Could Georgians soon be able to carry concealed guns anywhere...

[spin]

even college campuses, schools, sports events, even churches?

The Georgia legislature could this year change the state concealed firearm law, making it legal for licensed gun owners to carry weapons anywhere except in courthouses, jails, or prisons.

***snip***

Pastor John Weaver of Freedom Baptist Ministries in Fitzgerald believes in gun rights. "I carry a Glock," Weaver said.

And Weaver said if the law passes he would welcome guns in his church. "You have a Biblical precedent, a constitutional precedent, and a historical precedent as well."

***snip***

Albany State University Police train to be ready if a shooter invades their campus. Some say if students or faculty or parishioners had guns massacres like at Virginia Tech or Columbine could have been stopped.

"There are probably at least a dozen incidents like this within just the last few years. So very obviously if someone in the church had a weapon and was trained to use it, then they could head off some of these senseless attacks," Weaver said.

(And, to be fair, the counter argument ...)

"All of them packing guns, and just imagine one person pulled one," said Albany State Police Chief Roberson Brown. "Another one pulled one trying to help this one, and bullets flying all over the place."
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11934019

If this law passes, there will be very few gun free zones in Georgia.

If live a few miles south of Georgia. We've been able to carry concealed in church for years. No bid deal.

[noamnety]

1. It's interesting they want to keep it illegal in courts and prisons

That makes it sound like they think there's a threat inherent in allowing people to have guns in those spots - but not on churches and campuses.

Why's that? Seems like the threat would be less in a court where you know other trained people (authorities) are armed and present.

[rrneck]

3. People are more likely

to get upset in courts and prisons than in most places. That's where they go to settle disputes and it's also where one might find any number of civil authorities with which one might have a grievance.

[noamnety]

15. But the presumption is that someone would use a weapon to settle a grievance

and even more than happening in courts, that happens in domestic relationships.

Either we think people should be allowed to have guns - even when they have grievances - or we don't. I find it offensive to say they can have them around girlfriends they might want to kill for cheating, but not around court officials. It makes it sound like we value one set of lives over another.

[rrneck]

17. Good point.

The only difference that comes to mind would be the concentration of people who might be willing to resort to violence and the variety of reasons they might be willing to do so. Women with boyfriends are spread all around but a courthouse full of litigants, defendants and people with a history of violence might be worth the sacrifice of the right to carry (equitably imposed).

It may be that if the level of prosperity and equitably disposed justice that we enjoy in this country were not so, we wouldn't enjoy the liberal firearms laws that we do.

If blood actually "ran in the streets", draconian firearms laws could happen pretty quickly.

[paulsby]

54. that is NOT the only difference

the difference is that a court can be a "secure environment" with access by armed people STRICTLY controlled through metal detectors, etc.

that is NOT the case on college campuses.

THAT is a significant difference.

on a college campus, in a state that bans carry on campus, you can be assured that people who want to obey the law will be disarmed.

people who don't care about the law, will be armed.

in a courtroom, it's an "even playing field". attorneys, clients, etc. are not going to be armed.

court security will be. and that's it.

also, courts have a relatively limited focus. people don't LIVE there, and go about their daily life there like they do on a college campus. by disarming people on a campus, you ensure that students cannot have guns in their RESIDENCES, for example.

[rrneck]

60. Your're right.

The symbolic power of firearms and the venues where they might or might not appear seems important to me too. I like the idea of a place where we should set aside our weapons and the violence they symbolize to settle our grievances in a civilized manner. I wish I could figure out a way to disarm everybody on college campuses but I don't know how that could be equitably achieved.

[paulsby]

62. and i agree. there is no (that i am aware of)

closed society where guns (let alone weapons) aren't present.

a courtroom IS an example of one, but a college campus isn't.

the reality is i (and others ) are perfectly free to carry on the UW campus, and it's quite a safe campus. i haven't seen any evidence that people walking around UW are any less safe than the average public campus in any comparable city.

i would suggest that there is less of a chance of a mass shooting like virginia tech, since there's at least a REASONABLE chance (although hardly a certainty) that somebody in proximity to a nutso mass murderer will have the tools to shoot him.

[provis99]

72. so are you saying the convicts in prisons are awash with machineguns?

Gunnuttery logic is an amazing thing to behold.

[paulsby]

73. not at all

that would be an example, like a courthouse (the example i gave) of such a closed society.

of course even IN a prison, there are metric assloads of weapons. just as nature will find a way, so will cons

[beevul]

24. Actually...

The presumption is that a court of law is a proper place for the government to claim a monopoly on force.

Everywhere else, not so much.

[rrneck]

61. Yep. nt

[rd_kent]

27. Thats a good point but I think it oversimplifies the issue.

[rrneck]

64. True that.

That's why I like it here. Once again, (let's see if I can get this right), those who advocate the ownership, possession, and responsible use of firearms are willing to engage in discussion with the contribution of useful information and courteous differences of opinion. I give it three points so far.

If they make us behave we might wind up talking to ourselves.

[paulsby]

53. courts can also have SECURE entry such that

NOBODY gets in a with a gun (apart from armed court security)

that doesn't apply on a college campus, where any dingdong can walk on to campus.

[Euromutt]

6. Presence of detainees, and risk of flight

Places like courthouses, police stations, county jails and state prisons have one thing in common: the presence of detainees who may want to escape and be prepared to use violence to achieve that end. Restrictions on firearms in such places boil down to not letting firearms anywhere near someone who is a potentially violent flight risk.

Not so much a problem on college campuses and in churches.

[rrneck]

7. If they tried to make me go to chruch

they might have that same problem. :evilgrin:

[TheWraith]

57. Not to mention there's the retribution factor.

In both prisons and courthouses, you have people who have presumably committed violent crimes against others. It's not that far of a leap for a distraught family member or spouse of, say, a murder victim to want revenge. It already happens now and then even with guns prohibited in court; but if you can't secure the zone it would happen much more often.

[rd_kent]

19. ***facepalm****

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -Einstein


On edit.....this is not directed at YOU personally, but at your ignorance on the issue and the statement you made above. Please do not take it as a personal insult.

[noamnety]

21. personal insult noted.

I understand there is an element of risk in a court house.

I'm pointing out that women undergo an even HIGHER risk of violence from men in our society. More women die from assaults from men than people die from assaults in courthouses.

[rrneck]

23. I think that comparison

would only work if you kept all the women in the country in courthouses.

[rd_kent]

25. Not directed at YOU, noamnety, but your ignorance on the issue.

No need to take it personally. And I edited my post as well, please re-read.

[noamnety]

26. Hmmm.

human stupidity is infinite - an odd quote to select if that were the case.

I would have preferred a discussion on the point I raised rather than implying I was infinitely stupid.

Do concealed permits held by everyone present who is entitled to get them reduce acts of violence? Or prevent them?

Why is there an assumption that the reduce acts of violence in some circumstances, but decrease them in others? I can't find a logical reason for that. In courtrooms there are trained authorities and everyone's basically awake and alert.

In a domestic violence case, the victim can almost always be caught off guard and shot. Ditto for schools and churches, for that matter. At schools, you have professors handing out grades, and flunking students often feel like they have a reason to hold a grudge. On campuses you have men dealing with 18-22 year old testosterone issues, and rejections from women.

I'm just trying to sort out the logic of stating that in a courtroom, it's safer for nobody to have guns, while on a campus it's safer for everyone to have them.

[rd_kent]

28. Perhaps I was to quick to post that, my apolgies.

On to your points...


Do concealed permits held by everyone present who is entitled to get them reduce acts of violence? Or prevent them?

Hardly, but they also do not encourage or facilitate them either.


In a domestic violence case, the victim can almost always be caught off guard and shot. Ditto for schools and churches, for that matter. At schools, you have professors handing out grades, and flunking students often feel like they have a reason to hold a grudge. On campuses you have men dealing with 18-22 year old testosterone issues, and rejections from women.

I really am not following what point you are trying to make.

I'm just trying to sort out the logic of stating that in a courtroom, it's safer for nobody to have guns, while on a campus it's safer for everyone to have them.

I dont think it is necessarily a safety issue, other than that perhaps at a courthouse, emotions run higher and there are higher concentrations of people with those high emotions. I don't think anyone is saying it is safer on a campus, just that there is no valid reason to restrict a Constitutional right there. Remember, Columbine and VT were GUN FREE ZONES..........

