Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Town requres guns in home

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Town requres guns in home

    http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20031123%2F175333311.htm&sc=1110

    Kan. Town Requires Homes to Have Guns


    GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. (AP) - Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

    Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.
    Now I am going on the record as being against this type of ordinance being passed where I live. While I am a strong supporter of gun rights, I don't think passing an ordinance requiring citizens to keep guns is legal. Also, while it does exempt those that oppose guns from having to fulfill this requirement, it says nothing about making sure that owners are required to have training in the proper use of and safety in dealing with weapons.

    I love this comment though

    ``It's nobody's business but our own,'' said Phillip Russell, who owns a motorcycle shop in the town. ``Everybody out of town is making this their business.''

  • #2
    Re: Town requres guns in home

    Originally posted by Wolfie
    it says nothing about making sure that owners are required to have training in the proper use of and safety in dealing with weapons.
    And exactly which part of the constitution requires this? I think the second amendment is pretty clear...

    Although I think this is a good idea, I would fight against a requirement that every house have a gun. I don't know how the legislation is worded, but it would be much better to give every household that has a gun/ammo a $10 tax break due to legal gun possession contribituting significantly to a decrease in crime. It would effectively be the same thing, but instead of a punishment for not having a gun, there's a reward for having a gun.
    Become a supporting member!
    Buy a Tactical Duck!
    Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
    TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Town requres guns in home

      Originally posted by CingularDuality
      Originally posted by Wolfie
      it says nothing about making sure that owners are required to have training in the proper use of and safety in dealing with weapons.
      And exactly which part of the constitution requires this? I think the second amendment is pretty clear...
      And exactly which part of the second amendment requires us to have guns? If you're making up the legislation anyway, Wolf's point is that you may as well build in some safeties up front rather than dealing with charges of "negligence" AFTER someone gets hurt. God knows we have safeties built into every other law out there (driving cars, owning rental properties, etc). Americans are "sue"-happy. Do guns come with user manuals? If so, I think that should be close enough for the purchase. Perhaps the local government could sponsor some free seminars on basic gun safety to promote the system (you know, like those park district summer classes).

      Cing, overall I much prefer your idea about the tax break, although I think it should cover the cost of the gun somehow (otherwise who'll do it?).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Town requres guns in home

        Originally posted by Geisha
        And exactly which part of the second amendment requires us to have guns?
        I'm all drugged up right now, but basically if a right isn't specifically stated in the constitution (like, say, the right to bear arms without infringement), then the right becomes one of the state's (or lessor gov't).

        If you're making up the legislation anyway, Wolf's point is that you may as well build in some safeties up front rather than dealing with charges of "negligence" AFTER someone gets hurt. God knows we have safeties built into every other law out there (driving cars, owning rental properties, etc). Americans are "sue"-happy. Do guns come with user manuals? If so, I think that should be close enough for the purchase. Perhaps the local government could sponsor some free seminars on basic gun safety to promote the system (you know, like those park district summer classes).

        Cing, overall I much prefer your idea about the tax break, although I think it should cover the cost of the gun somehow (otherwise who'll do it?).
        Liability is an issue, I suppose, but all new guns in the US come with an Owner's Manual and existing manufacturers are required to furnish manuals for older guns on request... The NRA would gladly provide free or low cost gun safety courses for communities that adopt this sort of statute, I believe.
        Become a supporting member!
        Buy a Tactical Duck!
        Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
        TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

        Comment


        • #5
          Fair enough. Sounds reasonable to me, Cing.

          To answer Wolf's original question - the new law seems pretty short-sighted to me. I think it will cause more problems than it solves, via government liability and open-to-interpretation wording. I'm all for gun rights too, but it seems a little scary to be requiring novices to buy them. Maybe for that small town it will work, since it must've gotten passed by a majority.

          Just don't try to pass it in San Francisco. :D And can you imagine what would happen in Chicago, with all the weirdos that watch too much "COPS"? :shock: I guess I still have to be concerned with the precedent it sets, even if it's just a small town where everyone has a Huntin' Gun anyway. Which touches on Wolfie's amusement at their insularity...

