Defensive Carry banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
I think it's a good idea and attitude to have about guns being in every house, but not a good to make mandatory. For the people who don't want guns, fine, I don't give a rip. I just wish they had the same attitude toward the people who do want to own them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Government involvement to this level is silly. Its as bad as the antis.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,939 Posts
They need to keep their grubby paws off my stuff and quit telling me what I have to buy or what I can't. It's none of their beeswax.

That said, I love the picture of the member of the City Council sitting in his living room cleaning his shotgun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
It's a good idea, and I do like that it's received some press, but as many of you by now know I don't like the way the pseudo-"journalist" wrote the article. Again the loaded language just shows a bias that should never be present in a modern newspaper.

For instance:

"Valarie Naslund, who owns the liquor store next door, has one under the counter and "a lady .357" she carries. Neither prevented thieves from breaking into her store a couple of months ago and making off with $800 worth of booze while Naslund wasn't there."

So why even point out this crime? It's not gun related, not even a violent crime, and starting that sentence with "Neither prevented .... " just loads the newspaper barrel.

"The first Top Dog World Championship Prairie Dog Shoot attracted sport shooters who blew away nearly 3,000 prairie dogs."

"Blew away" ... yep, nothing loaded about that wording at all.

The media just really ticks me off most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atctimmy

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
I don't agree with mandating people to buy anything, even a firearm, but this is obviously a tongue-in-cheek ordinance that won't be enforced. It is a protest law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
They got it WRONG. The government should not mandate anything....guns or healthcare
Should have been more clear. I was referring towards the citizens attitudes. I live in a big city. I envy small town folk. Dooley noted you think they got it WRONG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
I don't agree with mandating people to buy anything, even a firearm, but this is obviously a tongue-in-cheek ordinance that won't be enforced. It is a protest law.
Correct. Just a poke at the Colorado Governor and Legislators.

As you probably know GeorgiaDawg, Kennesaw GA has had a similar ordinance in place for decades and I doubt there is any difference in the number of people who own guns there, than anywhere else in the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Correct. Just a poke at the Colorado Governor and Legislators.

As you probably know GeorgiaDawg, Kennesaw GA has had a similar ordinance in place for decades and I doubt there is any difference in the number of people who own guns there, than anywhere else in the state.
My grandparents live in Kennesaw, actually, and I'm pretty sure all of their guns are stored at my uncle's house, since my grandmother is terrified of them (a family member of hers accidentally shot and killed his wife many years ago because he forgot that his rifle was loaded). So yeah, they really don't enforce it there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
Here are Kennessaw, GA statutes. As one poster mentioned, they are not as stringent as they once were. There have been many different opinions of this govenment mandated firearm ownership. There must be something to it as Kennesaw's crime rates are virtually zip as compared to other areas with the same population/demographics.

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.


I do not necessarily agree with it. But, is there any difference in this and the old "Selective Service" system as there are exemptions to both. Yes, the Selective Service was going on in peace time as the Kennesaw laws are. I know that The Draft is no longer in existence. You can pretty much figure when the mainland of this United States is directly threatened, on a large scale, by another country's military, then the draft will return. If reviving the draft becomes necessary, then so be it.

Nation, State, County, Parrish or City. Each are their on entities. If folks do not like what is going on in a particlar area then there are 3 things someone can do. Put up with it. Try to change it. Pack up and leave. That is what is so GREAT about the United States. FREEDOM, LIBERTIES, RIGHTS AND LICENSE.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton disagreed on just about everything. George Washington assesed both Jefferson's and Hamilton's ideas and did what, he thought, was best for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", pretty sure forcing people to have a firearm is an infringement on our rights also.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top