[noamnety]

29. So was Simon's Rock

(where I attended). A disgruntled student brought a gun in there and shot up staff and students.

My point relates to this: "I dont think it is necessarily a safety issue, other than that perhaps at a courthouse, emotions run higher and there are higher concentrations of people with those high emotions."

There are equally high emotions in relationships, particularly among younger people when relationships seem like the be all and end all of life. This puts a lot of women in danger. If there is no valid reason to restrict a constitutional right to protect those women, why is there a valid reason to restrict constitutional rights to protect court workers?

I'm getting at whether or not the general public feels that maybe women are somewhat ... let's say disposable, in a way that court officials are not.

[rd_kent]

32. I think you are overreaching and creating a strawman.

I'm getting at whether or not the general public feels that maybe women are somewhat ... let's say disposable, in a way that court officials are not.

I don't think the general public fells that at all. You seem to want to create an issue where there is none. If you think that existing gun laws and regs somehow discriminate against women or that they somehow encourage violence against women, then please point out how and why, otherwise, as I stated, I think you are creating an issue where none exists.

Courthouses, are FULL of people running high on emotions. Schools, however, IMO, do not. I think you are seeing problems where none exist. And to try an paint this as a "violence against women issue vs. people at the courthouse are more deserving of protection", is somewhat of a red herring and in no way a comparable issue.

[noamnety]

35. Yes, I am in effect saying that.

"existing gun laws and regs somehow discriminate against women "

or, more accurately, existing gun restrictions favor banning guns where the targets are most likely to be people in power. Those with power put in place laws which protect - first and foremost - the people in power.

That happens to be for the most part, though not exclusively, older white men. Sort of like how banks run by older white men conveniently need to be bailed out by congress, which is mainly older white men. If all those bank CEOs were black women, congress likely would have put more emphasis on bailing out homeowners and decrying poor bank management.

Parts of those biases I think become invisible because they are institutionalized racism/sexism/classism. The people in power decide who most needs to be protected - and that tends to coincidentally be other people in power.

[rd_kent]

36. So we are in agreement then?

or, more accurately, existing gun restrictions favor banning guns where the targets are most likely to be people in power. Those with power put in place laws which protect - first and foremost - the people in power.

So, you agree that we need to remove those restrictions that seem arbitrary and discriminatory?

[noamnety]

38. No

I'm not making an argument that all restrictions should be removed.

I am observing that when people in power seek most fervently to protect their own asses, the way they do it is consistently through gun restrictions in their own workplaces. When I worked in the pentagon, I had to pass through metal detectors. When I went to court, I had to pass through a metal detector. I'm pretty sure to get into congress or the white house, you have to pass through a metal detector.

Then they tell the rest of us that we will be safer in our workplaces if more people have guns there.

[TPaine7]

41. That's not quite accurate

If you own a workplace, you can forbid guns there.

If you drive to the courthouse, you can leave your gun in your glovebox. That is the same situation that exists in states with the strongest gun-in-employee-parking-lot laws.

[noamnety]

42. For many people, their workplace is a public college

The proposed legislation makes it legal to carry weapons there, including into classrooms and dorms, right?

The people in power have decided not to allow the general public to carry guns into their own (the folks in power) workplaces, but they've decided it's fine for the general public to carry a gun into a classroom (the teacher's workplace).

[PavePusher]

44. Just to play Devil's Advocate...

Political figures are more likely to be targets of violence than the average college student or teacher.

For the record, I think politicians should have to live under ALL of the same laws and risks their constituents do. New Hampshire allowed firearms into their State building until some paranoid recently got their knickers in a twist.

[noamnety]

45. That right there is my point.

"I think politicians should have to live under ALL of the same laws and risks their constituents do."

Are politicians safer from nutjobs if guns are banned at their job? Then so are we. Is it safer for politicians to allow anyone to carry, because that becomes a deterrent? I just want one set of rules for us and them. Not tortured logic explaining that they are safer when guns are banned, and we are safer when there are lots of guns around.

Related to that point - I saw someone on another board responding to the push to have all websites we visit logged and saved. The forum member said they thought that was fair - so long as all politicians had all their website visits logged as public record for all of us to view. :)

[TPaine7]

48. It's also legal to carry in the city--the police officer's workplace.

As I have already explained, courthouses are places where the state deals directly with dangerous felons.

