Common Sense Gun Control

When have you heard that before? Well you hear right after any mass shooting. And you hear it from the left and their media toadies. What they propose is neither common nor sensible. Nor effective. And usually not constitutional. But none of that matters to them. They have their agenda. Take guns away from law abiding folks; defend the criminals; de-fund the police. They have their narrative. Guns kill. They have their media megaphones. You know the ones. And they do pretty well. Until they don't.

Fairly recently the left have been confounded by two cases of lunatic shootings. First was the Robb Elementary School Shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Normally school shootings get them fired up but this one came with some baggage: the less than responsive first responders. The are the government employees the left are saying, by disarming everyone else but the lunatic shooters, will be there to protect us. Unless they've been de-funded or maybe just demoralized. By the left. Looking for the common sense in this? Look real hard. Take your time. It isn't there.

Things went pear-shaped with the Greenwood Park Mall Shooting in Indiana. Not a good day for gun-grabbers who consistently bleat that Good Guys with Guns are a really, really Bad Idea. Since the Bruen decision the left have exploded every time a state adopts Constitutional Carry as Indiana had a couple of weeks before the Mall Shooting. And guess what? Some folks were carrying. At the mall. At the time of the shooting. One, a young Mr. Elisjsha Dicken, took action. He engaged and advanced on the lunatic shooter while directing other shoppers to flee in the opposite direction. He fired ten shots, landing eight, starting from thirty to forty yards out. So who is this guy? Former military, right? No, not at all. Well then he must be on a police force. Again, no. Alec Baldwin's nephew? Too soon? Turns out he's a regular bloke who defended his girlfriend, himself and those around them. With a gun. A Good Guy with a gun. The man the left hates more than any other.

For the leftist agenda the Mall Shooting is far, far worse than the school shooting. Dicken pulled this off without any formal training. He did not have to please faceless bureaucrats to justify his own protection. No a priori, recurring fines to exercise that right. Absolutely everything the left has done to redact the Second Amendment was confronted head on and the left lost. They ended up with nothing but blathering about proper use of "Good Samaritan."

Full disclosure: there were (at least) two Good Guys with a gun at the mall that day but one was shot and killed before he could take action. Were there not two (or more) Good Guys with guns the carnage could have been horrific. Common Sense demands more Good Guys with guns, not fewer.

(Un)License To Chill

Sho'gun Kemp recently signed the Constitutional Carry bill into law over the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the "we bleed blue" anti-constitutionalists. No surprises there. What is much more interesting is a gun association (NAAGA) that came out in opposition to the law.  To be clear, NAAGA appears to be a very admirable organization providing assistance and training to an under-served part of our society. Good on them. 

What is a bit odd is the implication in their statements that somehow Constitutional Carry changes anything in Georgia regarding training. It wasn't required last year and it won't be required this year. And, to NAAGA's point, training, early and often, formal or informal is a key element of responsible gun ownership and weapons carry. NAAGA gets that, but this law changes nothing in that regard. Their work is no less noble, no less needed and frankly, no less difficult now than it ever was. Let's all hope they keep up their good works.

Cars, Votes And Guns

Hot on the heals of their ambitions to use the First Amendment as a platform for self-serving legislation they put on a full court press against the Second Amendment, specifically in a well-curated assault against the Constitutional Carry law wending its way through the Gold Dome. 

We get a hand-selected letter to the editor, reportedly from a former member of law enforcement that poses questions that are either rhetorical or founded in ignorance. Does the letter writer really not know how reciprocity works? Then we have the inevitable "cars require a license, why not a gun?" which definitely originates in the depths of ignorance. Continuing that line of thought you should need a First Amendment license from the government to operate a newspaper, right? More importantly, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the first and inarguably most important of all the amendments. Why? Because they fulfill two goals: they define inalienable rights; and they explicitly prohibit government infringement of those rights. This is why anyone, even non-citizens and illegal aliens enjoy those rights and protections but not the vote. Which comes to the last front in their assault against the Constitution: a false analogy suggesting that voting and Second Amendment rights are somehow equivalent. That author either knows that is not true and is intentionally misleading or might need to spend a little time on history or perhaps reading the Federalist Papers. 

