A Rifle in Every Pot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echo_Four

While I find the notion of mandatory gun ownership to be ridiculous there's something going on in this thread that just eats me alive.

You do NOT have the right to not own a gun. While owning a firearm is not compulsory in most places, that doesn't make it a right. The fact that I think it is asinine to tell someone they must own a gun, that doesn't make it a right. Our legal rights are well laid out. The Constitution does not once say that you have the right to not own a gun. You do not have that right at common law. We do not have an amendment that states you do not have to own a gun. We do have something saying that anything not covered by the Constitution is reserved for the states. Thus it is not violating any right to say you must own a firearm.

I go on this tangent when people talk about nonexistent rights whether I agree with their premise or not. We don't have the right to do any darned thing we please. Rights are actually pretty limited.

---

I respectfully disagree... I think...

There were too many double-negatives for me to have total clarity on what you're trying to get across.

I'm not being a grammar-nazi, just honestly a little unsure of what you meant exactly.

My point is...

EVERYTHING is a right unless a duly elected government body passes a law saying that it is not.

Remember that the Constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people.

I could elaborate, but I hope you get my drift.

:hand15:

To the underlined... Commerce Clause.

That's what would have killed ObamaCare if not incorrectly defined as a "tax".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

I agree. That is about the stupidest thing I have heard of. I don't want to be forced to buy anything mandated by the government, whether it be guns or healthcare. Just plain stupid.

---

But if they want they will force you to buy what they want you to. They already do.

I would rather be made to purchase a gun than somebody else's health care!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty901

But if they want they will force you to buy what they want you to. They already do.

---

*info-mercial voice over*

New and improved with Supreme Court approval!

Call in the next 4 years and we'll double your offer!

:hand15:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerberos

*info-mercial voice over*

New and improved with Supreme Court approval!

Call in the next 4 years and we'll double your offer!



:hand15:

---

double REALLY? we are talking B.O. going to at least triple. Wait till we get two new justices

While I will agree that I don't want any level of government telling me I have to buy something, I understand the point they are trying to make. And if you don't like it, you are free to not live there.

I don't know about the ID law, but in Kennesaw, GA there are monetary hardship/consciensous objector clauses if you really don't want to buy one.

But expecting you to pay your fair share and be prepared to do your part in supporting the community is not an unreasonable request, right? That is only somewhat tongue in cheek. The problem though, is that no matter how hard you try, you can not legislate personal responsibility.

So, i just noticed, this was published in 2007.

Militia turns Quaker town into 'gun city' - International - Scotsman.com

Here is another article with a little more detail. Apparently, the ordinance does not require you to own a gun, ...

"Jett points out that the proposal merely requests residents to maintain a firearm with ammunition. There will be exemptions for "heads of household who are paupers, or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine"."


Another twist, a large percentage (~25%) are Quakers (pacifists). Anyone else find any newer info on this town?

"And, you ARE controlled... You are limited in the speed at which you drive your car..."

Yes but we aren't compelled to own a car.


"Think how differently the LA riots might have turned out if ALL the store owners were required to have arms capable of defending their stores."

Yeah, just think of it for a moment. Blithering nitwits who aren't interested in firearms ownership to any extent beyond complying with some requirement to possess arms. No training, no practice, no interest. Are we going to also compel folks to maintain a threshold skills level and an adequate supply of ammunition? Who's to regulate and enforce this?

"A rifle in every pot." Borrowed from the slogan the Republicans used during the Herbert Hoover campaign in 1928: "A Chicken In Every Pot."

Are we going to require that persons in possession of chickens demonstrate minimally adequate cooking skills and a suitable pot?

We need to be very careful of what we're requiring our government to do for (to) us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

Yep, but we still espouse their wisdom as regards the right to keep and bear arms, don't we..? Selective lot, we are...

---

Not really... remember, they were simply drawing up a document restricting what the government could do, not what the people could do. And repeating an already established notion that the right to bear arms was a God given right to all Man.

In fact their was great concern and debate that even including them in the Constitution would then lead to misunderstandings just like this. Misunderstanding where they rights come from. Many thought there was no need to restate them at all. They were god given and so had no need be clearly announced to the forming government what they were. It was understood.

But its a good thing really that they did. Because as we extend those rights to all, as really intended. We fulfill their dream even more fully than they could envision. These rights are ALL of ours, if we can keep them.

