E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA special weeklong examination of gun violence, gun ownership and gun legislation. NBC News journalists will report across "NBC Nightly News," "TODAY," MSNBC, CNBC, NBCNews.com, and more. The conversation will also extend across NBC News and MSNBC's social media platforms using the hashtag #GunsInUSA.
In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring each head of household to keep and maintain a firearm.
The law has never been enforced but opponents of increased gun control see the town's low crime rate as a positive result of the law. MSNBC's Craig Melvin reports.
Leave a Comment:
If you want to own a gun fine, but please, spare us. Forced gun ownership? Somebody needs to step up and fight this. And don't even try to compare it with the individual mandate, as that's completely off point. There is no collective monetary cost that is brought down by this, nor is there the inevitability that there is with you entering the health care market by seeking treatment. Nor can you actually, academically or statistically link this with lower crime rates. That is unless you interview every potential criminal on why they didn't target this town.
So it's ok to force gun bans but not ok to force ownership. Do you see a problem with that?
There called regulations. The 1st Amendment has them too. It's okay to consider defamation a tort, does that mean we're forced to give speeches in the city square? If the government has a compelling reason, it can regulate rights. Considering the amount of gun deaths in this country, the government has a reason to more closely regulate firearms. Not to mention that no one's suggested we ban guns, just assault rifles, and I've yet to hear a logical reason why anyone needs one. What's their reason for this??? Correlation doesn't mean causality, nor have taxes spent on public safety gone down. Why should my right to choice and privacy be infringed on by being forced to purchase something I neither want, nor need, nor will ever use? No one gets shot by my not having a gun. I pose no threat to the community by not having a gun. The only thing that goes up by my having one, are the odds of me or someone who lives with me getting shot by it.
MyName,
Actually, if you're going to correct me on "there", we were both wrong, it should have be they're, as in they are.
That's my point. You can't, so you can't force people against their will to purchase something they'll never need, use, or want.
Cute, you call it hypocrisy but can't refute a single point of my argument.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. But you did get something right, this is straight up foolish. And they don't enforce it, because they know they can't.
PS. By the way, can you quote where I've ever said I'm a huge fan of ACA? I preferred a single payer system. But while we're on the topic, you do know that the individual mandate was thought up as a free market solution at The Heritage Foundation, which is a CONSERVATIVE think tank, now run by Jim DeMint, right?
Being able to see an off point argument doesn't necessarily mean you're for or against anything other than illogic.
Hi sarah! Don't you just love grammar nazi's? And Namey please have an I.Q above 10 before you go to try and troll her.
"Why should my right to choice and privacy be infringed on by being forced to purchase something I neither want, nor need, nor will ever use?"
Sorta sounds just what the people against the PPACA are saying,don't it?
BRAVO KENNESAW!
You have every right to be proud of your success with promoting and supporting gun ownership.
When you responded to Morton Grove, IL handgun ban in 1982 with your own ordinance to require gun ownership, many ridiculed you. Despite the dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate plummeted for many years after passage of the ordinance with the violent crime rate at 0.53 per 100,000 compared to the US average of 2.41 per 100,000. Property crime rates have decreased to 0.86 per 100,000 compared o the US average of 2.30 per 100,000.
Last October Atlanta was ranked the 6th most dangerous city in the US. Its violent crime rate is 1,443 per 100,000. To be fair, Atlanta is a major drug trafficking route in the US.
Prior to the ordinance Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000).
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 23,202, according to 2010 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
In a column titled “Gun Town USA,” Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as “the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world.”
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!
IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WITH GUNS IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!
The pathetic cry-babies who promote banning of any guns are your typical bleeding heart Liberals/Progressives who need their lives controlled by some bureaucrat in government because they are no longer capable or rational thought. It’s embarrassing to see so many Americans who are incapable of common sense responsible thought. They idolize government and have been indoctrinated into the pervasiveness of social and economic justice for the collective.
The problem with our great Republic is our criminal government run public education system. This single issue affects everything else in our society. Crimes, violence, drug abuse, poverty and virtually every other societal problem we have is rooted on our growing and conditioned illiteracy.
Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the world. All you have to do is look at their public school 11th Graders Meeting College Readiness Benchmarks: 21% in Reading, 19% in Math, 11% in Science, 38% in English.
This is criminal!
How do we expect our children to succeed in the 21st century when 20% of our high school graduates can’t even read their diplomas?
Approximately 50 percent of the nation's unemployed youth age 16-21 are functional illiterate, with virtually no prospects of obtaining good jobs.
Approximately 50 percent of the nation's unemployed youth age 16-21 are functional illiterate, with virtually no prospects of obtaining good jobs.
60 percent of America's prison inmates are illiterate and 85% of all juvenile offenders have reading problems.
It is estimated that the cost of illiteracy to business and the taxpayer is $20 billion per year.
More than 20 percent of adults read at or below a fifth-grade level - far below the level needed to earn a living wage.
More than three out of four of those on welfare, 85% of unwed mothers and 68% of those arrested are illiterate. About three in five of America's prison inmates are illiterate.
44 million adults in the U.S. can't read well enough to read a simple story to a child.
Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.
To participate fully in society and the workplace in 2020, citizens will need powerful literacy abilities that until now have been achieved by only a small percentage of the population.
Our “wars” on crime, drugs, poverty and, as the above examples prove, illiteracy are abject failures.
And now some of you want to launch a “war” on guns?
How can anyone support our corrupt and criminal government to do anything right with the current state of affairs we see around us? A failed domestic policy, a failed economic policy, a failed foreign policy and you want to give more control to the government that allows all the reasons for gun violence to exist in the first place more power?
Please get your heads out of you’re a$$ and understand how more government is NEVER the answer. It’s been proven in Kennesaw Georgia.
It’s time to take back the power that the Constitution gives the people and demand our government do what it’s mandated to do, not what it THINKS it should do.
Uh oh, sounds like somebody has an inferiority complex. And, BS.
My point is, let's see if I can make this simpler. It's a stupid law and anyone who tries to argue it either on its legality or its success is, yes, straight up wrong, because its success is undetermined and undeterminable, and its legality is non-existent.
I brought up ACA, because inevitably someone would attempt to compare it to the individual mandate, which is totally off point. SCOTUS has ruled that's a tax and universal health coverage is known to bring costs down, as we will no longer be paying higher premiums to cover the uninsured, who regardless of their lack of insurance are still treated, as they must be by law, and will, beyond a doubt, at some point seek treatment.
There is no way of knowing whether this law has done an ounce of good, especially because it's never been enforced. So any claim that it has been successful is bogus and unprovable. Nor has it brought down the cost of public safety, as they still have a police department. Nor does the purchase price, maitanance or user lessons consist of a tax, as the people are expected to foot the bill and no option for those who can't afford it exists. Ergo, there is no collective good, nor could you ever prove causality, and lacking that evidence, there is no compelling interest in the government enacting this.
They knew that themselves, that's why they don't enforce it. It wouldn't last a day in court.
And I take it, since you don't want the conservative or liberal version of healthcare, and I'm willing to bet you don't want to pay for the uninsured through your premiums, please tell us what IS a good option?
Please, tell me what else I do or don't think. Perhaps you can tell me the real reasons I do anything. I just hope you're cheaper then the psychic I went to in college.
And again, you haven't argued anything of actual substance. And you do realize that there is such thing as the long term, right? Why won't costs go down? Why will they go up? Why isn't it off point?
And again...
And I take it, since you don't want the conservative or liberal version of healthcare, and I'm willing to bet you don't want to pay for the uninsured through your premiums, please tell us what IS a good option?
I didn't say it caused harm, I said it hasn't caused any good. And by the way, until we have customs in between every state, town, county, et al, the gun restrictions placed in one area aren't going to work, as anyone can drive into Chicago, or any other city/county/state, without ever being stopped. That's why gun regulations need to happen at the federal level.
Show me how that's true.
Sarah, Just thought I would give you a first hand perspective. 1st the law has be taken to the Supreme Court several times (costing the taxpayers needless $$$) and the law has stood every time. In fact, there are other cities who have adopted a law written similar to ours. We are a polite society. We say please, thank you and offer to help one another. If we have a problem with our neighbor... we go to our neighbor; not the law to settle the problem most of the time.
Yes, you are required to own a gun, but I lived here for 6 years before WE (as a family) chose to purchase a gun to protect our home. (We do not hunt.) No one has ever come to our home to check if there is a gun on the property. WE the took our daughter to help choose the weapon. WE teach respect of the tool (whether is be my hairdressing shears, wrenches, lawn mower, food mixer or a gun). WE then as a family went to the firing range to learn proper use of a firearm.
Rules 1- The gun is always loaded. Don't point it unless you plan to use it.
Rule 2 - The gun is always loaded. Don't point it unless you plan to use it.
Rule 3 - The gun is always loaded. Don't point it unless you plan to use it.
I as one of the residents of Kennesaw, I work diligently to let people know of our long standing law. It does help keep the crime rate down. While other areas of Atlanta have been plagued with home invasions ... it is not in our town. The criminals know there is a 95% chance that we are armed. Stop and think are you more or less likely to shop lift if a store has cameras visible? (Not implying that you would shop lift.) Are you more are less likely to flip off a cop in a marked car? Bottom line... if you know the consequences are more likely to be carried out it curbs bad behavior.
What ever the reason... I am happy to live in Kennesaw... I am happy to know my Constitutional Rights are firmly protected, because without the 2nd... they all could fall. I resent terribly that this administration is working so hard to disarm our guys who have risked their lives to up hold the Constitution. I see it more and more as the guys are coming home if you are tagged with PTSD... there goes your "right" to have a gun. The truth is PTSD is in many forms, It doesn't mean mentally unstable. It could be lack of sleep, the need to sit in view of the door at a restaurant, not sit in a certain place in a car. It is just another way to limit gun ownership by people who have truly been trained to use them.
So in closing, don't buy a gun if you don't want one, but don't dictate to me a law abiding citizen that I can't either. I would lay odds that in the event of an attack in your home... you will call someone who has a gun. Bless your heart.
Sarah,
I believe this was in response to the Morten Grove, Ill. hand gun ban in the 80s.
But under the ancient 'hue & cry' rules of English common law (see I made you look that up) an able body male of the shire had to help defend it, not only from invaders but criminals as well...with arms.
Same concept here, and until BHOs little order you girls were exempt, welcome to the fun.
Just think of this as..a well regulated city militia, etc. lol
It would be an interesting question if they charged triple taxes upon those refusing to be armed, as the city would have to provide them more protective services. Fewer boxes boxes of wine, eh.
I believe the first thing I said was if you want to own one that is your choice.
First, you're comparing a large city to a small town.
Can you provide a citation that shows that all possible criminals know this?
It's not as simple as you're attempting to make it out to be.
The best "self defense" tactic, is to lead a law abiding life. The odds of you ever having to use a gun for defense drop dramatically when you're not exposing yourself to crime. Nor can you just blanketly say they deter crime. Gun ownership would only deter crime if ALL crime and ALL criminals were rational. They're not. The crack head who robs the local conveinience store, he's not rational, he's desparate and not focused on whether you may be armed. The gangsta in the drive by shooting? Well by the time you even realize you're caught in one, it's already over. The rapist? Well, they don't exactly announce they're going to rape you first, so sure if you realize what's occurring, can fight him off, get to the gun, and blow his brains out before he catches you again... I guess?
It's not that clear cut. You have to look at the circumstances of the crime, the mentality of the victim, the LIFE of the victim, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, and a whole lot of other things. Nor is it easy to, say in this situation, pull your gun and take out the bad guy. Tunnel vision, stress, panic, guilt, indecision, confusion... It takes extensive training to take on a situation like this. That's why we have POLICE. Plus, LEGALLY using a gun in self defense and merely using a gun in self defense are two VERY different things. Using a gun to defend yourself, is not so simple as merely blowing away the guy trying to jack your car.
I have some questions about this too. Who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government). Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them?
If you truly believe the 2nd Amendment is meant to defend you from the government, then why not advocate for weapons comparable to what the government has, like tanks, drones, fully automatic assault weapons, smart bombs and air craft carriers?
That's part of my point. If the law hasn't been enforced, then any claim of its success is moot. To show success you have to prove causality which would begin with enforcing the law.
Can you also please provide some citations to these cases. It definitely hasn't been heard, and that is most likely due to the fact that it isn't being enforced.
Bless your heart right back, but if you can't enforce a law, and it has no proven or provable compelling reason to infringe on rights, then it is a bad law.
There you go with those psychic powers again. I really threatened you don't I?
Yeah, just saying "economics" doesn't prove your point. How so? What about those "economics" will keep it from working? And MA, isn't as simple as "it didn't work"...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fhealthreform%2Fupload%2F8311.pdf&ei=mTYgUcGnCOSz0QHU-4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNFE_aIyzAq1W_tOubgwAAj7xecnfA&bvm=bv.42553238,d.dmQ
And you think that your personal health experience, which by the way I'm also calling BS on, is somehow applicable to human beings in general because???
Do you know the term attributional bias?
No, it's the people WITH guns. See the difference?
Sarah,
You must be loving this, 100 to 1, keep swinging kid.
This coming from the man who spelled "article" as "articel" and doesn't put an apostrophe or capitalize "I'd".
I swear on my life, you DON'T have to worry about that.
Are you talking about MA, because if you actually clicked on that link it would take you to a scholarly article showing that it isn't the mandate that is the issue. If you really want to know what the problem is, it's the fact that health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.
And you STILL haven't expounded on or answered any of my questions...
And again, you haven't argued anything of actual substance. And you do realize that there is such thing as the long term, right? Why won't costs go down? Why will they go up? Why isn't it off point?
And again...
And I take it, since you don't want the conservative or liberal version of healthcare, and I'm willing to bet you don't want to pay for the uninsured through your premiums, please tell us what IS a good option?
That's typical of close minded thinking. That anybody who sees the importance of inclusion must be part of the population which is excluded. You do realize that the majority of gay rights advocates are straight people, right? Because the majority of people are straight.
A source for that claim, although you haven't substantiated anything else you've said yet, so I won't hold my breath. Also, that still isn't applicable, generalizable or valid. Ergo, it's still bunk.
It isn't just the guns and it isn't just the people. It's the people with guns. People will always do bad things. Guns will always be an expedient way of accomplishing bad things. Put them together and we have a problem. Now we can't regulate "people", so the only option left is to regulate guns to make sure the bad people don't get them.
Myown,
It's almost TOO easy sometimes. ;) Ooops, am I being superior again???
Sarah,
1.19, Its BAD people with guns, that cause gun crimes.
And its sick people with guns, that usually result in GSW suicides, or sadly mass murders.
I like this law for its efficiency, in 1982 it probably cost the city council all of $20 to write up & publish. The criminals are not going to research this like you do Sarah. They just avoid 'that gun town', and crime stays low. Peace through superior public relations about firepower. VERY cost effective.
As to the use of a gun, I believe when directly threatened, the thought is 'better tried by twelve, than carried by six', then 'oh my, I should check with a lawyer'.
Myown,
That's my point, their not even going to know it's the gun town. How many gang bangers do you think know about Kennesaw's gun laws? There's no way to know this works until, first they enforce it, and then they track down potential criminals and ask them why they target Kennesaw. And that would be impossible.
You should always check with your lawyer. Always, always, always. ;)
Sarah,
1.22, Nobody could feel superior swilling boxed wine.
As we are discussing a southern town, time to try Moonshine. lol
Careful, it can spin your eyes in opposite directions.
When Generals are being asked if they would fire on US citizens it is time to worry. When Homeland Security is purchasing more rounds of ammo at a greater rate than the military uses it... it is time to worry. When the president continues to use executive orders to skirt the Congress... it is time to worry. When you have Eric Holder trying to deport a family who fled a country in order to home educate their children (seeking religious freedoms) it is time to worry.
Whether we are a small town, mid~size town or a large town... crime is crime. Although Kennesaw is quote a small town... when you sit this close to a town the size of Atlanta... we are all lumped together as Atlanta...Trust me there are murders and break ins less than 20 miles of my home... but they are OUTSIDE the city of Kennesaw. As far as considering the mental stability of someone coming into my home uninvited.... I DON"T CARE>>>> The click or my weapon will be their warning to turn around and go somewhere else. A person defending their home and property in Kennesaw would be doing it legally. According to the SCOTUS the police are not responsible for protecting your property. See end of page...
We were living in an area where our cars were being targeted with mischief....For years we had a fake camera pointed down on our driveway to discourage tampering with our cars when we lived in a different city. I have no evidence, but the mischief stop. Ever had something on your credit report that wasn't true? How hard is it to prove it wasn't you? It is very difficult to prove something that doesn't happen. If I could afford a tank, I would put my daughter in it to drive in this town. She would be much safer in the traffic.
As far as the SCOTUS challenge... I can't find it, but here is an article concerning it. (I hope that will do.)
This will be my last post concerning this matter. I am sure you will not be satisfied with any other opinion that is different than your own, even if the person giving it LIVES in the city of which you speak about. There is no doubt there are things that could be improved in every city... but at this point... Kennesaw is a nice safe place to live.
June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection.
the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
(1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
Kennesaw,
Those cases aren't about requiring someone to purchase a firearm. They're off point and irrelevant to this city's ordinance. I also don't currently have access to LexisNexis to even be able to ascertain if they're still good law and anything besides a SCOTUS ruling isn't primary or binding. Basically, they mean nothing, especially because they're unrelated.
I'm sure it is a nice, safe place to live, but so are many communities which don't have this law on the books.
You also didn't answer any of the questions that I put forth, but you have a good night too.
Myown,
You'd be surprised. I can feel superior wearing a parrot hat and riding a bicycle off of a dock.
Sarah, 1.24,
Last bit, tsk tsk, getting close to an advert their. lol
First bit, You missed my point, the criminal rumor mill will keep this going til long after we both pass, 'avoid the gun town'. They do not have to enforce it. As I said, Very efficient use of city funds.
Sarah, 1.27,
Ah, ha. So you HAVE tried Moonshine! lol
Clearly, you're BSing again. And you think THIS is me bent out of shape? I've got some ex-boyfriends you should talk to. But just for @!$%#s and giggles, please show me my grammar mistakes.
Here, I'll repost them for you. And I don't think you know what subliminal means.
And again, you haven't argued anything of actual substance. And you do realize that there is such thing as the long term, right? Why won't costs go down? Why will they go up? Why isn't it off point?
That's nothing but the system we have now under insurance and it doesn't address what you do when someone who hasn't paid, and there will be those who won't, needs care. You do realize your "emergency" pool is nothing but insurance, right?
Well, you were wrong, but that doesn't negate the fact that it IS closed minded thinking.
No, you're completely missing the point. I understand you're having a hard time keeping up, so I'll try to make it simpler.
People can be bad. That's half the problem. Guns can make bad easier to accomplish. That's half the problem. Put two halves together, and you get a whole problem. That's why those who say "guns kill" are wrong, and those who say "people kill" are wrong. People with guns kill.
And until gun regulations are universal through the country, they won't work. Because anyone can get a gun anywhere and take it to a city where they're banned.
I mean that really isn't that hard to grasp.
I noticed you didn't provide that source I asked for. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
Myown,
That moment of greatness was compliments of Dr. Jack Daniels.
If we're going to have universal gun laws, I suggest using proven gun laws, such as Switzerland.
Just think of all those machine guns in private citizen's hands, no wonder their rates crime is so low.
Sarah,
I love you and usually agree with you, but, the stats are the same all over the nation, where citizens are armed and the hoods know it they will drive around the place so they do not come into contact for fear.
Look at a map and you will see that Kennesaw is close to Atlanta, then look at the crime stats in Atlanta and ask how could this be? The picture of you and your baby is cute so I want to advise you to not travel to downtown Atlanta after dark.
A few months ago, My nephew was murdered on his front porch in Baton Rouge, LA, two blocks from the University. He was a musician, song writer and a pacifist. His young wife and their three week old baby were just inside the door as he stood outside for a smoke before bed. Two black males approached him from the darkness and demanded to enter his home. He ran for the door and was shot in the back, but he managed to closed the door as he fell dying. His wife and child watched as he bled out while the robbers went through his pockets. We buried him and understood that his only wish was to see his son grow up. He was a good kid, but he died not from the gun, but from the monster that priced a human's life to the contents of his pockets. He was 23 years old.
I have a CHL and spend time at the range. If I would have been there he would be alive and two thugs would be fertilizer as they should. The murderers are still out there to kill again.
When a town is successful in the prevention of senseless murder and terror, why would you question it? If you do not like it , don't move there. But if you might want to feel safe standing in your front yard, do move there of get armed and arm your neighbors. however, a gun is only a tool and if you are unwilling to defend yourself or your loved ones with deadly force, then the brutal truth is that the criminals do not feel your sense of civility. Take a trip to Chicago to the the other end of the Gun Control Spectrum.
Lazarus
myname123: Don't bother trying to argue with Sarah. She already knows everything and therefore has a closed mind. She won't consider the possibility that she doesn't have all the answers much less admit that the answers she has could be incorrect ones. She's perfect in her own mind. She makes up false information and treats it like facts. She is what is referred to as a contentious woman (a steady dripping on a very rainy day).
Sarah: Are you this argumentative with your husband? Feel free to tell me its none of my business. You don't have to tell me. I'm only asking because I'm curious. I don't have to know, and certainly don't have the right to know. Please forgive me if that is too personal.
Government can regulate and this local towns government has regulated that people of the town must be able to protect not only themselves but others. Other towns like Chicago have regulated that people be without personal protection, cuts both ways, but one is an infringement that is not defensible according to the highest court.
When the threat of attack was credible during the founding of this country these laws were enacted and enforced and there purpose wasn't so you could defend yourself, selfish motivations were not the purpose, people were "regulated" to protect others.
myname123: Actually what I addressed to you was intended for her in the hope that she would be "strcken by reality" as you put it. I addressed you because I didn't (and still don't) want her reply to those statements. Far be it from me to keep you from your fun.
What I addressed to her was for the same purpose. I don't mind getting her reply to that. It may tell us all something, especially Sarah.
And she is cute, but cute is only skin deep. Ignorance goes to the core but it can be fixed, even hers, but she will first have to admit (if only to herself) that she doesn't know everything already. Even if she doesn't admit that she doesn't know everything, she would be well advised to stop acting like it.
In any case, thanks, be well, good luck with Sarah, and if you haven't already, get yourself a gun.
On a previous post about that picture, Sarah said that was her older sister siting down.
On a different item. "Well regulated" during that era & usage meant 'well practiced'
Do you two need a moment alone? Nothing like middle aged, creepy dudes on the internet attempting to battle their mid-life crises. What's a matter boys, scared? I don't know everything. I just know more than you guys, and that freaks you out. You're already insecure in your manhood, as is quite clear in your posts, now your panties are in a wad, because a cute, young thing, like myself, makes you look like fools. Let's face it guys, I'm out of your league.
And as interesting as a topic as I am. Myname you've still presented nothing to substantiate anything you've said, nor have you answered the questions that I've asked you in EVERY POST. And Joe, I'm not sure what you've contributed, but thanks for thinking I'm cute. You did get that right.
And, myname, the repost of my questions is in post 1.31, right under I said, "Here I'll repost them for you". Go figure. And I'm still waiting for that source to back up your claim about men going to the doctor.
lighten up folks ..its Georgia ..Mississppi -Alabama-N+S Carolina ... what can you expect from that part of the country ..it certainly isnt brains
I am sitting here within 30 miles of Duke University, NC State (pretty fine Engineering, Design, Ag Research University), and UNC. There are numerous bio-tech firms and high tech communications companies here. Ever heard of Research Triangle Park? Charlotte, NC is the second leading banking center in the US.
Don't know where you live, but if your "knowledge" demonstrates the brain power in that area, you really should shut up before you embarrass your home state further than you already have.
I agree with Sarah-3043284 about begin a negative to forcing citizens to purchase firearm for own protection. There are only two possible reason what this happens in 1982 in kennesaw GA:
1. it's like a wildwest with only one sheriff
2. Or, kennesaw has above average looting problems, and residence like to call the cops for everytime somebody walk onto their property and residence using excuses that they don't have a gun.
3. Or, the town sheriff like to have 5 minutes for a break to eat donuts.
Some people must have missed the part about the law not being enforced, although it is a good law to have should you ever have to use it. As to the issue of criminals avoiding known armed homes/areas, studies have been made in prisons overwhelmingly affirming this. Why risk your life in a town like Kennesaw, when you have the whole city of Atlanta and it's environs to rob, steal, rape and murder in, and the criminals and meth heads know it.
juju.,
The militia laws at the founding of this nation REQUIRED every able bodied male of militia age to OWN & MAINTAIN a weapon of the type and caliber in general use. Basically, something that would fit around the bullets the Army carried, for logistical reasons. Same reason the cops in the same dept use the same caliber weapon.
