GCO is a pro-gun group with a dangerous agenda . . .


PDA






Malum Prohibitum
August 23, 2007, 08:33 PM
Apparently, the Atlanta Journal Constitution finds GeorgiaCarry.org's mission to be against their values.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2007/08/23/gco-is-a-pro-gun-group-with-a-dangerous-agenda/

She somehow manages to compare Georgia firearms license holders in a local park to gang members in a shootout.

:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "GCO is a pro-gun group with a dangerous agenda . . ." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
matt87
August 23, 2007, 08:36 PM
error 404 not found

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 23, 2007, 08:50 PM
Still broken after the mod edit, here's the working one:
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2007/08/23/gco-is-a-pro-gun-group-with-a-dangerous-agenda/

ArfinGreebly
August 23, 2007, 09:05 PM
Here's the actual story: Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/08/22/gunsed_0823.html)

And, since there's a tendency of content to shuffle about on the web during archiving, let's capture that here:
Guns, parks don't mix
Law ought to let cities, counties outlaw firearms in public places

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/23/07

GeorgiaCarry.org is a pro-gun group with a dangerous agenda that would appall most Georgians: It wants gun owners to be able to strap on their pistols and bring them to church, to county commission meetings and to your child's Little League game. It wants bans lifted on guns at bars, political rallies or even at the annual Georgia-Georgia Tech showdown.

Its Web site does not mince words:

"All we want is to be able to move freely about our society, welcomed by our community as armed men and women."

To that end, a GeorgiaCarry lawyer is threatening suit against communities that ban guns from parks for protection of the children who play there, including Kennesaw and Coweta County. GeorgiaCarry.org argues that only the state can regulate firearms and that any local ordinances outlawing guns in parks are illegal.

Kennesaw capitulated to the group's demand, rescinding this month its ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in parks. While the Cobb community vows to fight the issue in the Legislature, it would have been better off to have followed Coweta County's example and taken the dispute to court.

Coweta has won the first legal round, winning a summary judgment in defense of its ordinance in Superior Court. GeorgiaCarry.org is now appealing that decision to the state Court of Appeals, which ought to rule in the county's favor given Georgia law.

Georgia law does prohibit local governments from enacting their own gun regulations. However, since 1870, Georgia has also had a law in place prohibiting the possession of guns at public gatherings, and the local ordinances in question are consistent with that provision.

According to Georgia Code 16-11-127, it is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm at a public gathering, including athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises.

Clearly, the Legislature regards guns and parks as incompatible since it outlaws firearms in state parks and historic sites. Georgia Code 12-3-10, which governs behaviors in state parks, states: "It shall also be unlawful for any person to use or possess in any park, historic site, or recreational area any firearms, bows and arrows, spring guns, air rifles, slingshots, or any other device which discharges projectiles by any means."

Nathan T. Lee, the attorney representing Coweta, argues in his brief to the Court of Appeals that GeorgiaCarry.org expects judges to believe "that the public would be more safe if the county's walking trails, Little League fields, gymnasiums, 4-H parks and senior citizens' center were full of people carrying pistols."

That's the standard assertion of the gun lobby. The lobby clings to the fiction that more guns equal more safety despite all the evidence to the contrary. Georgia is awash in privately owned guns, yet the state has one of the nation's highest rates of firearms violence.

GeorgiaCarry.org contends that more liberal gun carrying laws could have prevented such heinous crimes as the 1999 murders of Whitney Land, 22, and her daughter, Jordan, 2, who were abducted from a park in Clayton County and shot.

But guns in parks would likely cause more crimes than prevent them. A few years after the young mother and her baby were murdered, 4-year-old Trevon Wilson was shot through the heart as he rode his bicycle in another Clayton park, caught in the crossfire of warring gangs.

Certainly, there are instances where a gun can prevent a crime, but those occasions are far rarer than gun advocates would have the public believe. According to the FBI's report, Crime in the United States, for every time in 1999 that someone used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 48 people died in handgun homicides.

State lawmakers often contend that the best government is the one closest to the people and that it's local officials who know best what's needed to improve their schools or keep their streets safe. If they believe their own rhetoric, they ought to clarify state law to resolve any doubt that counties and municipalities can enact the gun laws they deem necessary to protect their constituents.

Coweta and Kennesaw have determined that their citizens are safest when guns cannot be brought into their local parks. Indeed, the state feels the exact same away about its own parks.

— Maureen Downey (mailto:mdowney@ajc.com), for the editorial board

Soybomb
August 23, 2007, 09:35 PM
Ms. Downey, I'm disappointed to see that in your entire article you failed
to show any danger that people with concealed carry permits would pose in
those places GeorgiaCarry.org members ask asking for access too. If
they're going to be dangerous there, surely you could demonstrate that
they are already dangerous when in public. You did comment on the states
firearm violence rate, but you failed to relate it to the topic of those
carrying firearms. I'm open minded, but you're going to need to show me
that people legally carrying firearms are contributing to that rate at any
significant number. All you're offering is "guns are bad" and I'd really
like to see some arguments based on real world observation of concealed
carry.

Leanwolf
August 23, 2007, 09:40 PM
What do you expect from the Atlanta Constipation Urinal?? That paper has been so far left for so long its masthead should be a hammer and sickle.

L.W.

S&Wfan
August 23, 2007, 11:45 PM
Folks,

There are TWO Georgias . . . one is Atlanta, and the other is virtually everywhere else in our state.

I hate even driving through Atlanta.

T.

Blackbeard
August 24, 2007, 02:20 AM
My response:

Ms. Downey,

In your recent editorial you wrote that you believe local governments should be allowed to ban the carrying of firearms in public places. In support of this contention you wrote:

“But guns in parks would likely cause more crimes than prevent them. A few years after the young mother and her baby were murdered, 4-year-old Trevon Wilson was shot through the heart as he rode his bicycle in another Clayton park, caught in the crossfire of warring gangs.”

My question is this – how would banning guns in the park have saved these poor victims? The answer is not at all, since carrying was already outlawed in the parks, not to mention shooting people. It’s simple logic that someone who is willing to murder people is not going to be dissuaded by a local ordinance against carrying. It is reprehensible that you would deny the victims the right to defend themselves in public. Is self-defense best left at home?

You offer no facts to back up your assertion that more guns in parks would likely cause more crimes. How many murders have been committed by concealed-carry permit holders? I bet you can’t even find one. Get past your anti-gun dogma, Ms. Downey, and look at the facts.

TimboKhan
August 24, 2007, 04:38 AM
What do you expect from the Atlanta Constipation Urinal?? That paper has been so far left for so long its masthead should be a hammer and sickle.

L.W.

Let me qoute you directly from the "Changes at THR" thread posted August 19th.

Conduct becoming ladies and gentlemen is expected, without religious, national or other prejudices. That means no slurs on Californians, French, Muslims, cops, women or anyone else. If a particular group of people does something you dislike, let their actions speak for themselves.

It's not my place to say High Road or Low Road in regards to your comment, but I will say that I think that "The Atlanta Constipation Urinal" is probably not a great example of Socratic discourse. It also doesn't even make that much sense, given that the paper is called the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlanta Constitution-Journal.

org
August 24, 2007, 04:49 AM
And your point is?? A play on words about a leftist rag is hardly an objectionable slur on any of the groups or people mentioned in the rules. What would you do, boil the board down to the point you can't say anything about anything?

Dr. Peter Venkman
August 24, 2007, 05:02 AM
Timbo, Leanwolf's comments might have been close to the Low Road, but you're on a High Horse.

gdvan01
August 24, 2007, 05:22 AM
....but you're on a High Horse.With plenty of cotton padding.

TimboKhan
August 24, 2007, 06:21 AM
What would you do, boil the board down to the point you can't say anything about anything?

Nope. Not what I would do at all. THR is meant to be a place for a higher level of discourse than making toilet jokes about a newspaper.

Leanwolf's comments might have been close to the Low Road, but you're on a High Horse

So, pointing out low road behavior equates to a riding a high horse? Maybe, but in part, it is this sort of play on words that got L&P shut down. Besides, you yourself agree that it's close to the low road. Why am I the jerk for pointing it out?

With plenty of cotton padding.

Dude, I don't even know what this means. I am officially asking for some clarification here.

If you really want to see me ride a high horse, let us examine what a play on words really is. According to wikipedia, word play is comprised of "Puns, phonetic mixups such as spoonerisms, obscure words and meanings, clever rhetorical excursions, oddly formed sentences, and telling character names" I don't see a single definition in there that counts third grade potty humor as word play.

