• Comment

Crawford: Georgia suffers two blows in 24 hours

Posted: May 14, 2017 - 12:48am

Within the space of 24 hours, Georgia suffered two devastating blows from its governor and congressional delegation.
First was Gov. Nathan Deal, who signed the "campus carry" bill that will enable weapons-carry license holders to tote their firearms in wide areas on the state's college campuses.

When Deal shot down a similar bill last year, I thought it was one of the most courageous things ever done by a Georgia governor. He resisted enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues.

The Legislature came back this year and added several campus locales where firearms will not be permitted. Deal used the additional exemptions to justify signing this year's bill. The new law still allows guns to be carried across campuses and into classrooms.

This is what will inevitably happen. There are ideologically minded students on every campus who are old enough to have a carry permit and itching to make a statement about Second Amendment rights. You will see them flaunt the new law as they strut into classes with a Glock automatic strapped to their hip or an AR-15 assault rifle slung over their shoulder.

Many students will get up and leave the class, not because they are left-wing snowflakes but simply because they don't like to be in the same room with a gun. The sight of an armed student in a class will unsettle many professors as well.
^

With freer access to guns on campus, it's very likely that some students will be able to sneak their weapons into Sanford Stadium or Bobby Dodd Stadium. That should set up some interesting scenarios among fans losing a tense rivalry game.

What Deal said last year when he vetoed the campus carry bill is true today, regardless of the changes in the bill.

"From the early days of our nation and state, colleges have been treated as sanctuaries of learning where firearms have not been allowed," Deal said. "To depart from such time-honored protections should require overwhelming justification. I do not find that such justification exists."

As Deal was signing the campus carry bill into law, Republican House members in Washington were preparing to pass a bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a new health insurance system that is much, much worse.

Republicans claim that everyone will still have "access" to health care coverage and pay lower premiums under Trumpcare, but that is a lie.

If Trumpcare becomes law, then states with Republican governors (like Georgia) would have the ability to allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions - premiums that are so high, patients are priced right out of market.

These unfortunates will be shoved into "high-risk pools" to obtain their coverage, but these pools will be so underfunded they will soon implode. In the end, millions of patients will find themselves out of coverage and out of luck if they should have a serious illness.

The end game is to take $800 billion out of Medicaid, thus gutting that program as well, and using the funds to grant tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

You can thank congressmen like Jody Hice, Doug Collins, Drew Ferguson, Barry Loudermilk and Tom Graves, among others, for voting to rip health care coverage from their constituents and essentially condemning some of them to die.
^

Tom Crawford is editor of The Georgia Report, an internet news service at gareport.com that reports on state government and politics. He can be reached at tcrawford@gareport.com.

 

  • Comment

Comments (2)

Riverman1

Crawford Loves Nancy Pelosi

Crawford is such a pee in the pants liberal I can't believe the paper uses his column. Since we are predicting what will inevitably happen as he says, I'll predict with 100 percent certainty that an idiot deciding to attack innocent people on a Georgia campus such as happened at VA Tech, will think twice and forgo our colleges with armed citizens as the 2nd Amendment provides.

GAPO

Another Uninformed Opinion

Riverman1,

It’s easy for those with absolutely no real-world training, education, or experience in responding to active shootings or understanding the motivations of those who commit these incidents to feel that the more guns on the scene, the better it is for possible victims. If one did understand it would be obvious that the active shooters could care less who is in the location or who may or may not be carrying a firearm. The odds are in the active shooters favor that individuals carrying a firearm are going to be doing the same thing those not carrying, ducking, hiding, running for cover, or tragically being killed while fumbling to access a firearm they thought they were ready to use in an incident like this.

However, I am certain that these armed students would happily welcome you to take a seat between them when they begin shooting to defend themselves from an active shooter coming in to assault a class. I am certain that the active shooter will also appreciate the help of these untrained, armed students, in the killing of innocents because they felt they were prepared to react in a real world active shooter situation.

It isn't about being a liberal, far right, democrat, republican, independent, etc., what it comes down to is common sense. When an active shooting occurs, and police arrive they are trained to eliminate anyone they perceive to be a threat. That includes the actual active shooter or an armed, in shock student, who is unable to rapidly respond to the directions of responding officers who then take lethal action against the student, and then continue through the school and eliminate all threats.

You see, in the real-world law enforcement professionals understand that non-uniformed or non-badged plain clothed, armed individuals during an active shooting incident become armed threats not innocent students with a carry license.

No one wants another Virginia Tech although history assures us there will be others. What we don’t need to do is place students with guns in the sight line of professionally trained police and tactical officers responding to eliminate active threats. In the real world, officers are not going to view an armed student as an armed student; they are going to view them as a threat that requires elimination.

Just the opinion of someone who has more than three decades of training in responding to these types of real world threats. Police worry enough about having to take the life of a real and active threat, adding in the possibility of taking the life of an innocent who thought having a firearm would protect them is a nightmare.

EndCol.Co.GoodOl'BoySystems