To own a weapon back then, you had to buy one. No free Obama phones or A/G Holder guns back then. lol.
See post # 1.17 for reason for law/ordinance.
TO THOSE COLLAPSING Sarah's POSTS, KNOCK IT OFF. Just because she doesn't like the 2d A. as you do, is no reason to stomp on the 1st A.
"The pathetic cry-babies who promote banning of any guns are your typical bleeding heart Liberals/Progressives." As opposed to....?
Someone that clearly knows how to pose a rational, literate rebuttal. Probably expects credibility.
Please...
no snarky comments
just watch this and comment if you are in favor of concealed guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
then this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
Sarah,
"And by the way, until we have customs in between every state, town, county, et al,"
This is coming from the woman who once argued that the AZ immigration laws were wrong; compared them to Nazi Germany. "Papers" for immigrants, who may have entered illegally and may be breaking the law is wrong. "Papers" for law-abiding citizens exercizing their 2nd amendment rights is okay, though. Seriously? As others have pointed out, she also argued for ACA. So paying for other peoples' health care is okay, but being expected to protect yourself is out of line. I'm sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the "logic" required to rationalize such a point of view.
Mike,
I wasn't advocating for customs between states. I was making a point showing how, of course, city bans don't work because interstate commerce is free and open. And can you also quote where I said you shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Perhaps you're having such a hard time wrapping your head around my point of view because your brain went from zero to "I hate liberals" in .6 seconds. Of course I'm willing to assume it goes from zero to "I hate everything except guns" in .6 seconds on a regular basis.
Next time, if you actually try reading the arguments and processing them, instead of looking for the ten second answer that feeds your fear and hate mongering, you might just get it.
My college roommate lives in Kennesaw and I have been there several times. First off, it's not a small town. Probably 100,000 people. And it's growing rapidly.
Sarah,
Geez Toots, give it up. You are getting hammered here and not in a good way. LOL! Give it up already! If you don't want to be forced to own a gun then go live in a place where it's difficult to get a gun. Chicago perhaps? LMFAO!!
myownthoughts56,
that's interesting. "The militia laws at the founding" is during a time before independence of USA, where USA was still colonial and under subject of English Law? Furthermore, at that time there was no USA marines or USA army. The only USA army were colonial volunteers themselves. And the militia law is a way to force them to volunteer since the majority already volunteer. So, the militia law is a law to allow for a revolution for independence. Is doesn't seems like the militia law is a law to use to defend own government. A law should only have one interpretation from both sides of the conflict. You mention at the founding, which means USA at the founding is full of conflict indicating that there are two sides to interpret militia law.
Today, we have USA army instead of militia of colonial "volunteers", and we have police person instead of village elders or "chief". There is an evolution in USA that by 1982 that is still not being recognize by law makers in Kennesaw GA? Unless there is spirit of law to re-establish colonial times in Kennesaw Ga? What ever the reason my post #1.45 makes most logical sense.
Bob,
Listen, toots. Personal attacks by over weight, middle aged men, ala the guys above, who resort to baseless strawman arguments and rhetoric, because they have no substance or credibility don't scare me. Nor do over weight middle aged men who think they're Bruce Willis, with their guns (Oh they're so tough, eye roll).
And how about this. If you don't want a gun, fine and if you do want a gun fine. Sounds good to me.
Sarah, you said the ACA will bring down cost...how is that? As of next year I will be dropping my insurance and paying the tax which is much cheaper than the insurance and start using the system for free like everyone else now. If asked how I will pay I will tell them to send the bill to the White House...I sent an insurance payment to them in form of a new tax...I am not paying it for nothing after all...I expect something in return so they can pay the bills now.
As people catch on to this and many will start doing this explain how it will be cheaper please.
As far as the gun thing ...all the people saying the states and sheriffs that say they will refuse to enforce any new gun laws should be arrested and or removed from their jobs...well why should this be any different? States still have the right to make their own laws so as long as the state of Ga. don't object to this law it is perfectly fine. It's not like they are trying to force it on a whole country is it...simply don't move to that town. Nothing to really be upset about is there? If you don't live there why is it even an issue to you?
Sarah won this argument, hands down.
My name, notice that the stronger her arguments became, the more sexist and condescending you became? That old male trick, if you cannot beat a woman and her brains, put her down with sexism. Your daddy taught you well. Also, you have plenty of misused and misspelled words, typos and grammar problems. You might want to hold all comment on Sarah until you clean up your act. And to say that all of this is intentional is crap. BTW: You corrected her *there* with *their*; it should have been *they are*.
Now to the issue, I find it interesting that gun owners scream and yell about their rights to own guns, but do not seem to have much trouble jamming their morality down the throats of people who have no interest in gun ownership. You do not want your rights infringed upon, but will infringe upon those of others. Who is the hypocrite now?
DS,
Because there will be less uninsured seeking treatment, and those who are uninsured will pay through the tax for their care. Which means your premiums will no longer be raised to cover them. And if you make over a certain amount, you won't be able to do that. They'll deny you at the social services office. Not to mention that depending on the state you live in, the increased medicaid coverage might not exist. If you really want to bitch about health costs, then as I said above, start making a stink about why health insurers are exempt from the anti-trust laws. End that, and watch your price come down.
Not to mention that the mandate is not the only aspect of the law. Ceasing to charge per test and preventative care will also bring down costs.
And I'll ask you the same question. If you don't like ACA, the conservative idea, do you like single payer system, the liberal idea? If not what do you suggest, because I'm willing to assume you don't like paying for the uninsured through your premiums?
Salia,
Thanks!
T
Hate to tell you but I did prefer it the way it was...but the fact remains I will be dropping my insurance and taking the cheaper route and just stop paying for service at the ER like everyone else now...that part has not changed. I would have liked to see something that would have helped control the cost...something they totally ignored. What they did is now preventing several Dr.'s from taking on new patients with medicare/aid do to price controls on that. And yes even my family Dr. has already said he will no longer accept new patients from that program and may cut some he already has...he is waiting to see the full effects of the new law for him.
I am not against certain controls but what they did will have no effect and only make thing worse in the long run.
juju,
Geo Washington commanded the Continental ARMY, the states had militias. The USA was formed in 1789, all usa govt 'history' is after that, as were the names US Army & USMC, etc.
As to militia, yes we still have that, males (females too now it would seem) 16 to 60, 18 to 46 and several others. Please look it up in a wiki.
That rant attempting to make a pretzel was just silly. The british crown required militias for its benefit in keeping both the french and Indians out of its colony.
When the crown did NOT like the independent ways of Americans, the redcoats did a little gun control thing called Lexington & Concord where they stole those towns stores of powder. However, the redcoats did pay a considerable price as they strolled back to Boston.
Those redneck farmers, that went to church, turned out to be excellent shots, even the old fat white ones, that voted for a republic(an)./s
The bottom line is, you can have a militia and rules, but their members could change sides.
Like US Army officer Robert E. Lee, gee I wonder what he did after leaving the US Army?
As to the Police, per SCOTUS, no duty to individually protect you.
Responsible for yourself, juju, I suggest the best tool for the job.
Sarah, 1.59,
How about a bit of tort reform, too. (heh heh)
Might cut costs in half.
Myown,
I don't know if we need reform, so much as better ethical control of attorneys. Yes, I know you are shocked. They shouldn't be taking stupid cases. That would solve most problems. That and make settling a case harder. If you sue it should be for justice. Not money.
There is a little bit of idealism left in me. They haven't sucked it all out. Yet.
Sarah, why are you whining about this town's law, the people there have a choice to move elsewhere. Obviously, their law seems to be working well and no one seems to be complaining except you who do not live there. It's their town and their law, like it or leave it.
Tad,
Why are you whining about me whining about it? It's your choice to read my posts or not. They work well for me. How about instead of complaining that I have an opinion, you actually discuss the topic at hand?
Great. Everyone gets a gun, law abiding, criminals, insane. Know how to use it? Who cares. Then I guess you eliminate the police department and let everyone just shoot. Spare me the wild west!
I don't like guns. I don't want a gun. If others want a gun, are trained in using said gun and the storage of it to prevent children from getting it, and get a background check, then I have no objection to them doing so.
What's hilarious in this comments section is how many people have said "Hey libs, don't like this? Then how can you support the ACA?" There are several good arguments as to why this is a very different issue from the ACA, but.. I'll humor you. If you think this is comparable to ACA and you support the gun law in this town.. doesn't that mean (according to your own logic) you should also be in favor of ACA? Doesn't it make you the hypocrite for thinking that they are comparable but that the gun law is okay and ACA is not? I believe you've talked yourselves into a corner here...
Sarah (almost Esq), I am shocked (good thing I don't have a heart condition, lol).
What do you expect from a profession that is never ready, but always 'practicing'. lol
I for one would not feel comfortable living there, any household could be a potential life threat is that what We want, how many unstable people would have access to a firearm?, Yes I know it's not the guns fault but by increasing the number of guns that also would increase the chances of something going wrong. People need to use their brain and NO it was not intended to be used to sit on.
Sarah,
You have tied those guys up in knots, to the point they don't have anything but insults and degrading epithets to hurl at you. That can't come close to debating you on the point of the article, so they just resort to saying "just don't move there, or worse criticize you for mispelling the word there, in their own posts which are replete with errors of all sorts."
The ideal of theirs is a community where gun ownership is required. Taken to its logical extension (vis a vis their arguments against the insurance mandate), is to do away with "government run police protection". Just how do you think they think that is supposed to work? It is laughable, isn't it.
They propose that the solution to our health care crisis is the choice of individual purchase of "emergency pools", which as you point out is nothing but insurance, which Obamacare mandates. I wonder what would happen if the bad guy who gets shot by the good guy in their community goes to the Kennesaw community hospital needing medical care (by the way, far and away represented by the demographic of 18-40 year old males which myname doesn't think ever goes to the hospital unless he's a "hypocondriac liberal"). Since myname doesn't mandate that the bad guy have health insurance, it is likely that he can't pay for his health care. Do you think Kennesaw Mom is okay paying for that guys' care through her own increased medical costs, presuming she has insurance? Or do they advocate just denying the guy medical care altogether?
So in their utopia, what those guys trying to argue with you see is a world where everybody owns guns, good guys get to shoot bad guys, without the need for government run police. Bad guys either die in the streets or the good people of the utopia continue to pick up the tab for the spiraling health care costs of vigilantism.
It is easy to see why you have every right to feel superior to their miniscule intellect.
Sarah-3043284
OMG, the hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly see through it.
"If the government has a compelling reason, it can regulate rights." Well, kind of, sort of, not really. Yes, it is illegal to use your 1st Amendment protection to defame, slander or libel a fellow citizen. Because you are denying or imposing their Rights. It is illegal to use your 2nd Amendment protection, to murder a fellow citizen, because, again, you are denying or imposing their Rights. And so on and so forth. And if you really want to get into 1st Amendment protection, then let's look at regional community decency standards and how the 1st Amendment was used to force communities to accept Adult Entertainment into certain areas. Maybe you need a refresher course on the 1980's court rulings on such things as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. Or maybe you need to watch "The People v. Larry Flint".
So in essence it is Ok to force your ideology upon us, porn, gun control, etc, but to do the reverse is unfathomable? "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect", The Princess Bride.
And since you have absolutely no understanding of firearms, it does me no good to explain what or why I need it. Oh, I know in your mind, you envision the elimination of the single type of gun used at Sandy Hook. The reality is a lot more complicated than that. And since you have no understanding of firearms, who are you to say who needs what? I could just as easily say we don't need health insurance, which is in fact true. Very few people had health insurance until the mid 50's or even into the 60's. It cost my mom $89 ($670 today) for the 5 day stay in the hospital when she gave birth to my older brother in 1960 (she still has the bill)
And I have pages and pages of arguments about the fundamental flaws, the origins of high health care costs, and the state of the health insurance in this country. Suffice it to say, you are incredibly wrong about the ACA. But I will say this at the moment, the root of the problem is Employer Sponsored health insurance. And Obama with the ACA, just cemented it in as the root of the downfall of this country. If we eliminate employer sponsored insurance, and 'Privatize' it like we do home owners or car insurance, one would hope the extra competition would drive the price down, but at least then an individual could get a policy that fits their situation, not just what the employer has to offer.