I might be wrong though. By way of further clarification, maybe I can check the dictionary at "wal-fart" before I stop and get dinner at "Taco Hell". After I get done doing that, I can check up on what the "demonrats" are doing. Because I can be sure that those crafty socialist liberal fat-cats are developing a scheme to rob me of freedom, I will use the internet to find something to symbolize my displeasure with them. This will most likely be a clever "Pissing Calvin" sticker in which he urinates on a donkey. I will then affix this to the back window of my First On Race Day (thats a Found On Road Dead to you MOPAR guys...), then go burn cookies in the local supermarket parking lot while flinging partially consumed cans of "Natural Light" out the window.

This, gentlemen and women, is the future that faces us if we don't self-police and expect a higher standard of discussion in this forum. I shall now mount my high horse and ride off into my morally pure sunset, unapologetic and secure in the knowledge that I was on target with my first post. Good Day.

RangerHAAF
August 24, 2007, 08:38 AM
Don't let Maureen Downey's column rile everyone up. She's an anti-gun leftist who picked up where Cynthia Tucker has left off.

I provided the editorial counterpoint to her story; they contacted me a few hours before their deadline to write a piece in favor of allowing the concealed carry of weapons in parks. I wrote a piece for them that was much more informative and detailed than what was printed; my piece was so seriously edited that it looked like a letter to the editor rather than a short column.

Apparently, those of us at GACarry.org have started to get the attention of some people in Atlanta who don't like guns but can't really do anything about it in the legislature. We're also fighting local governments in court that are dragging their bureaucratic feet issuing concealed carry permits after the legal time limit that the state law requires.

We're looking out for gun owners in Georgia. Maureen Downey and her brood can't stand us. Which is a good thing; we must be doing something right.

org
August 24, 2007, 08:55 AM
TimboKahn, All that superiority and pomposity must be a heavy load for that horse. I'll admit you make some points, but your delivery needs work:-)

You still didn't make the connection to the rules you quote.

MIL-DOT
August 24, 2007, 09:33 AM
i also agree. timbo,get over yourself.:neener: the guy made a silly joke about a silly newspaper, it wasn't that big of a deal.

GTSteve03
August 24, 2007, 09:36 AM
deleted

Standing Wolf
August 24, 2007, 09:51 AM
Certainly, there are instances where a gun can prevent a crime, but those occasions are far rarer than gun advocates would have the public believe. According to the FBI's report, Crime in the United States, for every time in 1999 that someone used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 48 people died in handgun homicides.

I've never understood why leftist extremists aren't creative enough to concoct new lies from time to time.

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of times we, the people use firearms to thwart criminals, no shots are fired.

cambeul41
August 24, 2007, 09:53 AM
Dear Ms. Downey –



I have just read your editorial, “Guns, parks don't mix.” http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/08/22/gunsed_0823.html



I expect that you will receive considerable feedback, both with you and against your stance. I do hope that most of those who object to what you wrote are relatively polite. However, you have equated citizens who are licensed to carry with warring gang members, so I would be quite surprised if all are as courteous as they should be.



Guns provide defense far more often than you admit. They rarely are used to kill. They are often not even fired in successful cases of gun defense. The most often quoted estimate of successful gun defense in the US per year is 2,500,000. There are lower estimates, but I suspect even those lower estimates, at least those from honest researchers, to be much higher than you seem to believe.



Those of us who are licensed to carry call “No Gun Zones” either “Criminal Empowerment Zones” or “Disarmed Victim Zones.” Am I to gather, then, that you are in favor of criminal empowerment and disarmament of victims? I further gather that you favor turning the state into a crazy quilt patchwork of local laws which will have as a result honest citizens being turned into law breakers simply by their being, unbeknownst to them, in an area where guns are prohibited by local ordinance.



Your faith in the knowledge and wisdom of local politicians is touching. I think I will leave it at that.



Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment. I most highly recommend it to you. It can be found at, and downloaded from http://gunfacts.info/. Gun Facts does document its sources.



I am not from Georgia, but I do have family in the Atlanta area, and I am deeply concerned with their safety. I do not, therefore, believe that I am being out of place or out of line by communicating my concerns about this issue to you.



