View Mobile Site

Your Views: ‘Guns everywhere’ is not an accurate description of law

POSTED: May 10, 2014 1:00 a.m.

Why do some critics of the new gun bill call it the “guns everywhere” law, then turn around and ask why the Capitol building does not allow guns? Can’t they make up their minds? Are guns allowed everywhere or not? (For example, Tom Crawford’s column on April 30).

The answer, of course, is: “not.” This is a good example of critical theory, whereby a word, phrase or thought is used over and over until the general public accepts it as truth. The new law (HB 60) just removes state restrictions from a few places; it does not remove restrictions “everywhere,” Even those few places can decide whether guns are allowed; none are required to allow guns.

Steve Deming’s letter on Saturday did not use the “guns anywhere” title, but he mentioned the Capitol issue. He wonders why Gov. Nathan Deal became upset when reporters kept pushing the issue of guns in the Capitol after he had already answered. I think it was the same reason Jimmy Carter became upset one time when reporters kept pushing him, hoping to get an alternative answer with which they could hang him. Carter answered something like this: “I have already answered that question. I apologize for my inability to speak simply enough for you to understand.” The questions then stopped.

Mr. Deming would not be so confused about the safety of Georgians if he realized that the new law is not the “Safe Georgia Protection Act” as he stated, but that it is, in reality, the “Safe Carry Protection Act.” The correct title suggests that the act is intended to protect the rights of a person who safely carries a gun when in possession of a permit.

When Mr. Deming decided that he would “actually read” the Second Amendment, he should have researched the meaning of “militia” as well. The “militia” mentioned in the amendment also happens to be the “everyone” he says does not have a right to have a gun.

Here is a valid definition of militia: “It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services).” Mr. Deming should notice that the amendment does not say that “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” but it says that “the of right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

When The Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller a few years back, it stated that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to the rights of individuals.

Ken Steakley
Gainesville

 


Contents of this site are © Copyright 2010 The Times, Gainesville, GA. All rights reserved. Privacy policy and Terms of service

Powered by
Morris Technology
Please wait ...