This is a discussion on A Rifle in Every Pot within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...
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.
To the underlined... Commerce Clause.
That's what would have killed ObamaCare if not incorrectly defined as a "tax".
"Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes
I would rather be made to purchase a gun than somebody else's health care!
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.
Walk softly ...
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?
Last edited by BigStick; November 27th, 2012 at 06:49 PM. Reason: Repeated myself
Walk softly ...
"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.
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
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.
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.
Walk softly ...
Symbolic law...geez get real.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
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.
NRA Life Member
GOA Life MemberMoving to a new location
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.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson