Georgia town passes law requiring citizens to own guns and ammo

[Merlin]

Georgia town passes law requiring citizens to own guns and ammo.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-requiring-citizens-to-own-guns-and-ammo?lite

 

[Sharpeneddark]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. Although the article says they can 'opt out'. This is simply silly.

You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. I doubt it holds up in court (if ever brought to court).

 

[sajidakh]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. This is political posturing and it is just as bad as the gun grabs.

Yea, but unlike the laws that are passed in pro-gun control states. This law will not actually be enforced.

 

[Merlin]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. This is political posturing and it is just as bad as the gun grabs.

Did you take 2 seconds to read the story before you started complaining about something you do not know about? Anyone can Opt out.

 

[camirish1]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. This is political posturing and it is just as bad as the gun grabs.

"The ordinance in the town of Nelson, population 1,300, contains no penalties, has exemptions for felons and the mentally ill and allows anyone to opt out. Town leaders said they wanted to make a point about gun rights."

Sounds the same as Kennesaw, GA. Police never enforce it there and it is not really "mandatory", but the town has seen some of the greatest reduction in violent crime in the country. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[Doobie]

I think Kennesaw GA passed something like this years ago. I heard since then crime went down.

 

[Haides]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. Although the article says they can 'opt out'. This is simply silly.

You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. I doubt it holds up in court (if ever brought to court).

It won't be brought to court because it won't be enforced. Do you know how many states it's still illegal to engage in oral sex in? Those laws are still on the books because they aren't enforced, thus no court has any reason to strike them down.

I think Kennesaw GA passed something like this years ago. I heard since then crime went down.

Yup. I think they've only had 4 murders in 30 years, and only 1 involved a gun (or something like that).

 

[Sharpeneddark]

Did you take 2 seconds to read the story before you started complaining about something you do not know about? Anyone can Opt out.

I missed the opt out part as I read it. Apologies for that. I did see 'required' listed in both the headline and the article. That would be contradictory. You are required to do this, but you can opt out if you want...

It's still just political posturing and is absolutely ridiculous. Let's pass a law saying you have to choose a religion, but you can opt out of choosing a religion if you do not want a religion. This town, IIRC, published an article in their local paper a few months ago suggesting that people arm up to protect themselves. That is reasonable, due to the Sheriff being so far away. But to require them to observe a right, with the option of opting out, is simply absurd.

 

[Merlin]

It won't be brought to court because it won't be enforced. Do you know how many states it's still illegal to engage in oral sex in? Those laws are still on the books because they aren't enforced, thus no court has any reason to strike them down.



Yup. I think they've only had 4 murders in 30 years, and only 1 involved a gun (or something like that).

I Can't remember where but 20 years ago I remember some women mayor of a small town did the same thing but she took it a step farther and required everyone to train with their gun.

 

[Merlin]

I missed the opt out part as I read it. Apologies for that. I did see 'required' listed in both the headline and the article. That would be contradictory. You are required to do this, but you can opt out if you want...

It's still just political posturing and is absolutely ridiculous. Let's pass a law saying you have to choose a religion, but you can opt out of choosing a religion if you do not want a religion. This town, IIRC, published an article in their local paper a few months ago suggesting that people arm up to protect themselves. That is reasonable, due to the Sheriff being so far away. But to require them to observe a right, with the option of opting out, is simply absurd.

well I wish our politicians in Annapolis wanted to be this kind of ridicules. I would be 100% behind them.

 

[matt]

Yea, but unlike the laws that are passed in control states. This law will not actually be enforced.

FIFY

 

[Pinecone]

Keenesaw, GA many years ago. They did in response to Morton Grove, IL making all guns illegal on the town. Both were similar towns, near a big city, mainly a bedroom community for said big city. Similar violent crime numbers.

Interesting thing I read a year afterwards.

In the 1 year after passage of the law, Morton Grove had the same number of violent crimes. In that same year, Kennesaw had ZERO violent crimes.

 

[bmelton]

To qualify that a little bit, general crime in Kennesaw dropped 80% the year the law was enacted. Zero violent crimes, and that number held to at least 25 years later, when they celebrated their 25th anniversary of ZERO murders.

At the same time, Morton Grove, IL noted a 17% increase in overall crime, with a spike of violent crimes when they passed their anti-gun bill.

The other interesting bit is that despite Kennesaw having quintupled their population since the law was enacted, their crime rates remain among the lowest in the nation, but areas immediately outside of Kennesaw have some of the highest crime. So it obviously didn't eliminate the criminals, but they all know better than to commit violent crime in Kennesaw proper where every household is likely to be armed.

 

[tangent]

No problem, got it covered for the pacifists:

 

[altima98]

Kennesaw, Ga

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/mandated-gun-ownership-a-tale-of-two-cities/

This is Good Gun Control.

 

[K31]

Honestly, I think this is just as wrong as denying the access to the population. Although the article says they can 'opt out'. This is simply silly.

You cannot force someone to observe their rights. You cannot force people to vote, you cannot force them to choose a religion, you cannot force them to use their free speech. I doubt it holds up in court (if ever brought to court).

This is not forcing someone to observe their rights. This is like conscripted military service.