Places like the White House and governor's mansions are dwellings--not comparable to classrooms. You too may ban guns in your dwelling, even if your dwelling is a government funded hotel or house while you are on temporary duty.

I will give you Capitol buildings--they are neither dwellings nor places for handling dangerous felons.

[rd_kent]

66. You seem to be unable to deffentiate between a special circumstance (the courthouse)

and the public arena. It has been explained that in a courthouse there are special circumstance to be found that do not exist elsewhere. Your comparison of a courthouse and a college campus are way off base.

[TPaine7]

37. I don't think the issue is high emotions in isolation. Nor is it women vs court officials.

The issue is the exisence of high emotions AND convicted violent felons in the same place.

If a woman is married to a convicted violent felon, she is in a comparable position. But then her husband is banned from having guns. Even she is banned from having guns in their common dwelling.

Reverse the genders and nothing changes. Furthemore, civilian guns are no less forbidden in courthouses when judges or court security are women.

[noamnety]

46. The issue isn't convicted felons from my perspective.

Women aren't magically safe from abusive partners because they aren't convicted felons.

Your point about reversing the genders is true in a hypothetical world which only addresses individual cases and ignores the reality and dynamics of oppressed groups, dominant groups, gendered violence, and who writes the laws.

[TPaine7]

49. Convicts are the only people the state may legitimately treat as guilty. n/t

[noamnety]

58. But even people who aren't convicted felons

can't carry a gun into a congressional office.

So I guess we are treating them as potential criminals, better safe than sorry, no?

[TPaine7]

59. Correct me if I'm wrong

But I would assume that teachers, like almost anyone else, could ban guns in their offices. I support teachers being able to ban guns, chewing gum, profanity, shirtlessness, bare feet and many other things in their offices.

I do not support them being able to ban guns on campus or in classrooms. Neither do I necessarily support banning guns in the Capitol building of a state. (I would want to hear state legislators' arguments before being more definitive.)

[noamnety]

65. nonsensical abstract theory doesn't protect anyone in the real world

Teachers have most of their student interactions in the classroom. For most of the day that IS their workplace. Saying that's okay because they can ban guns in their offices ... that's right up there with saying they'll be safer because we'll ban guns in the last two rows of desks in the room. (Our professor who was killed was shot on campus walking from his car to the classroom.)

[TPaine7]

70. Quite true. Classrooms as "gun free zones" protect no one in the real world.

"Gun free zones"--sans metal detectors and security teams controlling all entry points--exist only in "nonsensical abstract theory." And that nonsensical abstract theory would not have protected your professor, nor do they protect anyone from those who don't respect the law.

For most of the day that IS their workplace. Saying that's okay because they can ban guns in their offices ... that's right up there with saying they'll be safer because we'll ban guns in the last two rows of desks in the room.

I never said or implied that guns in classrooms are acceptable BECAUSE teachers can ban guns in their offices. Guns in classrooms--in the hands of people who have no no violent criminal histories and are sane adults and have been instructed in their use and in the law--are OK because they make sense. Unlike laws purporting to create "gun free zones," guns in the right hands actually can protect professors and students from people who care nothing about laws.

Two more points:

1) You brought up the subject of teachers' offices, not I. When you brought up classrooms and government buildings, I addressed them. When you brought up teachers' offices, I addressed them. If you didn't want to discuss teachers' offices, as such, why bring them up?

2) I have not insulted you in this exchange, even by implication. I have respectfully pointed out where I think you err in your analysis. I have done so even when I thought your ideas were far-fetched. (For example, the idea that banning carry in courtrooms but not in other places is devaluation of women, or the idea that "gun free zones" make professors or students safer.)

[noamnety]

71. teacher offices

where I work, the classroom IS the office, so I tend to not distinguish between them so much. That's why I was a little surprised to see an argument based on the idea that it's fine to ban them in the office, but not the classroom. I don't see any point in that - it seemed nonsensical.

[TPaine7]

77. Please see post 75.

According to aikoaiko, your core premise is false.

[X_Digger]

68. I _can_ carry into my state congressmembers offices. (TX) n/t

[aikoaiko]

75. The proposed GA law would allow legal concealed carry in their legislators offices

Federal properties are a different issue.