Sincerely,

Brian Williams
August 24, 2007, 10:43 AM
Leanwolf, org, Mil-dot and GTSteve03, Timbo is spot on with his interpretation of such low road comments. These discriptions of such organizations is one of the reasons we temporarily shut down L&P. we are looking to show the Interweb that we can have intelligent discourse and not resort to petty name calling like this.

Also it is not that we worry endlessly about looking stupid or childish, it is that we worry about our country slowly becoming more uninformed and stupid. We want to teach and be smart, look and sound intelligent and present ourselves as wise individuals who like guns and shooting sports.

Thanks Timbo

b

El Tejon
August 24, 2007, 10:57 AM
Has anyone pointed out to them that in other states people licensed to carry pistols carry in all those listed parade of horribles--bars, churches, political rallies, parks, Little League games, gyms, inter alia--without any mayhem whatsoever?

Henry Bowman
August 24, 2007, 11:13 AM
Come on, El Tejon. You know Indiana doesn't count. Atlanta is trying to attain "status" with the coasts so that Chicago isn't the only refuge in flyover country.

Z_Infidel
August 24, 2007, 11:35 AM
Folks,

There are TWO Georgias . . . one is Atlanta, and the other is virtually everywhere else in our state.

I hate even driving through Atlanta.

I am curious, how do communities north of Atlanta (Alpharetta, Roswell, Marietta, etc...) compare in regard to attitudes toward guns and gun owners?

GTSteve03
August 24, 2007, 11:49 AM
I am curious, how do communities north of Atlanta (Alpharetta, Roswell, Marietta, etc...) compare in regard to attitudes toward guns and gun owners?
I live a bit north of Alpharetta now, but used to live there and Kennesaw (near Marietta.)

From my experience, just about anywhere Outside the Perimeter (OTP) of I-285 has a much better attitude towards guns/owners. North Fulton can be a bit of a hassle, but otherwise there are a good bit of gun ranges, shops and people with NRA/Glock stickers on their cars. Glock, BTW, is a local company with its US HQ in Smyrna.

Feral Cowboy
August 24, 2007, 12:02 PM
RangerHAAF, would you post the unedited version of your article. I read yours yesterday and I had a feeling some editing went on. I've had that same thing on AJC and strangely the subject was........guns.
I am right up the road in Rome and am involved in an effort to get the city/county to repeal their parks ban.
Am GCO member.

fletcher
August 24, 2007, 12:08 PM
Crime in the United States, for every time in 1999 that someone used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 48 people died in handgun homicides.
Wow. You don't have to KILL someone with a handgun to defend yourself.

Old Fuff
August 24, 2007, 01:09 PM
I like this - it shows the author's mode of thinking:

But guns in parks would likely cause more crimes than prevent them.

So as examples she cites:

A few years after the young mother and her baby were murdered, 4-year-old Trevon Wilson was shot through the heart as he rode his bicycle in another Clayton park, caught in the crossfire of warring gangs.

Ah so... :scrutiny:

There is no difference between a law-abiding citizen with a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon and (1) an unknown murder who killed a young mother and her baby, and (2) warring gang members that killed a 4 year-old that got caught in their crossfire.

All of the killings mentioned above might have been prevented by an armed citizen. But because of her thinking (and Georgia law) none were present. Neither apparently were police officers. It is gun-control advocates that turn public parks into killing zones - not those that carry weapons with the state's permission.

romma
August 24, 2007, 04:27 PM
These people need to know that just because someone holds a permit and carries a gun, they don't all of the sudden become homicidal because the want to throw a frisbee or have a picnic in a park...

I was at my foster sons' football in a park here in CT last night and I shot nobody.