Is this really a media outlet or a propaganda engine? Does it really deserve a legal carve-out?

Guns And Campus Deaths

The fact that the only gun death since passage of the campus carry law was a suicide by cop[1] has done nothing to quiet the hysterics in the ivory towers. A herd of them have gathered together to petition the Courts to intervene assessing that the state constitution deems their work place a sovereign entity. Perhaps that explains why campus harassment cases lack anything remotely resembling due process. To their credit they have listed their new-found fears catalyzed by the possible presence of legally borne weapons, though, as usual they ignore the presence of illegally carried weapons. And yes, the irony of University Professors promoting "safety thru ignorance" is lost on no one.

So who are these blokes? Of those making the AJC's cut we have one philosopher[2] and two geographers, one of whom is also a local Board of Education member.

University of Georgia geography professor John Knox, who is described in the complaint as a gun owner, said guns on campus “make the learning environment less safe for everyone and negatively impact his educational mission.” Valdosta State professor Michael Noll fears “armed intimidation or gun violence from students who receive failing grades.” Noll has posted a “no weapons” sign on his faculty office door, according to the complaint. Aristotelis Santas, a Valdosta State professor, said he “will no longer promote discussion of hot-button issues in his classroom” and allows students to leave his class if they don’t feel safe.

Armed intimidation? Really? Perhaps an argument against tenure because until you cannot be fired bad course reviews pose as real an existential threat as any "intimidation." At least he pulls up short with a vague allusion to "gun violence" by not indicating this might include suicide. Noll toes the party line pretending that the sign posted on his office door actually works but exposes the signage silliness by offering only virtual office hours for the foreseeable future. Just imagine how pissed off that gun-toting, F-enraged snowflake is going to be when they bust into his office only to find it empty.



[1] Too soon?
[2] "PhD" kinda, sorta means "Doctor of Philosophy," so technically all PhD's are "philosophers." Another mystery solved, right?

Common To Whom?

Governor Deal has signed the so-called Campus Carry Bill. Now the fun begins.

Though still aligned with the Permission Society World View, supporters of the bill are celebrating this as "common sense" legislation, co-opting Obama's bumper-sticker phrase on the issue. Hopefully this causes the phrase and the idiocy behind it to fall into disuse as it has never been about common anything let alone just the loudest current social norms. That is, if you believe this country was founded on the precept of personal liberty. Then the Bill of Rights is little more than an enumeration of the liberties of the people that shall not be infringed by the government. The view of individual liberty does not sit well with those who long for the days of monarchies, of those bestowed with power, in particular the power to grant and withdraw at their discretion liberties to the little people.

Those nostalgists include the Left-Wing-Nuts who are now going nutzy-cuckoo. They see this as an attack on their breeding ground, an attempt to poison the fount of their life. Their histrionics cannot be contained.

Being the well educated grammarians that they are they fear the loss of their kingdom for the want of a comma. They invoke the "let's eat, grandma" vs "let's eat grandma" to make their case that a missing comma in the legislation actually allows a Weapon's Carry License holder to make it into "their" building. Being arrogant know-it-alls they have anointed themselves the sole arbiter of legislative intent concluding that this missing comma goes against that intent and therefore invalidates the entire law. In their world this missing comma can't be right (or could it?) so they intend to sue. HASHTAG: CommasMatter HASHTAG: WordsNotSoMuch

Academia is up in [un-]arms with UGA's Franklin College faculty resolving:

“If this legislation is enacted, and students and faculty are hesitant to discuss sensitive or controversial topics because of the presence of guns on campus and in our classrooms, the academic integrity of UGA will be greatly compromised."

Now THAT is gobstopping. This faculty seems so ensconced in their ivory tower that they are unaware that college campuses banned the liberty of free speech, especially on topics they deem "sensitive or controversial" long ago. The campus newspaper, the Red & Black, reported on limits the  University has placed upon those meeting their disapproval to Free Speech Zones where they will not offend sensitive sensibilities because they won't be heard. But trust them, it isn't censorship, it's free speech in a safe place. They live in an echo chamber and banish any dissenting speech to a small soundproof room.

This is why the term "common sense" has no place in any discussion about what happens on any college campus in America.

Government Mandates

Recently a member of the left wing punditry pontificated on the potential passing of a campus carry bill. Let's dissect a few bits of what passes for logic in those circles.

"Georgia law mandates no firearms safety training to carry a gun on campus."

In fact Georgia law has no training mandate to acquire a carry license and carry anywhere, on or off campus. Training, practice and range time are not prohibited by law either. And this is important as one seeks a thread of continuity in what appear to be random synaptic firings.

"It is hard to fathom that my children or anyone else's would be safer sitting alongside an armed classmate with no training."

This author has demonstrated time and again a difficulty to fathom things involving the simplest of logic and this self-awareness should be nurtured. On the one hand it is posited that no one, particularly those seeking a concealed carry license would have or acquire any form of training unless it is mandated. This is a paternalistic world where a mandate is necessary to compel behaviour. OK. But. There is no mandate saying that "if you can get a carry permit you must get a carry permit" is there? So by the logic of the author's mandate manifesto a law merely allowing legal carry on campus will result in no guns on campus because carry is not mandated.

Then the author offers "the right answer."

"The only people who should be carrying guns across our colleges are campus police." 

A more coherent argument could be made that there should be no campus police and certainly not armed. 

Now You Know

You may be immune to the hysterical rhetoric around the "Campus Guns" bill. You may be all wrapped up in it. You may be spreading it. Let's start with one steaming pile of stinking silliness: personal protection. As in "this isn't about someone over 21 years of age protecting themselves." Or even those 21+ year olds who willingly offer up their fingerprints and actually clear an FBI background check. What's that you say? You were told that every hung-over frat boy with a chip on his shoulder because a professor "gave" him a grade he didn't like was also being given guns and ammo.

It is actually about a right guaranteed in our Constitution, the one with the phrase "shall not be infringed" which seems to serve as an invitation to government at all levels to do just that. This includes our government-run public universities. It is not surprising that the natural habitat of left wing nuts would espouse a religion where "words matter" except those in the Constitution but the real problem is knowing just what is, and is not campus property. To wit:



It may look like a regular, commercial hotel offering short term lodging and convention facilities, but it is also an infringement zone. Is the nearby Classic Center part of UGA? It is not, but it is a government facility and guns are prohibited--at least they have signage. What about MSTC and The Meat Sale? Open to the public, no student/faculty/staff ID required. But it is on campus and current infringements apply. Same for the Georgia Museum of Art. Then there is the State Botanical Gardens, owned by the State, well off the main campus, but operated by UGA. The gardens include five miles of nature trails which might dredge up that self-defense bromide. Not to pick on just UGA, Tech, with it's expansion into midtown, has similar unmarked infringement zones.

What this bill is really about is uniformity of our statewide infringements (Georgia is not a constitutional carry state) extending equality of access to all without regard to their own personal arms identifications. 

Trump's Military

After the Ferguson shooting Obama took a break from funneling military equipment to local yokel police, a policy Trump is expected to reverse before his first tweet from the oval office. In anticipation of a renewed opportunity to abandon serving as a community police force in favor of joining a local army of Dukakis-like posers Dunwoody intends to ante up for a mobile SWAT command center. Not to worry, the Dunwoody taxpayer share is only $42K hardly putting a dent in the City's recent tax hike and now you know what they needed that money for.

Dunwoody was an early trendsetter in police shooting citizens so it is little surprise that their ambition extends beyond onsey-twosey open field plinking. Now that Dunwoody is a joint task force with the other li'l cities aspiring to re-create Milton County maybe they can get all their military regalia  together for our parade on the 4th. With this new command center, everybody's bearcats and maybe a few of Trump's MRAP's we can put on an inspirational display the likes of which are not seen outside of Tiananmen Square. Given the city has delegated neighborhood protection to neighbors you may find yourself inspired to get a Georgia Weapons Carry License. While you can.

Concealed Carry

In order to legally carry a concealed weapon in the State of Georgia you need a Carry License and the associated FBI background check--ignore the fact that licensing is a responsibility of the states. But if you want to carry a bill, a campus carry bill, out of committee you need no license. You just need last minute agenda updates.