[TPaine7]

51. Neither are women magically safe from partners who don't have guns.

As a general rule, if a man lives with a woman he can kill her. (If a woman lives with a man she can kill him too--though she may have to wait until he is asleep or exercise cleverness.)

It is true that far fewer women kill their partners, but the state cannot use statistics to justify gender descrimination. Nor can it use them to ban guns.

A tiny minority of men are murderers.

[paulsby]

56. you are still missing the point

EVERYBODY won't have a gun on a campus. that's the "arm everyone" canard. first of all, there are age restrictions (21 generally speaking). second of all, a campus has residences, dining halls, classrooms, etc. it's like a mini city. courtrooms are much more limited in purpose, and have SECURE entrances such that EVERYBODY is screened for weapons. college campuses (most of them by far) do not have 10 ft high walls with barbed wire and metal detectors at every entrance. iow, court is a controlled environment. campuses are NOT

[GreenStormCloud]

63. It hasn't been a problem elsewhere.

At schools, you have professors handing out grades, and flunking students often feel like they have a reason to hold a grudge. On campuses you have men dealing with 18-22 year old testosterone issues, and rejections from women.

This is a version of a standard, and discredited, argument frequently made by gun-controllers. You are assuming that people will flare up and resort to deadly force over minor infractions. We have seen this before in claims by others on your side of the issue of, "shootuts over parking spaces" and "gunplay over right-of-way at every intersection" and "blood-in-the-streets", etc. But shall-issue permits are not in 38 states and two states allow everybody to carry, and the dire predictions haven't happened.

There are two states that allow concealed-carry by permit holders on their campuses and nothing has happened. Your fears were shown to be groundless.

My concealed carry puts me in a position of being able to resist acts of violence agains me. I am not concerned that my gun will not help you resist a mugger, unless I happen to be there.

[PavePusher]

31. Courts, prisons and police stations are considered "secured areas"...

with armed and unarmed security and checkpoints, even though that has proven false in the past.

The public at large is not considered "secured" and must provide their own defense.

I'm unsure as to how you can compare or conflate the two entirely different situations.

[noamnety]

33. Those are considered "secured areas"

because the people with the legal authority to make that determination decided those places/lives are worthy of securing.

[PavePusher]

39. How do you propose that "the people with the legal authority to make that determination"...

provide security for the general population?

Here's a hint: It can't be done unless we become a hive culture. I don't think we want to go there.



P.S. "those people" are you and me and our friends and family and neighbors... you get the point, right?

[noamnety]

40. No, I don't get the point of your quotes.

You've got the phrase "those people" in quotes, but only place it appears in the thread is in your own quote marks. You don't provide enough context there for me to know what you are trying to say with that.

[PavePusher]

43. Sorry if I was unclear.

"those people"="the people with the legal authority to make that determination"

i.e. "government by, of and for the people"

It's one of our nations founding principles.

[noamnety]

47. The people who make the laws are overwhelmingly rich white men

who don't represent the demographics of the entire country. I object to any pretense that they are a representative cross section of family and neighbors for many of us.

Our "founding principles" prohibited women and blacks from making those laws.

[TPaine7]

34. You ask a very good question.

You are correct in that courts and prisons have unique threats; both are places where the state engages directly with convicted violent felons.

Violent felons are sentenced in courts and housed in prisons. A federal agent who wants to visit a prisoner must leave his weapons behind. Only prison guards--people specially trained in the prisons felon control system--are allowed weapons.

If I visited a dynamite factory, I would not be surprised if I were forbidden to possess fire, or even matches. I would not be offended if I noticed employees using fire in the dynamite production process. I would expect that the employees had special training in fire retention techniques and in the locations and movements of volatile substances.

Similarly, I would expect court security and prison guards to have special training and knowledge that would enable them to keep guns separate from dangerous felons--knowledge that I wouldn't have.

[Merchant Marine]

55. The difference between a courthouse and a campus...

Is that a courthouse has controlled entrances and exits, with security teams and metal detectors. The government can guarantee that inside the facility they maintain a monopoly of force. It is a secure facility. An open college campus is not.

[aikoaiko]

67. These are places where people's freedoms are being or have been adjudicated away.

Not so in the other places. Plus there are screening measures taken to prevent people from actually attempting to bring in weapons. Again, no so, typically, in the other places.

