions as a lone shooter turns into the fucking gun fight at the OK corral.

Like dad always said, "you can't put out a fire by throwing more wood on it."
 

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
4,769
3,392
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
As shitty as a criminal shooting up a Quicky mart, killing the clerk and hauling ass is let's go ahead and add 2 or 3 bystanders carrying and now you have 8 dead from a fucking hail of bullets flying in all directions as a lone shooter turns into the fucking gun fight at the OK corral.
But then there's also the thought that the criminal never pulls the gun because he sees two other people packing.

It works both ways.

The point now, however, is that only criminals can carry with impunity and only law abiding citizens have to pay fees and jump through hoops over it.

That's a bit ass backward no matter how you slice it.
 

Zeedox

Resident Canadian
Dec 1, 2020
3,317
3,589
113
Canada's Ocean Playground
But then there's also the thought that the criminal never pulls the gun because he sees two other people packing.

It works both ways.

The point now, however, is that only criminals can carry with impunity and only law abiding citizens have to pay fees and jump through hoops over it.

That's a bit ass backward no matter how you slice it.

Always has been. If there had been an easy fix (read costless) it would have been implemented long ago. Even in countries where firearms are severely restricted there are still criminals with weapons.
You need to remove the reason the weapon is being used to start.
 

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
4,769
3,392
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
You need to remove the reason the weapon is being used to start.
That ship sailed in this country long ago.

I still think the only real answer is banning them outright. It would take a very brave, very smart governor to do it. He would in effect have to disband the state militia if there is one and then decree that since there is no militia, there are no guns allowed.

It could work. (Not with this SCOTUS of course, but in the future it could work from a legal theory standpoint.)
 

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
4,769
3,392
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
Yes and no. There's a battle of nomenclature and perspective going on at the same time.

The militias belong to the states. Full stop. Always have, always will.

But the federal government has the right to call them to action if needed to serve as the national guard. It's pretty much the same way the revolution was fought: we had no standing army. What we had were a bunch of 12 to 50 men militias from all over the territories that were put under the command of George Washington.

It still works the same way today except that the word "militia" is now no longer an official body. It literally does not exist anymore. You either join the State National Guard or you join the Army (Marines, Air Force, whatever - they all have reserves). There literally is no such thing as a militia in any legal reference anymore in this country for you to join up to for the most part.

What people do now is form these "militia's" that have no official roll anymore. The Oath Keepers are an example of one. Many states do still keep a state militia, totally separate from the national guard, on the books but most aren't active anymore. They're actually called State Defense Forces now.

So what a governor could do in theory is disband the state militia (State Defense Force) since it is literally no longer used (again, in most cases). We use the National Guard now which is regulated rather heavily by the state and in some occurrences the Federal Government. Once the "militia" on a non-government level is disbanded he can outlaw guns.

After all, with the national guard, the local police, state police, etc., the militia (State Defense Force) is no longer required for the security of a free state, making the 2nd amendment completely moot.
 
Last edited: