Interesting opinion piece on towns with mandatory gun ownership laws:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/op...olds.html?_r=0
Printable View
Interesting opinion piece on towns with mandatory gun ownership laws:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/op...olds.html?_r=0
Mandatory ownership is just as wrong as banning them in my opinion.
Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
-C.S. Lewis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NMB
I completely agree. Freedom means not being controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
Freedom is gone. Have a beer and enjoy the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by kapnketel
But, when asked, you will say that the founders intended the citizen to have arms for defense of self and country? No?Quote:
Originally Posted by NMB
Well, In the founding era, since the founders did not care for the notion of a standing army... every household was to have a gun... or, for those who conscientiously objected, hire a proxy to carry a gun for you at quarterly musters where the men were to drill with arms... and these musters became family affairs... with shared meals and such.... But you were expected to show up with a firearm and drill with it, or be fined.
In the founding era... Sometimes, for those who could not afford a weapon, one was provided, from the public arsenal... And, you better show up for muster.... have the wife bring a covered dish, would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
Tru dat, just pay a proxy to take your place. Freedom means responsibility as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by kapnketel
And, you ARE controlled... You are limited in the speed at which you drive your car... your are controlled in the means by which you can change your house's wiring or plumbing. You can not (most likely) insist on using an outhouse instead of having a true septic system or hook up to the city lines. You cannot shout fire in a movie house. If you have an income, you most likely must pay an income tax.... You have to answer the census, or at least part of it. Need I go on?
******************************
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.... not just a few Koreans.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oakchas
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.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by kapnketel
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.
I think this paragraph from the article may have been skimmed over by some...Quote:
Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents. And, given that Greenleaf’s mayor has estimated that 80 percent of the town’s residents already own guns, the new ordinance can’t make all that much of a difference. But criminals are likely to suspect that towns with laws like these on the books will be unsympathetic to malefactors in general, and to conclude that they will do better elsewhere.
I agree as much, and in some cases more so, that additional laws forcing people to buy goods/services are unconstitutional...
Based on this quote, however, I don't think that was the city council's intent.
Not that it makes it right; just an observation.
:hand15:
That was a New York Times article right???
Just making sure I don't need to see an optometrist or psychologist...
:hand15:
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.
Mandatory as a duty huh? Well... you would have to balance that with the fact that these same founders also thought that this should be restricted to rich landowning educated White males too. No Blacks, Women, native americans, chinese..
Well, they did have a draft in this country once upon a time, too... And, I'm certain, if the need arose, there would be another...Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
As to the government telling us what to do... that's a done deal... has been for some time now. As to the rightness or wrongness... well, that's political discussion, not allowed here.
My point is that so many of us use the Constitution first and the written thoughts of the founders second, to defend our right under the second amendment... But many are unwilling to take the responsibilities that were felt to be incumbent on "good citizens" of the time... we (collectively, not you or any one else individually) just want the goodies with no responsibility.
Yes, the right is there.... there are responsibilities that go with it... IMO... and in theirs apparently...Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
I was a bit flabbergasted as well.... but good on 'em, I guess... I'm sure it's really just a figment of our imagination....Quote:
Originally Posted by kerberos
Yep, but we still espouse their wisdom as regards the right to keep and bear arms, don't we..? Selective lot, we are...Quote:
Originally Posted by cphilip