In the subcommittee hearing the Board of Regents said they take responsibility for the students well being by hiring armed police. When asked if the university system would be financially responsible for any damages associated with felonious crimes, the university system represent shrank and said he'd have to defer to counsel. fuckin hilarious.

[sharesunited]

2. Discovery Channel is playing a disturbing show about a plague of killer swine in Georgia.

Everyone will need to carry guns to do righteous battle with the porcine menace.

[rrneck]

5. Those idjits at the FBM may well agree with you. nt

[east texas lib]

30. Doin' right ain't got no end! nt

;-)

[shadowrider]

4. Give me a break

"All of them packing guns, and just imagine one person pulled one," said Albany State Police Chief Roberson Brown. "Another one pulled one trying to help this one, and bullets flying all over the place."

Show me ONE, just ONE instance, anywhere, nationwide, where legal CCW permit holders did this. HINT: It hasn't happened.

I carry because I remember this little saying, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away".

[More_liberal_than_mo]

8. Damn right!

My 22 year-old daughter is a student at Georgia State in downtown Atlanta. She has a CCW permit but is prohibited from taking it out of her car when parking on campus. One of the primary reasons this bill is being debated in the GA State legislature is the rash of crimes against GA State and GA Tech students over the past 5 months. The predators that roam the streets of Atlanta know that students are easy prey because they are not armed. Recently a friend of my daughter's was viciously attacked between the parking garage and the library. The perp had watched her park the car and waited until she was halfway between the car and the library door. He grabbed her purse, dragging her down causing her to hit her head on the curb resulting in a concussion. He stole her money and her car. There have been many more instances where students have been shot on campus at both universities. If this law passes the first criminal that tries to attack my daughter may find himself a gunshot victim. Oh, BTW, she's an expert marksman (marksperson?). I taught her to shot when she was 15.

[spin]

11. Criminals don't like to encounter armed citizens ...

many of these armed citizens are better shots than the criminals and carry serious firepower.

Why take the risk if you can jump an unarmed student.

[shadowrider]

14. Got that right

My daughter used to live in a not nice area of town, in her own house, in a gated community. She was robbed twice, had a gun put to her head and her car vandalized (all this inside of 12 months). She now carries a .380 and is very, very good with it. I pity the poor soul who messes with her now.

[SteveM]

9. Mousetraps and ping-pong balls...

His statement sounds like that demonstration of a nuclear reaction I saw on the tube in the 50s: A room was filled with hundreds of mousetraps, cocked and ready to go, each "nesting" a ping-pong ball on the business end. Then, a scientist throws a ball into the room and....
"BLAP....BLAP..BLAP,BLAP,BL-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B--BB-B-B--B-B-B-B-BLAP! Blap!

I never knew church could be so scientific.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. That was on the "Walt Disney Show" on Sunday evenings.

Sometimes they would have an educational program. I remember it.

[SteveM]

18. Yep, that was it. nt

[X_Digger]

50. It was also on 'Mr. Wizard' (smaller scale though.) n/t

[madrchsod]

10. they had firearms in the biblical days?

i guess someone best start rewriting the history of firearms

[More_liberal_than_mo]

12. Who said they had firearms

back then? They did have plenty of other weapons then, but I've never heard whether or not they were required to check them at the church door or not.

[spin]

13. They did have swords ...

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

[rd_kent]

20. Huh? Please explain.

[proteus_lives]

22. I hope it passes.

Gun-free zones are about as useful as tits on a bull.

[paulsby]

52. this would make the laws similar to WA state

where you can carry in a church, on a college campus, etc.

i have yet to see the CARNAGE ENSUE!

[aikoaiko]

69. As a GA resident who works at a college, sometimes goes to church, and otfen attends public events,

I'm totally fine with the proposed new law.

[onehandle]

74. The same people who keep our Atlanta transit system from reaching the suburbs are for this.

We have always been perceived as a threat.

[spin]

76. That sounds like racism to me ...

Hopefully, our country will finally move past this cancer that infects far too many people.

I've seen a lot of change in my 64 year lifetime. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go.

[Endangered Specie]

78. Wish they would pass that in N.C.

besides the usual suspects, no NC carry in any: bank, place that charges admission, public gathering, restaurant that serves any alcohol, and parks.