WGST Peach Pundit Radio – 12-11-15

This week in Peach Pundit radio you’ll be treated to the insight (ok, rants) of Mike Hassinger, Stefan Turkheimer, and me.

What are we going to rant about?

Donald Trump sucked up much of this week’s political oxygen by suggesting that we should have a religious test for those allowed into our country.  As usual, once the firestorm was started he walked back his statement.  But it’s a pattern, and many of us this week have said enough. Trump doesn’t speak for me as a Republican. The primary will say whether he speaks for the party.

Not to be outdone for outlandish statements to get a headline, the President of the Georgia Federation of Teachers decided the best way to throw cold water on the flourishing charter school movement was to compare it to murder.  Hilarity did not ensue.

What else happened?  Well, Donald Trump successfully managed to keep anyone from talking about the President’s Oval Office address where he suggested that a secret list maintained by the government that isn’t subject to due process should determine who has guns.  Or that one Democratic candidate for President says guns should be confiscated via executive order.  Is this election really going to be a choice between which constitutional rights are invalidated in the name of safety?

Other topics up for grabs?  The Atlanta Metro Chamber laid out their priorities at their annual meeting/luncheon yesterday.  In: Transit:  Out: RFRA without a clear non-discrimination clause. Speaker Ralston is not amused with the Department of Revenue and their interpretation of Craft Brewery rules.  Dean’s BBQ in Jonesboro says they’ve reached the end of a long and tasty road.  The $1.1 Billion dollar GA 400/I-285 interchange redesign was apparently picked up by GDOT at a Black Friday sale.  Allen Peake says let’s grow medical marijuana here.  The Governor still says no.

That’s a potential preview. Actual show at noon on 640AM WGST may vary.  Tune in on your radio or listen live here.


  1. mjhicks says:

    Charlie. To be fair O’Malley didn’t say guns should be confiscated. He said that if Congress doesn’t act the President should use executive orders. Those orders can be, and is what most Dems support, gun control measures that are far short of confiscation.

    • TheEiger says:

      The article that O’Malley links to very clearly says confiscate.

      “yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

      You can’t buy those weapons in France yet someone over a hundred people were killed. Why didn’t a ban work there?

      • mjhicks says:

        OK. I’ll concede a bit. I can see how one links the article, his comments and makes that connection – although I do personally that they’re 100% correlated.

      • benevolus says:

        No one ever would say that further gun control would be 100% effective. But France has 0.22 gun homicides per 100,000, the US has 3.55.

        • TheEiger says:

          Bad people will do bad things. Whether with a gun, knife or a pressure cooker like the Boston bombers. Chicago and California have some of the nation’s strictest gun laws yet people are still killed. Because criminals follow the law you know. The magazines used in California were illegal and the rifles were purchased legally with a background check. So the restrictions that many people are talking about would not have stopped this horrible event from happening.

          Liberals don’t care when a gang member kills another gang member, but you all sure will use that statistic to prove how you all think that us gun owners are one step away from going on a shooting spree. It’s sickening.

          • benevolus says:

            Wait a sec… I’m a gun owner too.

            And maybe all of us care less when a gang member kills another gang member, but we do care when a a gang member kills a kid, or an old man, or anybody NOT another gang member.

            I don’t know how to describe you vs. me. Are you an extremist? Any gun control inevitably leads to no guns at all? That’s not me.

            • TheEiger says:

              No I’m not an extremist, but I’ve been called one only because I own an AR-15. I know people with hundreds of guns. Are they extremists? Absolutely not.

              The problem with screaming about having more strict gun laws is it doesn’t fix the problem. Do you honestly think little kids will miraculously stop being killed in Chicago if you ban handguns there? No, they won’t. The only way to fix that is to get rid of the criminals that are killing kids in Chicago and clean that portion of the city up and fund good schools. Until that happens, little kids will continue to be shot in Chicago and in other places that are similar to Chicago.

              There is a fear of the slippery slope among many gun owners. We know that tougher restrictions that many liberals want to make law will not end violent crimes or murders. The slippery slope begins with AR-15s and 20 plus round magazines. Then handguns, and certain ammunition. That won’t make it go away so people will start pushing for an outright ban of everything then confiscation of all firearms.

              You may think that will never happen, but that is the direction many on your side of the aisle want to go.

              • benevolus says:

                Not sure this is productive but… there are endless examples of how gun control works. London has slums, so does most any major city, but the US has 4 cities in the top 50 worldwide in murder rate. All the rest are in Central and South America. None from Europe.

                Obviously gun control in one city doesn’t work because you can just go across the city line and get one. It has to be uniform, and it doesn’t have to be draconian. Just some common sense stuff. And yes, criminals will still get guns sometimes but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing better than we are now. And yes, we need to address the mental health issue. But what does that mean? How do you do it?

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  I’m guessing those 4 cities in the top 50 have (relatively) strict gun control. One liberal stronghold that I can think of has had a turn-around in violent crime is Detroit. Why? Because they finally gave in.

                  Detroit Police Chief James Craig started calling on law-abiding citizens to arm themselves. (the kind of announcement from law-enforcement that will have CNN/MSNBC reporters these days bashing you endlessly for being ‘wreckless’ and unfit for office). Who’s not laughing now?

                  Even Chicago started issuing many more CCP’s in the past 2-3 years and their crime rate has dropped. However, a permit to carry in Chicago is gonna run you about $600, which is damn-near prohibitive.

                  Liberals in these cities have been trying stricter and stricter gun control measures for decades and finally tried something radically different. But I’ll wait for someone to dismiss these examples as flukes and that we need tougher laws.

  2. Noway says:

    Ol’ Noway is a gun owner, too and I favor Constitutional Carry. The more responsible folks toting the safer our society will be.

  3. saltycracker says:

    Gun Statistics can tell us a lot: the comparisons with other countries is more reflective of cultural or violence differences than gun laws. Wow, check out central and South America ! The suicides by gun is nearly double homicides. The FBI charts make it clear we prefer to shoot people of our own race and blacks are twice as likely to die by guns than whites.

    Statistically it appears if we took guns away from law abiding folks in rough neighborhoods the gun violence rate would climb.

Comments are closed.