Where they faltered was in their definition of who was this "Man". We have set about correcting that mistake over many a years and lives lost. The basic rights of all human beings born of this earth has never been questioned in that debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

I don't get any of points as far as my rights are concerned. They did a lot of things different in the 1700's so let us not go there. I am talking about rights and what the government can force down my throat. Firearms, what I read or don't read, healthcare, is not the business of the govenrmnet to tell me what to I have to do with life and what I purchase. As far as making it a requirement to for every one to have a gun, even if provided by the government, is stil in my mind idiotic and an intrusion in my house.

As far as the LA riots....if they could legally have a gun then they should have got one on their own. You don't need the goevernment to keep being nanny's for the population.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldVet

That "founding era" was so, so long ago that little of the reasons for what they chose to do or not to do no longer exist. We do have a standing army; we do have police forces; neither of which our founding fathers took into consideration. One cannot automatically equate then with now. What still remains for the foreseeable future is the right to keep and bears arms for self protection, as well as the right to not do so if that is one's choice.

---

Not trying to argue here or attack either of you, but you do realize the anti-gun crowd uses that same logic with regard to taking our guns away, right? I am not a fan of the government forcing anything on us (be it ownership of firearms, healthcare, etc.) either, but I am having a hard time seeing a negative side to the two local ordinances discussed in the article. The ordinances are largely symbolic, and I doubt we will ever hear of anyone being hassled for not owning a firearm. Also, they seem to set a tone that is supportive of law abiding citizens in those areas using firearms, if necessary, in self defense situations, so maybe there is some merit to ordinances like this, seeing that they may cause some criminals to think twice before trying to victimize others in those areas. So, if the ordinance is not enforced (thus not really negatively affecting the rights of anyone) and it helps to control violent crime in the area, what's the harm? I'd much rather live in a place with a symbolic law requiring gun ownership than I would in a place with crazy, restrictive gun laws that really are enforced.

A rifle in every pot?

I dunno about that but in some states a pressing question will be: A rifle with your pot?

After thinking a little more, I tried extending my distrust of government to the logical extreme. Yes, I like the outcome/content of this ordinance, so I feel inclined to support it, but what happens when "they" then try to compel some other action or possesion that I don't agree with? If I were to allow the enforcement of a rule I liked, I would not then be justified in complaining or opposing a similar rule that I did not like, say, requireing everyone to purchase a TV to be able to watch live news broadcasts and emergency alerts(propaganda).

But then again, I guess they make us buy stuff all the time against our will "for the good of society". They just tax us, and then waste the money on lightrail or "art" that looks like piles of mangled steel girders. So what is the difference if they tax us and spend it themselves, or require us to buy something and let us choose the details?

I think I switched sides in the middle of my argument. Just goes to show how complicated this kind of issue can be I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RT

Not trying to argue here or attack either of you, but you do realize the anti-gun crowd uses that same logic with regard to taking our guns away, right? I am not a fan of the government forcing anything on us (be it ownership of firearms, healthcare, etc.) either, but I am having a hard time seeing a negative side to the two local ordinances discussed in the article. The ordinances are largely symbolic, and I doubt we will ever hear of anyone being hassled for not owning a firearm. Also, they seem to set a tone that is supportive of law abiding citizens in those areas using firearms, if necessary, in self defense situations, so maybe there is some merit to ordinances like this, seeing that they may cause some criminals to think twice before trying to victimize others in those areas. So, if the ordinance is not enforced (thus not really negatively affecting the rights of anyone) and it helps to control violent crime in the area, what's the harm? I'd much rather live in a place with a symbolic law requiring gun ownership than I would in a place with crazy, restrictive gun laws that really are enforced.

---

The point is to not have restrictive gun laws period. And to make a law, symbollic or not is stupid. Why, do you want anit's in a liberal community to make symbolic laws that have a total ban on firearms? And then wht? You get some zealot that tries to actually enforce it.

Symbolic law...geez get real.

If you grant the government the ability to mandate what it gives you, you are also granting the government the ability to take that same thing away from you.

Only citizens can vote.

To be eligible to vote, a citizen must own land.

Citizens no longer have to own land to be eligible to vote.

To be eligible to vote, citizens can not own land.

Citizens can not own land.

Only land owners can vote.

Citizens are not eligible to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NMB

Mandatory ownership is just as wrong as banning them in my opinion.

---

True, but I'm glad they did because it serves as proof that gun bans do nothing to deter crime while owning more guns does deter crime. I bookmarked the linked page to show to anti's who favor bans.

Quote:

---

Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.

---