Actually I believe that places like parks, and public gatherings are places you would hope to have law abiding citizens carrying...

dstorm1911
August 24, 2007, 04:52 PM
they tried to do the exact same thing here in Tucson a few years ago it was found to be in violation of the states constitution funny part is it was our Governor who proposed it and had the laws put into effect only to have to rescind everything. Now we are working on a law requiring businesses that want to not allow guns on their premises to have to provide secure weapons lockers before they can post any such signs so people aren't having to leave guns in vehicles etc.. its looking like it will happen in the next year...

rino451
August 24, 2007, 06:03 PM
Why can't either side compromise? Start buy making it lawful for CHL holders to carry in all those places. Then you can work on open carry by CHL holders...in all those places, then...:D

At least in TX they already have the verbiage for unlawful carrying of a weapon blah, blah, blah signs. Other states must too. Why can't they just use them?

dstorm1911
August 24, 2007, 06:14 PM
Rino, actually it surprised me when I first saw those signs in TX, I run outa the DFW quite a bit when running onea the road trucks, here in AZ ya seldom if ever see any restrictions to carry etc... and an employee of any business cannot restrict you if no sign posted only the manager can ask ya to leave but here in Tucson I have yet to have any place ask me to leave I usually don't even bother concealing any of the sidearms I carry I don't drive cars at all only bikes I usually just carry an XD 40 Tactical or a Taurus mil pro PT145 or onea my 1911s when on the Harley with just a T-Shirt sometimes if its not to hot a blue denim shirt untucked.... The local its VERY common to see sidearms carried openly in the Area Walmarts Home depots etc...

Now Phoenix its getting less common and ya do see more signs but then most of the refugees from Calif. get that far and stop many of em are tryin to push their liberal notions and beliefs on folks in the area but get further south and they are simply invited to keep on rollin east right on down I-10 we figure we'd rather export em to New Mexico and Texas :)

RangerHAAF
August 24, 2007, 08:31 PM
Why should we allow concealed carry weapons permit holders to carry in parks?

Thatís an easy one but the hard truth of the matter is that parks, like almost every other public venue nowadays have become more dangerous for citizens to frequent and to have a good time in.

Local ordinances, when they are written are done so to control a perceived threat to the prevailing public safety. As far as I know, law-abiding citizens like myself, who carry concealed weapons are the last group of people that government should be concerned about. To qualify to legally carry a concealed weapon, one must first be a law abiding citizen without a criminal felony record and after that be confident and comfortable with the idea of actually carrying a weapon. Most people that I know, which includes members of my family just donít have that kind of confidence and thatís okay but for some of us who believe in personal self defense, there is no practical substitute.

I live in Decatur, which is in Dekalb County. I have personally never had a problem with law enforcement or park authorities within my county about carrying weapons, but other people that I know personally have run into problems with regards to their right to legally carry.

The authorities should be more concerned about the predators both 2 and 4 legged who have attacked and killed innocent people in parks like Jordan and Whitney Land who were victims of a violent carjacking in 1999. They(mother and young daughter) were shot, killed and mutilated by a violent predator who committed the act in parks(located in Clayton and Gwinnett counties) that prohibited the concealed carry of weapons. There are other numerous examples of violent attacks in parks or along running trails such as the Silver Comet Trail; incidents such as mountain lion attacks in California and black bears rummaging through peoples homes in New Jersey and while those incidents are human animal encounters; the basic threat to human life is the same and as such law abiding citizens who choose to protect themselves and their families from bodily harm with a concealed weapon while enjoying the amenities of our parks should be allowed to do so without fear of any kind of legal or civil sanction being brought against them for exercising a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

original text

They contacted me at lunch time to have it done by four; it was short and to the point and I included as much input from my fellow members of GACarry.org as I could before the deadline.

rocinante
August 25, 2007, 11:39 AM
I live in Alpharetta and the AJC is a lost cause all the way around. I have lived in other major cities (New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Tampa) and the AJC is overall the most pathetic excuse for a paper I have ever seen. Last time I was in Dallas it just struck me just how varied and INTELLIGENT and diverse were the range of articles versus the DUMBED DOWN MONOTHEISM wrap the AJC is. Thank god for the internet where you have a vast range of news to get a picture of the REAL world. Sorry I am having fun with the CAP key today.

I too am always amazed there is no distinction between white hat and black hat characters in the anti mind. They will never reach their nirvana delusion that only sheep dog benevolent police are armed. Well that is the dream of the really dumb ones. The smart anti is a dishonest creature that knows gun control has nothing to do with crime control. Well that is not entirely correct. Anyone who does not share their thoughts is a criminal so I guess it is crime control in their minds too.

B yond
August 25, 2007, 01:13 PM
As I read that the aroma of the southern end of a northbound bull filled the air. :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "GCO is a pro-gun group with a dangerous agenda . . ." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!