Except, Why should my Right to choice and privacy be infringed on by not being allowed to purchase something I want, need nor will ever be used illegally?
And I changed mind, not that you will understand this, but maybe it will help.
Why do I need an “Assault Style Rifle”?
Can you tell me when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? Youtube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on Youtube, "Exploding Pumpkins")
But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout I believe their motto, “Always be prepared”. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)
And since you are obviously are not a gun efficiendo. The AR platform is a wonderful hunting rifle system. I have one AR lower with .243 Win. SSM for prairie dog(heavy barrel bench gun), and I was in the process of getting a 6.8mm (light barrel) for deer, .50 Beowolf for wild hogs and .223 for coyotes and just plinking. One firearm, 4 useful guns.
It was cheaper to go this route until the liberals got their panties in a bunch. And believe it or not, some of us gun owners are on a budget.
The AR platform is completely modular. Push out two pins and the “Upper” receiver comes right off. Uppers are available (or they were) in a multitude of cartridges of small, medium and large calibers, for a variety of purposes, from home defense, to hunting, to competition shooting, etc.
The AR15 and The AR10 are not just single purpose "Assault type Firearms", any more. And now maybe you can see why it becomes a very complicated topic when you start talking "banning assault weapons". Because in reality, there is no such thing.
Maybe if you were not so ignorant of the subject, you would not be so intimidated by it. Fear and ignorance are the bases upon which tyranny is built.
Dumb,
You truly live up to your name.
Wow, okay this is civics 101. That infringement on other's people's rights is the uber compelling state reason I gave for regulation of rights. So thanks for agreeing with me. Now, as I said above, there is no compelling reason for this, as there is no credible evidence of it's success. They haven't even enforced it, ergo they have no idea if it worked. And in order to enforce it, they need to know it would work. It's a catch-22. Because if they don't know it works prior to enforcing it, they have no reason to infringe on my choice and privacy.
Okay, never said there is no need for the assault rifle. I said there is no good logical reason that I've heard. And you haven't provided one either. Other then that, can you quote where I said anything about who needs/doesn't need a gun, except in relation to myself?
Then by all means, provide a source to them.
Oh please. Middle aged men playing Rambo. Seriously, your manhoods are so wrapped up in these things you literally freak when they're even questioned.
Says the man who just went on a rant about the possible end of the world and is supporting forced ownership of guns.
Dumb,
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that there is a more immediate need to have a firearm in order to protect yourself from the end of civilization, than there is to have some form of health insurance to protect your financial security in the likelihood of your needing medical care, all because your mom paid $89- to deliver your brother. You truly live up to your moniker (although I am impressed by how much you know about guns, but its kind of a nonsequeter in this debate).
Since you are on a budget (you admit that you can't afford the best assault rifle money can buy), I would advise you to get your priorities straight, before you get admitted to the hospital and burden the rest of society for your health care costs, which have gone up just a wee bit since your mom's obstetrical procedures.
I do agree that employer sponsored insurance is an anachronism dating back to the post WWII days. Unfortunately it was the conservatives who blocked universal health care.
@ Sarah and JohnDom
I am tired of arguing with idiots, I stated my case. Which neither of you two understood. Instead you both jump to outrageous conclusions.
I will say this though, if not for you, then for other who may also read this post.
Sarah, I did not go on a rant about the end of the world. I merely presented possible (POSSIBLE) though not probable scenarios. And I also gave you a very reasonable and logical reason for owning at least the AR platform. And you accuse me of being a middle aged Rambo. Have you ever been in a disaster? Me either. But I have witnessed first hand what people do in the after math (most of it is good, but some of it is not). Remember the Greensburg tornado? Well, even in that tiny little town, there was looting. Several guys from Fort Riley came down, masquerading as National Guard. Now, imagine a disaster that encompasses an entire region. Granted, this is a "what if", but God forbid, what if? And like I said before, I am not that paranoid. It could happen 3 days from now, or 300 years from now. All I know is that it can happen, to deny it, is to live in a fantasy world. And I would like to be prepared, at least some what if it ever does.
And John, at any point did I make that argument? But since you brought it up, how about this scenario. I have no health insurance, a guy breaks in stabs me and steals what few valuables I have, since I have no guns left, or they are locked up, because that is the law. Instead of defending myself, and shooting the intruder, I now have to go to the hospital, and pay huge bills. But to get back on topic, I was making a comparison to Sarah denying me a thing, and I was merely using another thing as example.
But yes, if we did away with health insurance tomorrow, doctors and hospitals would have to come up with some way, no doubt lowering prices, to provide affordable service to people, if they wanted to stay in the business of providing healthcare.
And since you seem so dim witted, I will spell it out for you, 52 years ago, most people paid for their doctor visits out of pocket, and it was affordable for most people to do so, my folks included. It was not until medicare and medicaid, that Doctors began the practice of over-billing. In other words we had health care before we had health care insurance. But I doubt you understand that, as to you, all Government Programs are good, and have no unintended consequences.
I would also venture that you do not understand the genesis of Employer Sponsored health care. And the last thing we need is Government sponsored "Universal Health Care". But you don't understand the pit falls of that either. And even when I showed the irrefutable proof, you would go on believing as you do now, because, for both of you, Liberalism is your Religion, and nothing I say or do will shake that belief.
I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you. (see, I can name call too)
Dumb,
Indeed you did make the argument that your priorities are ensuring your safety against the end of civilization through gun ownership, while at the same time disparaging the utility of purchasing health insurance. Those are your words, I didn't make them up.
Next, nobody is suggesting that you give up your guns, as long as you can prove that you are a responsible gun owner. Sarah's points relate to whether the government can require gun ownership of citizenry, which she has ably provided you with excellent legal arguments for, that you would do well to try and understand .
As far as escalating health care costs: While physicians are a contributor to that equation through all too frequent over-utilization of procedures, so too are a number of other factors such as expensive medical technologies, patients who consume expensive health care in their last few months of life, as well as their families who are reluctant to terminate treatments, provider's fear of litigation resulting in unnecessary procedures, our aging population,etc., etc. What is a fact, however, is that the days of inexpensive health care affordable through out of pocket expenses are a thing of the past. (That is why I once again advise you to give up a few of those magazine clips or the latest and greatest firearm purchase and go out and get some health insurance, if you really want to take care of your true risks). More is expected of health care providers than ever before, and with that comes increased expense. The solution to this problem is complex, requiring a change of practice by providers, payers, and consumers of healthcare, not just "doctors lowering prices." To think that "doctors" can figure out a way to lower health care costs is to suggest that a physician practicing in the 21st century, perform according to 1960s standards. I don't think that if you had to go to the ER with the worst headache of your life, you would be too happy if that physician didn't order a CT scan, just so that we could keep costs low, or if there were a significant problem, that you weren't treated by a specialist in neurology or neurosurgery, for example. These kinds of diagnostic and therapeutic options just weren't as available or expected back in those days that you are nostalgic for.
Medicare (ie universal health care for the elderly) was developed in order to make sure seniors had access to healthcare with the growing cost pressures in healthcare already beginning to occur in the 1960s. And since this program has been in existence for about a half a century now, contrary to what you have accused, we all are certainly familiar with the popularity of that program, its strengths, as well as its shortcomings. It is a fact that medicare costs and Veterans Hospital Administration costs have risen significantly more slowly than private insurance costs, and are extremely popular nonetheless . These entities can do this because they can establish best practice models through analysis of what works and what doesn't over large population groups,and enforce the delivery of health care according to those established metrics. That is why liberals like me conclude that this program is a optimal to a. provide healthcare for all of our citizenry as we so successfully do for our seniors and veterans, and b. provide it in such a way that we can have an entity capable of bending the cost curve in a way more effective than private pay entities. It is impossible to design a perfect health care delivery model in this post, and in no way am I suggesting that private, fee for service models be completely discarded for those who seek it and can afford it.
And one more thing, regarding your home breakin scenario,
Get Homeowners Insurance!
Wow i post a smart-assed comment and it gets noticed like it's almost a hit. I post actual facts on any newsvine thread though and I'm instantly collapsed of get in trouble with the moderators. What the hell???
Sarah,
i assume that you haven't done in looking into the law in Kennesaw, Ga just like a great number of other folks here haven't either. check out (b). you can exempt yourself from this law by just saying that you don't believe that folks ought to own a firearm. its not like this law is enforced anyways. please, go educate yourself on some of the subjects that you wish to discuss
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
I would not see the problem, if the town wanted to purchace the guns for everyone.
Idiotic suggestion, don't you think? Or is it that you don't know how to think?
Whether they force you to buy a gun, or the town buys it for you, you are still paying for it. Where the heck do you think the town would get the money for buying the gun? They'll have to raise everyone's taxes.
Aren't conservatives pushing some sort of "it's unconstitutional for the government to force commerce"???
How is this different?
@ myname123
I suggest that you overestimate your understanding of things and, very typical for one who denigrates "liberals", underestimate those who disagree with you. The reality is that right now, without the ACA, everyone is already paying for the uninsured. Do you really not understand that? The uninsured won't get turned away and the hospital won't lose money so guess what happens...the rates for insured and cash payers goes up to cover it. That's part of the spiraling healthcare cost problem. The premise behind the ACA is to have EVERYONE insured so you only pay for yourself. You insult the understanding of liberals and yet you either fail to comprehend this basic fact or choose to play stupid and ignore it. Which is it, BTW. Are you stupid or just acting? The ACA is pretty complex. Maybe you should stop throwing rocks at "liberals" to understand that law.
boooooom !!!!!!! hit on the head, thank you
The law isn't enforced means they know they can't enforce it because it is wrong and will surly come tumbling down somewhere in the appeals process. Buying a gun and health care have about as much in common as Neo Nazism and Jerusalem.
If the can force you to buy a gun maybe they should force you to buy something productive like a house.
Do you think most people that do not have insurance now, but are going to be required to buy it can afford it? The cost will come from the middle class and above as it always does. It is not a party problem, we will all pay for it one way or another.
You might be surprised at how many people in our towns, not cities, own firearms....plus they know how to use them...don't mess with rural america...
What of those with children in the home that consider the presence of firearms more of a danger than a deterrent?
Please...
no snarky comments
just watch this and comment if you are in favor of concealed guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
then this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
SDN,If you own firearms and have children, lock them in a safe. Wilson, good plan, now go away.
@ RI MOM
yes, what a compelling comment, and now go watch some videos on all the places where no one was armed, and get back to us.
idiot, snark
RI mom, I watched that show when it aired, It didn't take long to figure out it was a setup. The only thing that was correct is you should take some genuine firearms training. Some kid shooting an airsoft isn't training. The firearms instructor knew where the armed person was sitting. The kid never practiced drawing from under a huge T-shirt. Then the kid immediately jumps up and dances around the room tugging at his clothes instead of taking cover while drawing his gun. This was a propaganda stunt designed to sway opinion of people that don't know any better.
Interesting video, but I can't help but notice that the "active shooter" in this scenario almost immediately starts to track and shoot at the armed student after shooting the orator. He knows which student is armed and so, conciously or not, singles him/her out for attack over any other target first. Missing from this video also the truth that this happens to many "trained" law enforcement officers as well. It wasn't long ago that police officers in New York shot innocent bystanders and numerous inanimate objects in the course of trying to apprehend a suspect. I appreciate that the video shows the reality of stress and that firearms are not magic wands to protect us from all the worlds evils. Like most topics, the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle and the voices found at the polar ends of the argument, while often the loudest, are also often the least reasonable.
What's wrong with you anti gun posters? The law was largely symbolic. The city never actually forced anyone to purchase a gun and certainly never penalized anyone for not having a gun.
Puh-leeze. What's kept modern invaders out of Switzerland is equal-opportunity secret bank accounts. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that those "able-bodied males" could have held off the Wehrmact if Hitler had really wanted to send tanks into the middle of Geneva???? The Nazis wanted to keep the country intact so they could stash billions in stolen assets for retrieval after the war.
And don't forget that by being part of the army the Swiss form a well-trained militia - you know, the clause in the Second Amendment that's so conveniently overlooked ... They're all trained by experts and have to keep their weapons secure. It's hardly going to the Swiss version of Wal-Mart for a huntin' rifle.
Turn off Fox and put away your DVD of Red Dawn. You'll feel better.
