Right Sassy, burglary is not the same as robbery. But, when I said that I did not want to be confronted by a Criminal who was carrying a gun he was REQUIRED TO HAVE, I used burglary as an example simply because I don't go about packing heat. My personal firearm is IN MY HOUSE almost all the time.
The Point I was driving at is that when you mandate gun ownership, only CRIMINALS WITH NOT HAVE GUNS.
Everyone who VIOLATES A MANDATORY BEARING OF ARMS LAW WOULD BE A CRIMINAL.
Changed my mind....ain't gettin in on this can of worms.
quote:The Point I was driving at is that when you mandate gun ownership, only CRIMINALS WITH NOT HAVE GUNS.
Everyone who VIOLATES A MANDATORY BEARING OF ARMS LAW WOULD BE A CRIMINAL.
Ed, let me put this to you as gently as I can. There is NEVER going to be a law requiring ALL CITIZENS to carry or even possess a firearm. And if one even got close, "criminals" (definition: one convicted of a crime) would be prohibited from mere possession, little on a carrying concealed or any other way.
Ed, buddy, this is a "the sky is falling" fantasy that you've bought into. It ain't gonna happen. It ain't never, ever, in a million years, during a blue moon, gonna happen......
Kennesaw, GA REQUIRES that all citizens own a firearm. However, I do not believe it is enforced with any sort of zeal.
quote:Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Kennesaw, GA REQUIRES that all citizens own a firearm. However, I do not believe it is enforced with any sort of zeal.
Their ordinance specifically states persons legally able to possess a firearm. Criminals, drug addicts and mentally ill persons need not apply. It also allows persons who object for religious or moral reasons to be exempt. People who are "paupers" are not required to own one.
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
You enjoy 'digging', huh? LOL Kennesaw's 'ordinance' was in response to Morton Grove, IL's 'ordinance' PROHIBITTING gun ownership by ANY of its citizens, save for LEOs.
quote:Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
You enjoy 'digging', huh? LOL Kennesaw's 'ordinance' was in response to Morton Grove, IL's 'ordinance' PROHIBITTING gun ownership by ANY of its citizens, save for LEOs.
Yep, I remember when both of them were passed. Morton Grove had an upswing in criminal activity for several years after. Kennesaw had a very slight increase the first year, and then their crime rates dropped every year after that for about 10 years.
You remember it, huh? Funny...you 'sound'....younger. LOL I was in high school...I think, when both incidents occured.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:The Point I was driving at is that when you mandate gun ownership, only CRIMINALS WITH NOT HAVE GUNS.
Everyone who VIOLATES A MANDATORY BEARING OF ARMS LAW WOULD BE A CRIMINAL.
Ed, let me put this to you as gently as I can. There is NEVER going to be a law requiring ALL CITIZENS to carry or even possess a firearm. And if one even got close, "criminals" (definition: one convicted of a crime) would be prohibited from mere possession, little on a carrying concealed or any other way.
Ed, buddy, this is a "the sky is falling" fantasy that you've bought into. It ain't gonna happen. It ain't never, ever, in a million years, during a blue moon, gonna happen......
SASSY,
At least one town in the USA has just such a law. The Proposal was made by a respected person, in a public forum. His position shocked me, and a number of other people.
FOR GREAT EVIL TO PREVAIL IN ANY SOCIETY ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING.
I find the argument pretty well in favor of MANDARORY GUN OWNERSHIP. Intrepretation of the comments has indicated that the middle ground is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The status quo on gun ownership is not just ALL RIGHT WITH ME, I WANT NONE OF IT CHANGED.
I don't want you to BE REQUIRED TO BUY A FIREARM. A don't want you prohibited from owning a fire arm. I AM ONE OF THOSE BLAMED LIBERALS WHO OWNS A GUN, HAS OWNED A GUN SINCE I PASSED THE AGE OF MAJORITY. And volunteered to carry one for the USA before I was old enough to vote (18 year olds got the right to drink but not the right to vote till after I was 21) Now they have the right to vote, but not the right to drink.
THAT STATEMENT PROVES, AND YOU CAN CHECK ITS VERACITY, THAT LAWS CHANGE. Some laws should not change. The PRESENT GUN LAWS ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR SPORTING AND DEFENSIVE WEAPONS. The laws concerning crime while armed are a powerful deterrent.
About two thirds of all conversation of a political nature is ABOUT CHANGING laws.
I have never met a government mandate that I could embrace, from mandatory seat belts to mandatory military service. I have never met anyone who would support a tax law, unless he or she was personally exempt from it. There are laws against virtually anything it is both possible and not necessary for a human being do do. For example spitting on the sidewalk. THERE IS AND THIS IS FACT, NOT ONE LAW ON ANY LAW BOOK ANYWHERE ON EARTH THAT PROHIBITS ANY IMPOSSIBLE ACT EXCEPT ONE. DIVINING THE FUTURE IS ILLEGAL, and impossible. When Jesus Christ Strode upon the water he could not have been committing a crime, there is not now nor has there ever been a law against walking on water. (ok, nit pickers, physical law is unbendable, and cannot be legislated away.)
No Law ever passed by a legislature is unchangeable. The US congress could pass legislation repealing ALL laws prohibiting or regulating the taking of human life. They can, and do pass laws permiting the taking of human life under specified circumstances, those laws are called RESOLUTIONS OF A STATE OF WAR, of A DECLARATION OF WAR. Legislators CAN pass laws mandating that every able bodied citizen purchase a firearm, or a baby's pacifier.
I AM ARGUING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT.