''Patrons can thank the measure, effective Tuesday, that critics call the “guns everywhere” bill''- right away in the article.

first the folks who didn't get a permit due to time issues or being a stupido should because they will be safer, so the sarcasm is inappropriate. Secondly their bias shows a bit from the headline_
Georgia ‘guns everywhere’ bill takes effect funny that the ''lead'' wouldn't even take offense at seeing such biased ''news'' and would just feel like they are winning? when what they are told is right is said again?
I hope I worded that well enough

I'll read the rest and hope I was right in insulting thems now.
''Opponents view it as a disturbance for places of worship, establishments that serve alcohol, and school campuses where parents expect their children to remain safe. Supporters laud the measure’s protection of their Second Amendment rights. Though they are pleased with the legislation, many of them wish its guidelines treated religious establishments similar to bars, nightclubs, and municipalities.''
because it makes them unsafe.crazy whackjobs like it. Thats what I take away from the ''tone''? so no I don't feel bad about knocking it before reading the whole thing...reading through again..Supporters laud the measure’s protection of their Second Amendment rights.am I wrong in thinking their overall message, which I have seen suggested elsewhere, is that second amendment rights are something to be defeated(/abolished_~wouldn't want to use such a strong word though), that only a minority want protected(Hilary)? Or have I got off on a tangent?
Gack I've read the poll options now... pretty sure its spun up pretty good to help those unsure about believe guns are scary and that I'm right about the Hilary statement above. since when is ok to take away a ''minorities'' rights and oppress them though, usa!? juxtaposing the only for self defense and the 2nd guarantees it options with the its to dangerous as the nice safe Middle ground, sort of suggests that those crazy ass chipotle type guys are running around threatening people everywhere... am I wrong and just wanting to ''hate on'' them? I still don't tink so otherwise the two yes answers(same thing or reduntant. if the second actually did guarantee it theres no question to ask!) should be next to each other rather than presented as to create conflict.
whatever I'm allowed to be wrong anyhow! and I don't think what I said is extreme...
durn it; now I've been in the comments. it'll be the new chicago! if I had a gun I'd blow your head off. they're all going to kill eachother. -no.