Actually, what's kept moder invaders out of Switzerland is the Alps.
but, mr. willy (i think your name is very telling and just a little arogant...not impressed), with all this hoopla over guns, the city COULD enforce the law. isn't that what all the gun enthusiasts are demanding? that we enforce our laws, not change them? i would be the first in jail. i don't care if you own a gun, that's you're right, but there is nothing in the constitution that says a town can force me to own one. I DON'T LIKE GUNS!!!!! that's my right! i live by a set of values that would not allow me to kill another human being. if that means i may someday die at the hand of another, so be it. i accept my fate. but, i am a christian and jesus taught us to LOVE another and the FORGIVE one another and to TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. i can't help what some crazy person or evil person might do, that's their karma. you have yours. you're sooooooooooooo incensed that someone might take away your right to own your phalic symbol, but you don't seem at all bothered by the idea of taking away other peoples' rights to let's see, lives their private lives as they choose without interference from the government-talking about gays and women. you kow what i mean. people on the right need to decide what you really want-a totalitarian government that big brother watches you and forces you to live your life in ignorance using censorship of media, control over sexuality and body? oh, but you can own a gun. i want a government that is there to protect us from invaders (we have military and national guard for that), protect interstate commerce (so the rich to do prey upon the poor), maintain the general welfare (healthcare, which by the way, if we had voted for the public option, even the very poor could afford healthcare, but noooooooooo, that was a liberal idea...after it was a republican idea ten years ago.). obama is NOT trying to turn this country into a dictatorship, that's a right wing lie. he is NOT planning on having implants put in everyone, that's a right wingnut conspiracy. he is NOT going to have the authorities come to your house and confiscate your precious killing machines, that is an nra propaganda lie. my god, how do you people manage to function with all these horrific conspiracies floating around in your head? but, the republicans have openly attempted, not once but over and over to pass laws limiting a woman's right to do what she chooses with her own body. they have spent more time in congress trying to take away the rights of women to even get birth control than they have anything else. they have openly, with malice and forethought, bought into the right wing conservative ideal that homosexuality is evil and should be illegal even as more and more people are becoming enlightened to the belief and it is not our place to judge people for their choices and that all civil rights are equal in importance. our children and their children will give no more credence to banning gays than we think of banning blacks from living freely today(it has been in the lifetime of many of us that blacks were NOT allowed to live their lives freely, so don't think i'm making wrong comparisons).
gun ownership should be a choice. just like freedom of religion. if anyone is trying to turn our country into a dictatorship, it is the right who wants to make this a theocracy, not a democracy. you can't have true freedom if the church is running the show, our founding fathers knew that. and if you want to be picky, i guess you could say that owning a flitlock is all they meant when they said owning arms. so, maybe that's the only kind of weapon we should allow people to own. HA!
I notice that this is a REALLY short article in favor of gun ownership. But when NBC news publishes an article against gun ownership it runs on and on. Way to slant that news reporting!
Thomas Blue...The uninsured still will not get turned away even with the ACA and with the tax being cheaper than the insurance I think you will find many going uninsured now to take the cheaper route. I have already made that decision for next year. It will be cheaper for my family and I to pay the tax and use the system for free than pay the insurance and Ded. every year. The only way I could have maybe agreed with the ACA is if they disallowed people from using the system anymore without insurance which they did not do...what they did is make it cheaper to not have insurance and use it for free.
If the need ever arose that something serious happened I could always buy the insurance on a as needed basis month by month since pre-existing conditions no longer matter. I someone in my family needed a surgery for example by the insurance for the month of the surgery and drop it as soon as the need is done.
What these yahoos who love guns so much forget, is that most of your town doesn't know how to clean, store, and properly use guns. They also think that any time they use them on their own property that they are in the right. FAT CHANCE!!! And NO industry in the USA is less patriotic then the gun manufacturers and gun stores. WHY??? Because if these industry people cared so much about their country, and the people who make up its citizens, they wouldn't sell as many guns as they do, especially to the insane, the underage, and those with PTSD, etc..
Thomas Blue said...."The uninsured won't get turned away...." Well that is a far cry from good full coverage health insurance. I am unemployed and broke, and cut my hand badly on a saw. Emergency room cleaned it and offered to close the wound. But they would not reattach the ligaments to make my thumb operate..so I would have been crippled and had to apply for some kind of government help to survive or retrain to do one handed work. A graphic artist and set builder isn't much good if he can't hold tools. I did have the surgery..being very lucky that family helped pay so I had an operable thumb And a car. But no coverage for the month of not being ble to work and 6 months of therapy. "Fortunately" I was unemployed..so didn't lose a job from it..but could have lost everything from losing a job or not operating my own business, etc.
On the actual gun issue..Switzerland has the same law now for many years. Check their gun related death stats and Kennesaw numbers. I have enough guns for my neighbors if they can't afford one...but they do too..so ..we don't need the government telling us to arm, or not to arm..the Consitution did that.
..and a car... I was going to have to sell my car to pay the surgeon.
Wow. Just Wow. No one pays for their medical care on their own unless they ae paying themselves. Whether Obama Care or straight insurance. Unless you have personally paid over $35,000 into your insurance of any form you are not covering even one short simple hosptial stay. Insurance only works because more people pay in than use the insurance. For a family of four you must pay $140,000 before you have covered one short, simple, non-operation, very few tests, hospital stay for each member of your family. The more people use insurance the higher the premiums go because there isn't enough in the systme to pay for everyone. If you have insurance you are paying for your fellow insureds total cost. I agree with the person who likes the idea of putting his own money aside and avoiding insurance all together.
I am a liberal, it would seem, and I am opposed to ObamaCare for the same reason that I oppose the law in this Georgia town. I object to the government forcing me to buy anything whether it be a gun or insurance. I am not opposed to the govenment requiring me to have a license to drive, own a gun, or practice medicine. Just don't force me to own a car, own a gun or become a doctor.
ChrisWanker
Because the difference is this is local government, not the Federal Government. And the Federal Government has specific limitations placed on by the Constitution. Limits that are not placed on state or local governments.
But if you truly understood the Constitution, the creation of the Federal Government, and its true relationship to the States and the People, you would not ask such an asinine question.
It also protected them from meteor strikes, redirecting the fiery ball to Siberia!
And dumb farm boy is indeed his moniker. There are very few specific clauses that are limited only to the Federal Government which State and Local can disregard at will. Still, its the most delicious bit of hypocrisy that a town requires everyone have a gun so that they may protect themselves from the tyranny of health care.
Ray Setzer
This is true, but if you reference the 10th Amendment, anything not spelled out in the US Constitution, limits placed on either the Federal or State Governments, is reserved to the State or the People.
Which is why it is OK for a State to mandate certain things, so long as it does not violate so called Civil Rights. And since it is a Right to own (Keep and Bear) arms, then it is not a violation to require ownership. And as so many of you like to point out, it is also covered under many of the States Constitutions and their "Militia" Clauses.
I do have a problem with the Federal Government dictating to me though, regardless what the SCOTUS says, that in order to be a US Citizen, I must purchase Health Insurance. As I have pointed out before to many liberals, if you don't like the way the country is headed, move to a region that already has the laws you like. And in this case if someone does not like owning a gun, they can move. But they would still be a US citizen. Where can I move to that the ACA does not effect me? And I still retain the Right to keep Arms?
crime rate vs guns .. no one wants to go there. Hysterical Gun-a-phobic sheep can only sing one course of the anti-everything that don't taste like kool-aid.
You only need to look around the World to see how lucky we are to be in the only free country.
What use is it to be willing to DIE in the fight for freedom if that's ALL you can do?
Good points, warrren.
Dieing for freedom doesn't win your freedom. It's making the ones trying to take your freedom die that wins it.
Joe s.,
It was in the movie 'Patton' "If you want to win. You make the enemy die for his country". Or words close to that.
Canada, England, France, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Spain, Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil.....
It isn't the gun control advocates that won't address the issue, it is the pro-gun lobby and the NRA. For yeas, Congress has refused to allow the CDC to study the issue of gun violence. Why is that?
Until there are real studies, claims like the ones made in Kennesaw are just anecdotes because it just as easy to find a town in a state with stricter gun laws that is just as safe, if not safer.
warrren:
"Hysterical Gun-a-phobic sheep can only sing one course of the anti-everything that don't taste like kool-aid."
More brilliance. One wonders who, exactly, writes such tripe, and whom endorses it?
As if someone with such thoughts, and expressions, is in any position to join a rational discussion. They have no idea that what they think and what they feel are two, completely different dynamics. Probably don't recognize the difference between 'want' and 'need' either. That would explain the $50k pickup, the extensive arsenal, and no college tuition for the kid.
Out nation is infested with dimbulbs - make no mistake.
Touche! Well said.
Barry-NJ,
If there are "no real studies" that show a relationship between gun laws and violence, how can you claim that it is "just as easy to find a town in a state with stricter gun laws that is just as safe, if not safer"? Sounds like wishful thinking. A study that needs to be done, is to calculate how many people have been murdered, assaulted, and/or robbed and/or raped HAD NO GUN to protect themselves or were NOT protected by SOMEONE WHO HAD A GUN. Now, THAT would be study!
I have a pickup. I don't have an arsenal, no AR, just a shotgun and a pistol. But all three kids went to college with assistance from mom and dad. No handouts from the Santa Clause government. If people want to own an AR or AK, I don't care, whether they "NEED" it or not. You don't 'need" 75% of the junk you have now. All anyone really needs is shelter and food.
Barry, just because the CDC hasn't done a study doesn't mean no one else has. The trick is to find studies that aren't biased by the agenda of who commissioned the studies. You can pretty much bet that you can throw out any study sponsored by the NRA, along with anything sponsored by Hand Gun Control. But if you want to look at "official numbers, go look at the FBI's crime statistics - Look at Table 20 to see how many people were murdered and how.
For those asking why someone needs an assult style weapon let me ask this...Why are you on here posting? You don't NEED a computer. Why do you NEED a cell phone? Heck you don't even NEED a vehicle...God gave you feet for a reason.
I really don't care what they do with the gun laws to be honest...I have what I want for hunting and plenty of ammo for all of them to last a long time so no skin off my nose but quit yelling about needs. Give up everything you don't need before asking people to give up what they don't need.
As I have said before...I will support most any weapons ban as long as the ban also applies to the entertainment industry. Not good for the general population the don't show it on tv./movies or video games as well.Any movie with a banned weapon must be banned for sale in the US as soon as the law is in effect. Many in the entertainment industry are in support of these bans...lets see how they would support this idea. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak.
How can I claim that? Because, in a country of this size, it is almost always possible to find ONE example in support of any position. But, what matters is statistics, not individual cases or towns.
And, that study needs to include deaths (accidents, homicides, suicides) that occurred because a gun was present. That's why we need the CDC (not the FBI) to do that. They know how to do health-related studies.
I was watching Mark Kelly this morning. I do truly empathize with him, Congress Woman Giffords, and all who have gone through the pain of losing anyone to violence. I have lost loved ones to gun violence.
With that said, I'm all for background checks, without question. However, I disagree with his statement that in essence said "these background checks will go a long way to keep guns out of criminals hands". That is how I heard his statement. Did I hear what he said wrong?
I'm pretty certain that criminals and especially violent criminals don't care about background checks. If these criminals cared about the law, they would not be criminals. Right?
In writing this new law, what exactly will a person have to present, prove, and pass the background check? If having to provide personal medical information is part of that requirement, I feel there are some very real and compelling legal issues with it being able to be a part of the law. HIPA, Doctor - Patient confidentiality. I'm not sure how to actually put it but, I think the ACLU and others are going to have a real problem with this.
What Say?
Sarah,
You have tied those guys up in knots, to the point they don't have anything but insults and degrading epithets to hurl at you. That can't come close to debating you on the point of the article, so they just resort to saying "just don't move there, or worse criticize you for mispelling the word there, in their own posts which are replete with errors of all sorts."
The ideal of theirs is a community where gun ownership is required. Taken to its logical extension (vis a vis their arguments against the insurance mandate), is to do away with "government run police protection". Just how do you think they think that is supposed to work? It is laughable, isn't it.
They propose that the solution to our health care crisis is the choice of individual purchase of "emergency pools", which as you point out is nothing but insurance, which Obamacare mandates. I wonder what would happen if the bad guy who gets shot by the good guy in their community goes to the Kennesaw community hospital needing medical care (by the way, far and away represented by the demographic of 18-40 year old males which myname doesn't think ever goes to the hospital unless he's a "hypocondriac liberal"). Since myname doesn't mandate that the bad guy have health insurance, it is likely that he can't pay for his health care. Do you think Kennesaw Mom is okay paying for that guys' care through her own increased medical costs, presuming she has insurance? Or do they advocate just denying the guy medical care altogether?
