Georgia town passes law requiring citizens to own guns and ammo

[NJarhead]

The law requires the head of every household to own a gun and ammo to “provide for the emergency management of the city” and “provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.” The law is also meant to pre-empt any future attempt by the federal government to confiscate guns, according to the council’s agenda.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-ammo#comments

[Mach1]

hopey

[fansince'76]

[Dwinsgames]

I understand the logic , and love the fact people are ( in some places anyways ) taking this serious enough to pass measures .....

but at the same time , I do not like laws that force people to do anything when it comes to ownership or a ban of said items ...

it always has been a choice and IMO should always be a choice ...

I chose to own guns , I would not want anyone to try and force me to give them up but at the same time if I did not want a gun I would not want anyone to force me to have one either ...

Freedom to bear arms for me is like Freedom of speech .. I can talk if I want to but they can not force me to talk if I do not want to .... it is not a freedom if it is forced

again I understand the logic of it and personally have no problem with it because I own them anyways but IS IT any better forcing someone to have something they do not want than keeping something from someone they do want ?

[NJarhead]

I understand the logic , and love the fact people are ( in some places anyways ) taking this serious enough to pass measures .....

but at the same time , I do not like laws that force people to do anything when it comes to ownership or a ban of said items ...

it always has been a choice and IMO should always be a choice ...

I chose to own guns , I would not want anyone to try and force me to give them up but at the same time if I did not want a gun I would not want anyone to force me to have one either ...

Freedom to bear arms for me is like Freedom of speech .. I can talk if I want to but they can not force me to talk if I do not want to .... it is not a freedom if it is forced

again I understand the logic of it and personally have no problem with it because I own them anyways but IS IT any better forcing someone to have something they do not want than keeping something from someone they do want ?

If you read down in the article, it says that people will have the right to defer.

[Dwinsgames]

If you read down in the article, it says that people will have the right to defer.

that is my fault for not reading the article , just the quoted part and commenting ...

[NJarhead]

that is my fault for not reading the article , just the quoted part and commenting ...

We've all done it at one time or another.

[Dwinsgames]

We've all done it at one time or another.

I know I have to many times to count , I know better ( that is the bigger problem ) LOL

[steeldawg]

I dont know why that would make anyone happy thats a huge second amendment violation.

[Mach1]

Because it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

[steeldawg]

Because it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

I dont know if your agreeing with me or trying to take a shot at me?

[Mach1]

I dont know if your agreeing with me or trying to take a shot at me?

So your not happy that someone is upholding the 2nd?

[steeldawg]

So your not happy that someone is upholding the 2nd?

That not the right to bear arms if you force everyone to bear arms. The right works both ways if you have the right to bear arms you also need the right to not bear arms otherwise your not giving everyone a right to do something your just forcing them.

[Mach1]

The 2nd only works one way. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

If you read the article they have the right to defer. So nobody's forcing them do to anything.

[st33lersguy]

Another town in Georgia passed a law just like this back in 1982. There have been 4 murders by gun shot since then, 3 in a gun-free zone at the local school

[steeldawg]

The 2nd only works one way. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

If you read the article they have the right to defer. So nobody's forcing them do to anything.

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

[Seven]

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

I lol'd.

Another town in Georgia passed a law just like this back in 1982. There have been 4 murders by gun shot since then, 3 in a gun-free zone at the local school

If more people carried crime would absolutely go down. I CC, but I would open carry if the regulations/laws didn't vary so much from place to place. I'd be a walking deterrent along with every other citizen who walked around with a firearm on his hip. Would rage murderss increase? Yeah, they probably would. But would mass shootings and pre-meditated crime all but disappear? You better fucking believe it would.

[Mach1]

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

[Seven]

Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right.

1. Read the article. As has already been discussed there is an option to defer.

2. Even if it was required, it wouldn't infringe on their right to bear arms. I mean seriously, what the fuck kind of logic is that? That doesn't even make sense in the candyland world you usually post from.

[GoSlash27]

Why are we fighting over something that *hasn't* happened?

[GBMelBlount]

Run along folks.

You are not supposed to debate things until *after* they happen.

[tube517]

[Mach1]

Run along folks.

You are not supposed to debate things until *after* they happen.

Here ya go. A little distracting though.

[steeldawg]

1. Read the article. As has already been discussed there is an option to defer.

2. Even if it was required, it wouldn't infringe on their right to bear arms. I mean seriously, what the fuck kind of logic is that? That doesn't even make sense in the candyland world you usually post from.

Ya i read it i already addressed that theres an option to defer defer but it doesnt matter because when he posted the thread he didnt realize that ther was that option hence the title of the thread. The logic is perfectly sound, requiring citizens to own guns absolutely infringes on a persons right who doesnt want to own a gun! Forcing people to own guns is the same violation of a persons rights as someone preventing citizens from owning guns. I dont know how requiring citizens to do something wether they want to or not would be considered a right? Lol we are going to make you bear arms because its your right, ya that makes perfect sense.

[Dwinsgames]

Ya i read it i already addressed that theres an option to defer defer but it doesnt matter because when he posted the thread he didnt realize that ther was that option hence the title of the thread. The logic is perfectly sound, requiring citizens to own guns absolutely infringes on a persons right who doesnt want to own a gun! Forcing people to own guns is the same violation of a persons rights as someone preventing citizens from owning guns. I dont know how requiring citizens to do something wether they want to or not would be considered a right? Lol we are going to make you bear arms because its your right, ya that makes perfect sense.

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

[GoSlash27]

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

That's why we had a "conscientious objector" status.
I don't know that compulsory armament is necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but it certainly seems contradictory to the concept of freedom.

And again, if we're all in agreement that this law doesn't do that... why are we arguing about it? Not only arguing, but actually getting personal?

[steeldawg]

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

No its not ok its a ridiculous outdated law why would we want another, but the point is we have the right to bear arms and we have the right not to bear arms both are protected under the same constitution are they not?

- - - Updated - - -

That's why we had a "conscientious objector" status.
I don't know that compulsory armament is necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but it certainly seems contradictory to the concept of freedom.

And again, if we're all in agreement that this law doesn't do that... why are we arguing about it? Not only arguing, but actually getting personal?

Im not arguing about this law, I was saying why would you want a law that did that? because when he originally posted the thread thats what he thought. I mean there is so much arguing for how they dont government touching their guns, but then have no problem with the government forcing guns on people its completely ridiculous.

[GoSlash27]

Im not arguing about this law, I was saying why would you want a law that did that? because when he originally posted the thread thats what he thought. I mean there is so much arguing for how they dont government touching their guns, but then have no problem with the government forcing guns on people its completely ridiculous.

I'd avoid using "they" as a sweeping generalization. I certainly wouldn't support such a law and I don't think it's a good idea at all. #1 because I'm just as much against the government forcing people to do things they don't want as I am against the government forcing people to not do things they do want. But #2 (and perhaps more importantly) the #1 show on TV is "here comes Honey Boo-Boo" and 4% of voters believe that the lizard people are spraying them with chemtrails. My only hope is that they're at least smart enough to realize that they're too dumb to handle firearms and the government won't force them to...

[Dwinsgames]

I'd avoid using "they" as a sweeping generalization. I certainly wouldn't support such a law and I don't think it's a good idea at all. #1 because I'm just as much against the government forcing people to do things they don't want as I am against the government forcing people to not do things they do want. But #2 (and perhaps more importantly) the #1 show on TV is "here comes Honey Boo-Boo" and 4% of voters believe that the lizard people are spraying them with chemtrails. My only hope is that they're at least smart enough to realize that they're too dumb to handle firearms and the government won't force them to...

some of the dumbest people ( IQ wise ) are some of the best with a firearm ... it does not take book smarts to handle a firearm safely and effectively

all the book smarts in the world never taught 1 person common sense

common sense is the best kind of sense to have around firearms

just my take

[GoSlash27]

some of the dumbest people ( IQ wise ) are some of the best with a firearm ... it does not take book smarts to handle a firearm safely and effectively

all the book smarts in the world never taught 1 person common sense

common sense is the best kind of sense to have around firearms

just my take

Likewise, some of the dumbest people (IQ wise) are also some of the worst with firearms. Having a low intelligence on paper doesn't confer common sense. Some people are just plain stick- dumb.
And there are other people who are very intellectual but don't have the common sense of a turnip.
Either way, I don't think forcing them to keep guns against their will is a smart idea.