Which comes as quite a surprise to the opponents of licensed carry on University System properties. Bear in mind the facts of the current situation. Today's prohibition is not just against students, faculty, administration and employees of the University System, it prohibits all licensed carry by all legally licensed and background checked gun toters. And that applies to all University System property including off-campus properties which are often hard to identify as legally allowed gun free zones.

Most disappointing is not that Alan Powell pulled a fast one by tacking the legislation to the agenda but that he did not tack on a provision for licensed carry under the Gold Dome. 

If You Can, You Must

If you can get a Georgia Weapons Carry License, must you? If you have a carry license must you own a gun? If you own a gun must you carry it? Always? Everywhere?

The high priests and priestesses of Common Sense Gun Control (AKA: you get no guns while we get armed guards) suggest that the answer to all is a definitive YES! At least when we're talking about licensed carry on college campus. While they tend to stay on point regarding guns and drunken frat parties (but isn't that the real problem?) every now and then they drop their guard suggesting this is a good first step.

But neither side of tug of war over guns are very good friends with facts. So if we go with "yes" to these questions how many gun toters are we going to see at UGA? Let's pick on UGA because it is hard to tell where campus starts and stops and we might note how reluctant UGA is to call the cops about a rape but quick to pull the trigger on a hotel guest with a gun in his room.

Thirty five percent are 22 and up. That's a lot of guns. But thirty percent are under 19. That's a lot of targets. The split between 20 and 21 requires estimation as this bracket is reported as a group which split evenly is 17.5 percent each. An equal number of guns and targets. That's 10.5 percent more guns than targets so if you subscribe to the "can equals must" argument you are more likely than not to run across a gun-toter on UGA campus.

If campus carry passes what are parents of high school seniors to do? Probably the best plan is to schedule a few gap years and when your little snow flake turns twenty one round up one of the "can equals must" logicians to take your darling down to the court house to get a license and stop by the pawn shop to buy them a pistol. 

If You Scare Someone...

...are you a terrorist?

Probably not, but in the hyperventilating world we live in the rhetoric often heads down that path. This issue rears its ugly head, again, because some bloke went to DaVille's Panera whilst open carrying which as anyone, including that bloke, would know is going to cause other folks some indigestion. As it did.

We'll not go down the rat hole of constitutional rights vs colloquial "rights" but look instead at Panera. And guns.

As it would happen, Panera is no stranger to carry/no-carry controversy. In September of 2014 they issued a "request" that customers not engage in Take A Firearm To Lunch events at their establishments referencing a corporate ambition of creating "Panera Warmth." Apparently happiness is a warm bun, not a warm gun. At least not in the hands of a licensed gun owner. The backlash was strong and swift with over 27,000 responding to a CNBC online poll and 83% taking a negative view of Panera's stance.

To this day Second Amendment fans include Panera on lists of anti-gun companies they would prefer you not visit. Seems like the bloke who came to Dunwoody looking for soup in a bread bowl missed the email.

Airport Open Carry

The chazerai surrounding the bloke who toted his AR-15 thru the Atlanta Airport lobby is actually quite enlightening. Especially if being confronted with other folks' often willful ignorance is a learning experience for you. It centers around the common (mis)understanding of rights and privileges.

In a world of blurred lines between legit information and entertainment where we're bombarded with the notion that we "have the right to cable TV" and where high school graduates cannot be expected to read the front of a ketchup bottle it should come as no surprise that some folks have no ability whatsoever to differentiate between a right and privilege. This shows up a lot.

In at least one case disingenuous misrepresentation has been purposeful. To wit, the pronouncements of Gun Sense (gunsensevoter.org) representatives who have elevated a discomfort being around a visible display of weapons (when not in the hands of government agents) to a right whilst simultaneously trying to argue all constitutional rights have restrictions and the Second Amendment should not be free of the most onerous restrictions. But there is an agenda here and such deceptions and exaggerations are to be expected. They, as a small but vocal minority, would like to impose their will on a larger majority without regard for that pesky ole Constitution. Were they in the majority they would work to amend the constitution which would be the right way to do it.

More interesting are the other creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork who somehow equate a privilege, say driving, with a Constitutional right, say "keep and bear arms." The (il)logic goes like this: "if you must have training and demonstrate proficiency to operate a car why shouldn't you have to do the same to own and carry a firearm." We'll skip the part about "not all weapons are firearms" and cut to the chase. In some states you must complete training and demonstrate proficiency to acquire a carry license. Often this is used to prevent "ordinary citizens" from obtaining a license by establishing an extremely high proficiency requirement--often significantly higher than law enforcement. Most states require a background search and fingerprinting. Not the kind of background search that will get you in the back door at the DeKalb School's palace but the FBI kind. These arguments are as easily debunked as they are silly. Since we are talking about Constitutional rights why don't we apply similar training and proficiency to other rights. How about the freedom of speech in the first amendment? Or better yet, let's tackle a sacred cow and suggest that before being allowed to vote citizens must take courses in civics and demonstrate some knowledge retention? That alone would cut the legs from under those who argue "rights be damned, guns are more dangerous than [fill in the blank]."

While it was sad and a bit silly to prance around the airport with an allegedly loaded AR-15 (did anyone actually verify there was a round in the chamber or even in the magazine?) it was indeed legal but it probably was not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The elitist minority wanting to eviscerate select portions of the Bill of Rights might want to ponder that intent in the context of Ferguson, North Charleston and a host of others before they get too carried away with their pontifications.

When Seconds Count...

...the police are only moments away.

It seems Dunwoody PD's "scare 'em into giving us more money" tactic is working. The 2013 budget is likely to sail through on the headwinds of the HOST windfall with staffing and pay increases. But there also appear to be some unintended consequences.

Anecdotal data suggest that folks in Dunwoody, not just The Other Dunwoody, have begun to take their personal safety, well, personally. This really all started back when the City was formed with the bumper sticker crowd who painted Dunwoody as a pretty dangerous 'hood. You know, those "Bad Guys Beware" stickers. But the public reaction now goes beyond the home alarm system which primarily serves the purpose of initiating the police-report process and generating false alarm fines. Folks are taking the PD's most recent chicken-little justification--recent and future increases in crime--to heart. And Dunwoody is up in arms. Literally.

Unsubstantiated reports indicate an increased interest in firearms for personal and home defense. In other areas this might be seen as over-reacting, but in the South and in a conservative community like Dunwoody, it should come as no surprise. Still, the image of an SUV-driving soccer mom with a cell phone in one hand, a latte in the other and an LCP in her purse might give even the most ardent libertarian occasion for pause. Since this trend appears irreversible it is prudent that those considering substantial personal and home protection become well informed.

The first suggestion from those in the know about personal defense is to avoid danger. Dangerous areas and dangerous people. If you believe you live in an area where "Bad Guys Beware" is a cogent message you should move. If that means leaving Dunwoody, so be it. After all, the pros are telling us crime is on the rise.

The next suggestion, much like the first, is that you should immediately extract yourself from any dangerous situation you inadvertently find yourself in. This is often called "running from danger" but in The Other Dunwoody it is called "Flight Before Fight". You are always well advised to determine just what ground is beneath your feet before "standing your ground" as running from danger rarely lands one in prison. Combat duty is a special case.

Even for those that remain undeterred these first two suggestions are still the best options for personal safety and should always be top of mind. If arm you must, just remember that managing your personal safety in a responsible manner has two key requirements: training and practice. To that end, anyone considering such an important step, such a pro-active role in their own safety, should ensure that their actions do not compromise that very safety they seek to maintain (see "unintended consequences" above).

This is not difficult nor is it expensive. Just outside our City borders are two fine and related facilities, the Sandy Springs Gun Club on Roswell Road and the Norcross Gun Club on Peachtree Industrial. These clubs offer training, equipment rentals (try before you buy) and guidance on acquiring a Georgia Weapons Carry License. While you may think going all "Dirty Harry" and toting a forty-four magnum around sounds like a good idea, you just might want to see if you can hit the broad side of a barn with that cannon. The folks at these clubs will help you out and you may find that shooting is primarily a sport and a fine one at that, but one best engaged in at a range.

Get the training, keep it up with practice, then decide.