So in their utopia, what those guys trying to argue with you see is a world where everybody owns guns, good guys get to shoot bad guys, without the need for government run police. Bad guys either die in the streets or the good people of the utopia continue to pick up the tab for the spiraling health care costs of vigilantism.
It is easy to see why you have every right to feel superior to their miniscule intellect.
How can I claim that? Because, in a country of this size, it is almost always possible to find ONE example in support of any position. But, what matters is statistics, not individual cases or towns.
And, that study needs to include deaths (accidents, homicides, suicides) that occurred because a gun was present. That's why we need the CDC (not the FBI) to do that. They know how to do health-related studies.
GOOD LORD FOLKS..REALLY ? Compare the gun related crime and injury stats in Kennesaw before and after the gun law..too simple ?
And to use one inept Govt. agency instead of another is rediculous..neither gives a damn if they do a good job and are accurate..just that they do enough to keep their job. Then they report to some crooked politician who burries or highlights his agenda supporting numbers. The whole reason we have guns ( the constitution..remember ) is to protect ourselves from crime and tyranny. Anyone using it for an unlawful purpose should be welded into a cage and deported to some damn island prison. Crap laws and judges, lawyers who just don't give a damn about the society they live in..that's the problem.
My family has owned multiple guns of all kinds for generations. My dad worked for the US Marshall service, my grandad fought under Capt. Harry Truman in the trenches of France in WWI. I still own my great great grandfather's sword from Germany before he had a gun. None have ever been used for anything but protection, hunting and sport. Stop blaming crime and criminals on the gun under my bed. It's the criminal !!!! To blame it on my pipe wrench, hammer, baseball bat, kitchen knife,.. would be as stupid...people have used those in crimes too.
The constitution says you Can..the governing politicians who believe what they see on the mainstream media, should not change that..for..or against.
Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense.
Each such individual is required to keep his ARMY-ISSUED personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was SEALED AND INSPECTED REGULARLY TO ENSURE THAT NO UNAUTHORIZED USE HAD TAKEN PLACE.
In other words, all the guns are registered and licensed to each individual and all ammunition is very, very tightly controlled and regulated by the militia (military) on behalf of the government on behalf of the people.
You people are truly ignorant, lack any iota of critical thinking skills and basic ability to reason, it is very scary that you are allowed to vote in America.
The primary problem in America today is ignorant. All these anti-this and anti-that posts, anti your own president (that is historically very conservative by any measure if you had brain), anti helping yourself even, ... just scary.
Switzerland is not invaded because they are Neutral, folks. Neutral. That means they don't take sides in international affairs. That's why all the banking goes on there, it is neutral territory. Any country invading them is commiting an internationaly recognized crime and all other countries are commited to responding to an attack upon Switzerland. They aren't safe because of their guns, they are safe because they are neutral. As to the effect of everyone having their military kit at home, I really don't know. I can only assume that there is no crime at all in Switzerland since according to people here every male over 18 is outfitted for the military. Minimart hold-ups must be very interesting there. (that's an LOL moment)
So no one will answer me on what will happen with dr / patient privledges & or HIPA?
Yes, it is too simple. You also have to factor in state and national crime trends, demographic changes and so forth. Again, you need experts.
How will your AR-15 protect you against tyranny?
Yeah, and neutrality worked out so well for Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. It wasn't invaded in WWII because having a neutral Switzerland suited German interests and it isn't invaded today because it is surrounded by friendly neighbors. No country MUST defend another.
Alec., re:3.17
Yes, the Army issued tin must be sealed and kept ready. However, the citizen can purchase all the ammo they can afford, at gun stores, or much cheaper at the gun ranges, of which they have many. Also, there is NO restriction upon those members or honorable former members of the militia from purchasing their own machine guns. I have Swiss friends that have done exactly that.
Please note, it is NOT the Army that issues the 'official' ammo. It is the Canton/state, as Switzerland is a confederation, the states hold the majority of the power, not the central govt.
Example, the singer, Tina Tuner, is becoming a Swiss citizen after being approved by the Swiss central govt AND the Canton/state in which she resides. It would be as if our Feds-INS and the state of Iowa would have had to approve your naturalization.
The Swiss do not trust a strong central govt, standing army, or national president. The Swiss like to keep govt power close to home and hearth, in their Cantons.
It's a nice town, with polite people and SAFE. So fu*k Obama and Gun Control advocates
Then we can deduce that you live elsewhere?
Nice name. Boozer. Say's alot about you. There's alot of people out there with guns that shouldn't own a water pistol. Don't you think?
Yes, there are many people who shouldn't even own a water pistol. But that's not me. Why do you libs want to punish me and the millions of other gun owners who haven't and won't do anything wrong with a gun?
I have been there. It seems like a great town and I wouldn't mind living there with my guns.
2nd Amendment: The original "Homeland Security".
This is old news. If I remember correctly one town banned guns and in response Kennesaw mandated guns. I do remember a story about the two years later. The town banning guns had become a crime ridden cesspool, while Kennesaw had flourished.
Agree
Sarah-3043284,
I do not wish to engage in any debate but may I provide a copy of Kennesaw's "Gun Law" simply for your education. Pay close attention to paragraph (b)
Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Good post, Tim. That provides much clarity and perspective.
seems reasonable to me...Also, is it just me or are there less stories about 'road rage' now? Maybe it's the short attention span of the press but, I wonder if it's the fact that 49 states now allow concealed carry...
So now you're advocating shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic? That's what scares me the most about so many of you gun advocates: you have the shoot now ask questions later mentality.
Tim,
I still don't get the point of the law. It's basically saying the government will force you to do something, unless you don't want to or are forwbidden by other laws from doing it. Again, what is the point of the law?? If you want to do it, you already have, and if you don't want to, you wont'! It really is an example of a conservative government in a convervative town trying to make a pointless conservative law. I thought conservatives wanted less government intrusion on our lives and beliefs! Oh, wait, that has been disproven before-definition of the government contract of marriage, reproductive rights, prayer in public schools, teaching creationism in public schools , etc etc etc.
the libs don't know what to do with this article. Must be a bush conspiracy. Oh, I forgot..obama can now force you to buy health care or take your house through tax foreclosure. The libs have trouble reconciling
The libs will force me to buy health care. That sounds like Freedom to me!
Sorry Jolly, and Bob,
This law goes against the very defintiion of conservatism, does it not? It's a pointless, unenforceable, ridden with loopholes, intrusive into private lives GOVERNMENT action. Of, but it's okay with you because it's about guns? I suppose forcing religious beliefs and practices onto people is ok with you too?
Sarah,
I do not wish to debate. Allow me to provide Kennesaw's "gun law" so you might be more educated for your debating. Pay particularly close attention to paragraph (b).
Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Tim : You are saying that in order to live in this town, by law you MUST own/maintain a Firearm ? I am a gun owner, so I am not one of those who wish the 2nd Amendment to go be trampled on. However I also respect those who do not wish to own/maintain fire arms. This is a free country ! Please see my comment below.
Read the last line: those "who concientiously oppose maintaining firearms" are exempted from the law.
Then what is the point of the law, conscientiously speaking of course? It sounds to me that it's just a "Hurray for Guns!" statement.
culheath....
Crime in the town was growing as Atlanta was growing and the "problems" of Atlanta was expanding beyond it's borders into the suburban areas.
The town couldn't afford to increase the police force and maintain other services. They used this ordinance to send a message. And it worked.
Crime decreased after passage of the law. Even though when it was adopted, the town leaders indicated they never intended to enforce it, the scumbags didn't know who obeyed the law and who didn't. Would YOU be willing to take the chance that you might run into the one that did?
That is the way it is everywhere. If someone wants to B&E they don't know what they'll find inside. All they have to do is watch your house for awhile to know if anyone is home or not, so your argument is invalid. Also, it has been proven a gun in the house is much more likely to kill an inhabitant of that house then an intruder. Also. where are all those street guns coming from? There being stolen from the homes of all those "law-abiding" citizens. What was the guy who shot all those kids the day before he did it? A "law-abiding" citizen. It sure doesn't give me much faith in all those "law-abiding" citizens.
"The guy who shot all those kids" was also so mentally ill his mother didn't leave him alone. Again, see paragraph b.
Rexford Moose
That guy was a paranoid schirzophrenic sociopath.
He HAD a history that everyone ignored. Like almost ALL of the incidents lately. There were MANY warning signs, but those that saw them looked the other way. It's so much easier to NOT get involved, and to just say after the fact; "How did this happen?"
Tim,
Thank you for clarifying the "gun law" much different than what many thought it meant.
To all those arguing against any gun laws ~ The article also stated the law had never been enforced so it would be hard to use the stats regarding low crime rate. How many households have guns vs population of said town? Just take a drive through Kennesaw down the interstate LOL you can be run down by all these law abiding citizens in their rush to get somewhere anywhere fast. Would hate to see them with a gun in their possession LOL
From what I have read from possible "new gun bans" no one has to worry most do not include any retroactive bans so all who have stock piled will still have their toys to play with. As a nation we are truly regressing ~ back to the Wild West Days. Don't ever argue with anyone on the street with all the Stand your ground laws now in effect they may shoot you and claim self defense. It is not about good guys with a gun it will be who is the best shot.. Don't even talk about economic progress no one will want to venture out into our Wild West & Tourists from other countries? why would they want to come to the U.S.? much safer to travel to Canada or Europe. Ask yourself when was the last time you needed a semi auto to defend yourself? People talk of criminals buying on the black market? there is no need they can purchase them locally at the flea market or better yet online. There is no black market it is in your own backyard. Really sad ~ to see our country regressing. I say ban all semi automatics and make it retroactive .
NC.,
The regression you should be talking about, is govt not trusting the Citizenry. Remember the british crown didn't trust the people of Lexington & Concord, sort of gun control 1776 style.
A member of the govt, elected, appointed, employed, or contracted, that distrusts the Citizenry, is unworthy of their position and has betrayed the people.
Fortunately, we have the (DOI) Declaration of Independence & the right " to alter or abolish" as WE THE PEOPLE see fit.
Best of all, Judges, Lawyers, Politicians, and all the rest of govt do NOT have any right to interpret the DOI.
Such an attempt is to usurp the people's authority, it IS treason against the people, for which there is only one penalty.
We ALLOW those in govt ONLY to look upon the lesser documents such as the constitution, laws, regulations and such.
The govt types could never understand the DOI, nor their status as a step below the people.
NC - what 'on line' site allows the purchase of semi-automatic weapons?
Hello myownthoughts56,
Ok compare your argument against the Govt. telling us what to do with guns compare that to abortion? or end of life rights? I do not see anything in the DOI that states someone can tell a US citizen what to do with their own body or life. You see many right wingers want to stop access to abortion or end of life matters and yet will allow unlimited number of guns to be had. An abortion or end of life matters affect one person ~ a semi auto can take take out numerous people that had NO Choice,
The people have no choice ~ it all depends on which Senator has the most money.. The majority of Americans want better more sane gun laws and ?? who is winning? The NRA? What is wrong with Universal gun background checks? How would that hurt anyone?
If anyone really listened to President Obama's State of the Union ~ he only used logic by wanting our country to progress and improve. Each idea was to improve our life here in the US. He spoke of building our infrastructure ~ sane gun laws ~ better education ~ min. wage increase for those struggling to survive ~ insurance for everyone ~ (rather than the emergency room treaments for the poor ~ Did you hear anything in that speech that would make life worse for you? OH yeah and why not change our fuel dependence? Why are we still driving cars with oil? Do we not have the technology to improve our transportation? I think we have been driving on oil for over a hundred years now ~Time to change that. Check it out the Keystone pipeline would deliver oil to the coast of Texas to be shipped OUT OF THIS COUNTRY So we ruin miles of pristine heartland to ship oil to Korea , China ~ by the way that pristine heartland is where your food comes from. Food at the moment free from the taste of spilled oil. Just ask MI they are still cleaning up from the last keystone spill ruined their river and housing area.
People only call out the liberals because they see them as trying to improve our country. Those who wish to remain stagnant in the past from the extreme right wing. What happened to WE THE PEOPLE?
Voter56,
The name escapes me but there are more than a few online gun sites where anyone can advertise guns for sale. Private sales no background checks. People have admitted to selling guns to questionable people for extra money. That is one reason for closing the gun sales loop holes" Private sales are exempt from any background check. Sales at Flea markets do not require background checks. So as I stated where is the "black market"? anyone can buy a gun through a private sale.
NC2012,
First, federal law required that all semi-automatic weapons be processed through federal firearm licensed (FFL) dealer. The websites of which you speak where a person may post to sell his firearm are just for advertising. The sale must go through a local FFL dealer for completion of the background check. This requirement is already the law. As to your your point that people have admitted to selling outside this requirement for a few dollars more, that may be true, but it is still and already against the law. There is no "loophole" rather it is just people selling on the black market, which you cannot stop with another law, but only by enforcing the law already in place.
Next, to your question about what would "universal background checks" hurt? Well, in principle, nothing, as that is already the law for semi-autos. But do we really need such a requirement for transferring a shotgun or hunting rifle to a family member? I think not. More to the point, Obama wants to put registration of all firearms in public records. This is dangerous. Perhaps you saw a few weeks ago, right after the Newtown incident, a person went into the public records and posted the addresses of all registered gun owner in the New York area on google maps. Now, at first glance, one might say "Where is the harm in that, if they are proud gun owners?" Well you are violating that individuals right of privacy and broadcasting the contents of his household to criminals. Would you want information of what flat screen TV you own or jewelry in your house to be put on google maps? Furthermore, it also broadcasts what households are likely unarmed so a would be burglary known where the most vulnerable of citizens live. So you see, this dissemination of private information can be dangerous. We do not need more laws, only to enforce the ones we have and punish those who break them.
NC.,
OK, the basics,
DOI establishes the people, individually and collectively as the sovereign (we had stripped that from king Geo 3). And sovereigns get to do all that they want, like forming nations or writing constitutions.
Constitution is authority for a govt system for the common defense & welfare, BY THE PEOPLE. It provides for LIMITED federal authority with all other authority reserved to the states & people.
That is why only states issue marriage licenses and only the feds have a navy. In the original constitution & bill of rights the feds only had 17 items of authority, with the 16th A. adding an 18 th item (if I remember correctly).
The items such as guns, speech, press, and other freedoms are within the constitution, as it has nothing to do with taking sovereignty for ones self. As to abortion, it is a 'found' freedom by SCOTUS and not written within the constitution. As to US Citizens and their rights, those could only be found in the constitution as IT formed our federal republic. Prior to that we had a confederation (no, not the csa).
As to the unlawful taking of human life, that is called crime. We punish the criminal, not the good citizen. As the british crown attempted to do. But that worked out well for us, maybe we should encourage the current crop of statists to over reach as geo3 did. lol.
As to 'sane gun laws', most sane citizens do not trust our govt. For good reason, the best govt money can buy. Much as you wrote. However, as the courts have held that the police have no duty to the individual. The individual must protect themselves, that means guns.
But, I will offer a compromise. A constitutional amendment, that will strip all law abiding citizens of all guns, And establish a list of anti gun people. Every time a former gun owner is hurt or killed as a crime victim, one of those anti gun people will be shot dead by the govt. If the anti gun people list ever drops to zero. The Feds have to issue real assault weapons to any and all good citizens for their life time. Oh yes, the anti gun people listing is voluntary. As one turns 18 yo you choose a side, pro or anti gun list. Think of it as the ultimate IQ test.
So, NC, can we sign you up?
love the way you think, lets start a civil war over the issue of gun control, be safer for everyone who survives the battles. hope you make it.
If we started a civil war over the issue of gun control, do you think the people who own guns would prevail?
Or would those people who conscientiously object to gun ownership suddenly change their minds?
NC, if you never fought for freedom then you just don't understand what the 2nd Amendment is all about. At this point the feds are taking rights away from law abiding citizens and giving unearned rights to illegal imigrants.
The 2nd Amendment: America's original " Homeland Security ".
MD,
I agree we need to punish those who break the law and enfoce the laws we have. I disagree with the loop hole ~ anyone can go to a gun show and through a private sale purchase what they wish. That is what they have been discussing this loop hole in gun shows. Also NRA helped remove a law requiring concel & carry permit holders to RENEW their permit. In many States poeple can now "carry" in bars? come on liquor and guns what a combo. Ok how do these school age children gain acess to these guns to shoot thier siblings, friends or go harry carry at the local playground? I just read where a 3 year old shot his Mom. Are those responsible gun owners that allow children to play with loaded guns?
I do agree it was not right for the news to publish the names of people. Not a good idea. I have no objection to someone having a gun in their home to defend their property. I do not want people walking the streets with guns on their hip. Did you see the two kids in Idaho (?) showing their off rights to have guns? (sorry can't remember which news printed that) They walked the street with an AK strapped on their back. How would you feel if they walked down your street?
The other topicis many quote stats on gun deaths I have seen very few stats on the number of injuries caused by guns...
Sarah: The Kennesaw, GA law has been upheld by the US SC. It doesn't matter what you think the law should be in Kennesaw. You don't live there, so you are expressing an opinion as a non-resident. Arguing your premise is pointless except for entertainment. Being an unarmed, volunteer victim with little regard for self-preservation is perfectly okay too.
"volunteer victim" - good one DOU44!
The low crime rate may be more a result of Kennesaw, Georgia being a small town.
Did anyone bother to compare this SMALL towns crime rate to other SMALL towns crime rates? Is it possible the reason they have small crime numbers is because everyone knows everyone else and there is only 1 road out of town? :)
Dome- Next time do some research before you make an assumption that will make you look like a fool.
Kennesaw is in the greater Atlanta metro area and has a population of about 30,000. Not huge but not exactly a one horse town either.
Some of the towns surrounding Kennesaw have pretty high crime rates.
There are about 20 roads out of town, Kennesaw has been blown over by the over expansion of Atlanta.
It isn't a small 'everybody knows you town' anymore. Thousands live there.
It is a typical suburban town, mostly white, but not by a high %, many minorities live and work there.
Even has an airfield. Without traffic, 30 minutes from Downtown Atlanta.
Similar towns, with that location (30 minutes from Atlanta) have very high crime rates.
Chamblee, Doraville, Duluth, Sandy Springs, etc. etc..
I live in a town just up the road from Kennesaw. Our town is just a fraction the size of theirs. There are more of us that have guns then less. Our crime rate is very low. Once reason is you do not know who is packing. Around here people will defend there property and lives and will not hesitate to shoot if needed. Cudos to Kennesaw.
This was a rather short article. It seams that the author did not do much research or did not want to print what he/ she found while researching the town. Their is much more information about Kennesaw and the law including the population growth over the last thirty years and how the crime rate has stayed much lower than towns half the current size.
Dome- I can tell you that the small town I grew up in has a higher crime rate than Kennesaw and our population is about 10,000 people smaller then the current pop of Kennesaw.
There is no rational way you can make the statement that this loophole ridden, unenforced law has any impact on crime in this city.
Jed- That may be true. However, what other explanations do you have for the fact that in the year after Kennesaw publicized the law crime dropped dramatically and has continued to stay well below higher crime rates in neighboring cities?
Do some research and get back to me.
Interesting that some people who are against being told they 'must purchase a gun' seem to be for the government telling you that you must purchase health care. Hypocrisy anyone?
And vice versa-how do you explain that?
The gun control hype has galvanized Americans more than any other "Obama issue", and now people are starting to look at the rest of his failures & nonsense.
Oh, please. We finally have a president who has the country's wellbeing at heart, after Bush and Cheney's failure and lies, and you are saying this? Nonsense! We need gun control, and we have needed it for a very, very long time. This gun-toting egomania has got to stop. Not everybody is a paranoid or needs a penis extension. It's too damn dangerous for the rest of us.
Pattie ...... There has been "gun control" for going on 100 years. The only really effective law was the 1930s restrictions on assault weapons. The rest have been political grandstanding for the most part, just as the current resident of the whitehouse is proposing. Fortunately the executive office can not pass laws, that is the function of Congress with the Supreme Court as a check on Constitutionality of those laws.
If you think our President has this Country's wellbeing at heart think again. He is a politician number 1 and that rules out thinks with heart. He not only uses the Liberals agendas, but as with all politicians he follows their sides money. All the great idea's in the world won't work without the funds to pay for them.
No matter what you say this generation is an entitlement generation. By that I mean they expect and believe they are owed things whether earned or not. I am old enough to see children, grandchilden, sisters, neices and nephews with this atitude. I also see and have some that are morally responsuble. The respect for people in general is gone, especially the elderly. The help your neighbor attitude is gone. You can not even watch a movie without the F word in it, even multiple times. If you think nothing is wrong with that, abd that is part of your everyday vocabulary then that is part of the problem with todays society. Until we instill better morals in our children and grandchildren you can move into the future and make all the changes you want, but you are still going to have a destroyed country.
Pattie...
Can you please explain to me why all of the rabidly anti-freedom firearm haters, like yourself, have this seriously demented phallic fantasy about a persons penis? Are you that deprived, or is it depraved?
Pattie from maryland....flush out your headgear, the only thing we NEED from the presidente' is to leave us alone, don't try helping us, just let us live our lives as we see fit and STAY THE F-CK OUTTA MY LIFE!!!
@coyote--- Please, let me add one more thing. Stay the hell out of our pockets as well. the cookie jar is EMPTY.
Yes Pattie, he has our country's best interest at heart. March 1st he faces impeachment hearings for his misuse of the military in Libya and Sirya. He is also being investigated for his involvement in the Fans and Furious scandal that got a border patrol agent killed. He stood by and watched soldiers die in Benghazi when all he had to do was make a phone call. Now he wants to change the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, the good king Obama. He has our (his) best interests at heart.
He is a dud with a good speech writer.
It's logical and reasonable to set up a group-participation healthcare system in a society of over 300 million people, considering the mess that our healthcare had become and the lack of any meaningful effort to address the growing problem in the decades before this one. This is dealing with a longstanding systemic problem. It is not logical or reasonable to pass laws like this one to require people to indulge in other people's perversions. This town seems to be run by some real sickos. And I bet they'll all tell you that they go to church!
No ir is not either logical or reasonable for the government to control a citizens health insurance. The biggest issue is that it is not a legitimate function of a Federal government and intrusuion on the individuals life. Regulate the industry, yes. Require participation, no. For the poor there are: clinics, county facilities, a law that no citizen can be denied life-saving treatment for reasons of inability to pay, state run medical programs, welfare programs. With federal control you will have clinics and no actual improvement in quality or access to treatment.....BUT you will now have higher premiums and a new expense of mandatory participation even if already insured along with a new $1500 tax if you do not. I havelived in countries with government insurance set-up, great for aspirin or flu shot, not so good if you need real treatment. Revenue grab at the federal level, get used to it because the Nanny-State has to tax the very people who it gives the "free lunch" to that wouldnt need the free lunch if taxes were lower.
Dont even try the utopian fantasy rant, unlike you I have been there and done that and the idealistic simple-minded rhetoric just means more poverty and social degradation.
Dennis 387683,
Your idea of free clinics and emergency rooms is a joke. When someone really needs the emergency room it is clogged up with those who use it because they do not have insurance. So the person with insurance in dire need of care has to WAIT & WAIT. Why because the non insured are there to recieve pain meds for free or check out the kid with the high fever.
The whole aim of of the health mandate is to place control with the people and the goal is better quality of care. It also madates no one is refused due to previous conditions. Ig. If someone is layed off their job and loses insurance coverage they can still find coverage with any pre exsiting condition. What is wrong with that? The health mandate also removed catastrophic caps on insurance policies..anything wrong with tha mandate? Is it seeking to improve quality of care, anything worng with that picture? OH and it also states insurance companies must have a reson for increasing prices. IF people would read the actual Health Care Law rather than listening to radio broadcasts about how bad it is maybe people would understand.
NC just refused the mandate and now the money the Federal Gov would add to the coffer will be used in other States. In return the people of NC will suffer many people who depend on Mediciade to pay their nursing home bills will be in trouble but of course it is being blamed on the Feds. Go figure. MANY MANY years ago the Dems suggested adding long term care to insurance plans and guess what ? The GOP shot it down. Now we have all the baby boomers and the demograhics are a little skewed for a few years. Check history GOP claimed Social Security was "socialized care" and caused a big stir with fear mongering about Socialization. I think people need to learn how to read and understand. We do need better education in this country ~ we are currently at the bottom of the World Rankings..
I would like to hear more doctor's take on this, because I personally know several doctor's whom are retiring now because of obamacare.
12345justintime,
Reason they are retiring?
12345 got no answer cause he relies on hearsay to form worthless opinions and/ or flat out BS.
Yes gun ownership IS guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. BUT those who do NOT wish to own a fire arm do NOT have to. There is NO "Federal Law" stating that ANYONE can mandate gun ownership. Federal Law Trumps State Law, every time ! If I am in error, which I doubt, then someone out there depict a law that states otherwise. I am NOT talking about States Rights, Marshall Law, or some one's idea of what the law should be. I am referring to a actual "Code" that states in Legal Language that Local, State or Federal Government can mandate you own a fire arm against your will ! You want to talk about "Tyrannical Government" get real !
Yes, Sorry, but your comments are wrong headed. There doesn't have to be a federal law that says a local government can do anything. There also isn't a federal law that says a local government can outlaw all handguns, but the town in Illinois did just that. It has since been struck down by the Supreme Court because it violates the 2nd Amendment.
There is no federal law that requires a town to maintain it's streets. None to dictate what speed limits towns can put on their streets.
You are also making a big deal out of nothing. The law in Kennesaw has been on the books for 30 years and has never been enforced. It was a protest law against the town in Illinois that outlawed all handguns.
Yes .......... If I might add something here. All nations with even the pretense of some form of democracy has some kind of Constitution with a bill/charter of rights. The U.S. is unique in that all others tell the government what it must do, the U.S. one tells the government what it can not do. There is also a brilliant little clause in it that all rights not specifically listed in Constitution are retained by the states and citizens.
In the mid 1800s a european liberal historian , Alexis de Tocqueville, traveled and researched the U.S. model Republic and one of his main praises of our model was the breakdown of federal between federal, state and local government. Very worth while literature to look at. Another that should be mandatory in all public schools beginning at the 3rd grade level through 12 is "The Federalist Papers", by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Do citizens even recognise those names anymore? They should as they bear a great deal of credit for there even being a Constitution! After those basic background material I would suggest "After America: Get Ready for Armageddon" by Mark Steyn.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America". Alexander Hamilton
Sarah ... this town's regulation is about public safety and in the public interest. Think of it as insurance. :) A Life Insurance plan that works.
The gun ownership laws in Kenesaw have a provision that most everyone is over looking for sure..The law also states that IF you have an aversion to having a gun in your home you do NOT have to have one..Period..Now if the anti's would allow the same with their insane gun-knee jerk actions everything would be honkey dorey..Right. BUT! That is NOT their goal..gun control and all their renamed feel good CONtrol groups are NOT about gun CONrol..It is about gun CONfiscation..Just read their mission statements and you will see their real intent. Kenesaw in not a GUN FREE ZONE..and the thugs know it. Thugs are stupid but they aren't crazy..Do you really think they are going to try and burgle a house when there is a 90% chance they will get shot..Obama is pushing for gun confiscation in his round about way..He doesn't need any oppostion to his National Security Force.. "I am not after your shotguns."..Just everything else...WHY has the Obama administration ordered 1.5 BILLION rounds of HOLLOW POINT AMMO for the STATESIDE federal law enforcement folks, hmm, like the TSA ,ICE, POSTAL SERVICE...Just how many BAD Guys have they had a shootout with in the last 100 years. Keep in mind these guys will fire less than 100 rounds per year in qualification shooting...HMM? Where is ALL that extra ammo going?????? It ain't the Army, Navy, or the Marines, that has already been answered by the DHS.
1st
I have one question this story doesn't tell. What was the crime rate before this law was passed?
"opponents of increased gun control see the town's low crime rate as a positive result of the law." It never said that the crime rate went down after the law was passed. It just said they have a low crime rate. Did it go down 50%, 25%, 5% or did it never go down?
Because they are required to go to the range all the time. It may look like a large amount to you. But how many people are in the "TSA, ICE, POSTAL SERVICE"? You did forget the Secret Service, FBI and many other little goon squids we don't know about. So I think you could take off your aluminum hat now. No conspiracy here.
Also flnobody, one needs to question why the billions of rounds they purchased were hollow points, which our own military is not even allowed to use. And hollow points are certainly not what you use at the range to practice with, way too expensive.
This has been a question on my mind for a couple years now...just what is our government getting ready for? the next ten years will tell.
Let us not forget the Drones. Why does every county in every state need drone aircraft? I'm not to concerned about the hollow points after hearing the plans for the drones. Better start writing your congressmen and the FAA before this gets any stronger foot hold. Seems the FAA is trying to find a way to make it safe to turn all these untrained cops loose to fly in the same airspace as private aircraft and commercial airliners as well. Gonna be a lot of accidents that are nobodies fault, if the cop caused it.
cazyray
The military doesn't use them. Because they don't penetrate any type of body armor at all. It's not that they aren't allowed to use them. They are no good on a battlefield.
Why do law enforcement use them. Because they usually stop in the person they shoot and not go through them and hit others. Or go through walls like solids.
You practice with what you use.
cazyray
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
BTW the military dose not use hollow point rounds because NATO dose not allow them. In the correct caliber and grain weight the hollow points penetrate body armor just fine.
NATO dose not allow hollow points cause they believe that they do too much damage.
"In the correct caliber and grain weight the hollow points penetrate body armor just fine."
Please learn about what you are talking about. Hollow points are designed to transfer energy, causing what is called trauma damage in tissues. Because of the design, body armor actually stops hollow points MORE easily than FMJ or other solid rounds.
"BTW the military dose not use hollow point rounds because NATO dose not allow them."
"NATO dose not allow hollow points cause they believe that they do too much damage."
The military doesn't use hollow points due to the Geneva Convention. They are prohibited because they are considered "excessive" force. The military also doesn't use them because of tactical doctrine; it takes eight people to handle a wounded person and only two people to handle a corpse. You have one thing mostly correct; hollow points do cause more damage and are less likely to exit a body than a standard solid.
A survey of felons in prisons across the U.S. found:[‡]
A U.S. Department of Justice study found:[§]
Seems even incarcerated felons have more sense than some of the grabbers posting here.
(Wright & Rossi study for the DOJ, 1987)
Four stars, two thumbs up and an arrow up. Right on.
AMEN!!!!...pass the ammunition!
....and I'll bet nobody shows up there at public places and starts randomly slaughtering people either.
Exactly, Arizona has very loose carry laws and no mass shooting of congressmen, federal judges and children ever happened there.
I think a GED requirement should preclude the gun requirement.
There goes half the town...
I see the Sheeple got tipped off again and as per their Orders from their white house handlers they are trying to control the boards again......We in Georgia are proud of Kennesaw, those poor people up there have to live next door to Americas second worst crime ridden city in the nation aside from Chicago and New York, the Demoncrat Controlled City State of Atlanta..Where Political corruption is the Norm as well as raping, robbing, stealing, home invasions, armed robberies, drug abuse and all the various Liberal Demoncrat habits and customs.
I was shopping at the Mall where REI in Kennesaw is located a couple of weeks ago and people were polite and friendly. Nobody was walking around with that fear on their faces or trying to act or "Bad" as common defense so the Liberal Socialist Demoncrat human filth from Atlanta will leave them alone.
Atlanta where Obama is their hero because he is trying to disarm more victims for them, whereas in Kennesaw they generally leave the people alone and choose a more weaker target like one of their own kind back in Atlanta...
In many other small towns about Georgia, without any fanfare, it is common knowledge that people walk about armed especially at night out on a date or with family. The most unsafe places besides Atlanta is Macon and the many University of Georgia Campuses also controlled by the Liberal Socialist Demoncrats who find it amusing to have so many rapes and robberies on their campus otherwise why do they ban guns..Well that is ending as well, as the Law Abiding people of the State take up arms against the Liberal Demoncrats criminal supporters. Another City to beaware in is Birmingham Alabama..Gotta be careful there as well...
Every year in Georgia there are hundreds of stories that are NOT PRINTED OR AIRED IN THE MEDIA where Law Abiding Gun owners have saved themselves from the raping and thieving Obama anti-gun supporters.
Come on down to the Georgia State Capitol on 2-23 and join thousands of Georgians in supporting the Right to Bear Arms...We are not Sheeple down here...and remember, it was the Liberal Socialist Demoncrats who were the majority of the filthy rich Slave Owners who bought their slaves from mostly the Portuguese and Black African slavers..
And remember their Modern Demoncrat Hero..Governor George Wallace a long term Demoncrat Governor and member of the KKK...though recently the Demoncrats in the brown nosing Media seems to have forgotten those facts for some strange reason....Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazards, though a TV program, is you typical example of a local Demoncrat Politician that the Southerners have been voting out of Office for the past 10 years., well the smart ones anyway....
Where I live we have NOT ONE Demoncrat in Public Office and we haven't had a tax raise in 7 years...and we have a balance budget...Oh my gosh how can that be true,,easy, you do not put a Socialist Liberal Demoncrat in Public Office or in charge of the taxpayers money..
Was not the movie Deliverence filmed in a small town in Georgia?
Do not most of these local GOP controlled towns and Southern States have the worst school scores? Keep em stupid, keep em Republican, I guess?
Are not most of these red southern states taking in far more FEDERAL money then they contribute? Damn freeloaders.
How can one support universal gun ownership, but not universal healthcare?
George Wallace is a "modern" democratic hero? Really??? Most of the democratic white trash jumped to the GOP when Johnson signed the Equal Rights Amendment, but do not let facts stand in your way.
Then there is the typical moronic name calling like "Socialist Liberal Democrat".
I have no issues with guns, including assault weapons. I do believe there should be background checks on every gun sale to keep guns from winding up in the hands of crazy people and criminals whether they live in Kennesaw or Atlanta.
Eddie, upon reading your post you may very well fall into that crazy people catagory. Just like so many of those fat, old, white people in the tea party.
Carolina kid, was it Murphy nc that hid a certain terrorist for over a year? What are you guys famous for? Have you watched the show moonshiners lately? I'd hate to think that those people represented my state's education level. By the was, you black? If so, you would hate gun laws, because you are a uneducated, cheese loving welfare living, lazy pos. Hows that? PS, I beleive that the southern states you are ragging on, are doing much better than you union controlled states.
unreal 3070801
yes you are unreal ~ yes Murphy was and always will be famous for hiding the bomber ~ all the tea party got behind him and took care of him. the monshiners I think was flimed in GA... and someone said something about Deliverance? yep GA again ~ and tea party? big time GA and most of the southern states. Who has the largest poverty levels? southern States.. most guns Southern States...
UNREAL you are about as stereotypical as a teabagger can be. Crawl of the top of your sister, lay down the banjo and read a book.
NC2012 well said. Eric Rudolph was protected by those that like to be teabagged.
Yeah, we're going to listen to Eddie and those BS stories that are NOT aired or printed. So we'll just take his word for it that Obama anti-gun supporters are terrorizing Georgia w/rape and pillaging. Give that righty a journalism award! He just knows stuff.
eddie s 802886,
Nice of you to lump all Obama supporters in one category of thieving/raping, great mentality there. That said didnt your area recently have a school shooting? I think the parties have changed over the years? Has your Tea Party always been a part of the picture? Sad to see you get your information from TV shows rather than the real world. Instead of marching for gun rights why don't you enroll in a night class and become more educated ~ much better use of your time. Oh and please don't ever defend me in public I would hate to get hit by your bullet meant for the bad guy.
OK..
I'll agree not to put my well being on the line for you. However, I would ask that you prominently display a sign or badge indicating that you are a willing victim and do NOT want any armed individuals coming to your aide. Is that agreeable?
nc, if you don't like being categorized as a thieving/raping mental midget, then you will need to stop voting for obama and his criminal cronies. It's simple, grow up. everyone rags on the tea party, who are simply republicans that are way to the right. I don't hear anyone standing up and yelling about your far left libs. No, you news is about drinking water during a speech. Did you notice that during the stou obama, couldn't get a bottle of water open.
Some of Hitlers early supporters were naive well meaning and ignorant of his real plan too.
XDm9mm,
No I am not going to wear a sign LOL I can take care of myself Thank you. I just dont want crazy people shooting up the area without even knowing what is happening. Such as almost happened during the Gifford's shoot out in AZ The well meaning armed citizen that ALMOST shot the wrong person.. Such as those who claim they would have been able to stop the CO killer in a DARK SMOKY theater filled with people. PLEAZZ this is not the Wild West and TV is not the norm in a gun fight.
To the airborne on page 5 LOL yes I fought for the 2nd amendment. Oh and so did the rest of my family since 1640 ~