          Comment


          • #6
            Putting guns into untrained hands is a recipe for disaster, which is exactly what a law requiring ownership will do. I'm not saying you can't own a gun without training and experience, but if you are going to own, the responsible thing to do is learn to use it correctly, and to be familiar and comfortable with it. If you don't do those things, you're far more likely to cause undesired harm than even those who would assault you or your home.
            "Hardly used" will not fetch a better price for your brain.

            Comment


            • #7
              A Firearm is a tool, no more, no less. If trained in it's proper use, people SHOULD be permitted to wield a means of defense.

              The Swiss are the greatest example of this. As ALL citizens of able capacity are trained in the use and care of a government issued weapon.

              "Switzerland's "Militia Army" defense requires men above the age of 20 to be ready for call-up for national service and to keep a fully automatic SIG Sturmgewehr 90 military rifle in their homes. Some 500,000 men have military rifles in their residences. "

              Of course, whether or not the town in questions men posess the requisite training remains to be seen, the spirit of the law is in the right place.

              Remember, even though all of us are subjected to countless hours of counter-American brainwashing via popular media sources, our nation was founded on the premise that FREE men should ALWAYS posess the right and means of resisting Tyranny.

              People always seem to shy away from the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists to enable the people to not only resist, but overthrow the government should it be necessary. Yet this is one of the foundational truths our nation was founded on. To forsake it is to forsake ourselves.

              Comment


              • #8
                "I'm all drugged up right now, but basically if a right isn't specifically stated in the constitution (like, say, the right to bear arms without infringement), then the right becomes one of the state's (or lessor gov't)." - CingularDuality

                The founding fathers' school of thought at the time was, supposedly, that any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution did not belong to the federal government. I believe that such powers were considered as belonging to the people first and foremost, but I can't seem to find where I gained this belief from.

                I think the Swiss have the right approach and wouldn't mind seeing such requirements gain favor in the US. Now if only I could be sure I qualified as "of able capacity". .)

                Comment


                • #9
                  "I believe that such powers were considered as belonging to the people first and foremost, but I can't seem to find where I gained this belief from."

                  Here's where you might have gotten that idea:


                  Amendment IX
                  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


                  Amendment X
                  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Spectre
                    A Firearm is a tool, no more, no less. If trained in it's proper use, people SHOULD be permitted to wield a means of defense.
                    Lo, Hollywood, why capitalise SHOULD? are there exceptions, I really don't want to have to look it up, so thought I'd ask.
                    Originally posted by Spectre
                    The Swiss are the greatest example of this. As ALL citizens of able capacity are trained in the use and care of a government issued weapon.
                    Just checking, all citizens are trained? not doubting, just checking ;) Is that part of national service? If so is national service mandatory, should it be? Ah, just read the lower bit, do you think this is the best solution?
                    Originally posted by Hollywoo
                    not only resist, but overthrow the government should it be necessary. Yet this is one of the foundational truths our nation was founded on. To forsake it is to forsake ourselves.
                    Do you think in todays world that it is neccessary for people to overthrow regimes? Cue Iraq....should they have done it themselves? Should Afghanistan? with or without help?

                    I'd like to welcome you all to a can of worms. And it is nice to be back in the fray ;)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Spectre
                      A Firearm is a tool, no more, no less. If trained in it's proper use, people SHOULD be permitted to wield a means of defense.

                      The Swiss are the greatest example of this. As ALL citizens of able capacity are trained in the use and care of a government issued weapon.
                      My biggest concern is that this ordinance doesn't make sure that the people required to own the gun are trained in its proper use. While I could care less if they shoot themselves, if I was in the same town, I don't want some idiot handling a gun that doesn't know how to properly use it.

                      And yes Cing, the Constitution does not say that they have to know how to use a gun in order to own one. But by god, if some city council passes an ordinance that requires everyone to own a gun, then the same city council better insure that everyone knows how to use a gun properly.

                      I can see their reasoning for getting more homeowners to have guns (in American history, crime was low in the Wild West because most homeowners owned a gun) but we need to remember some things. The reason that the Wild West had a low crime rate was that the people living there knew how to use a gun properly, not that they had guns.

                      Also remember what life was like back in the 1600s-1800s. People who owned guns knew how to use them properly. For alot of people, the guns were their source of food and/or protection in a day where people had to stand up for themselves. If the original framers were alive today and building a constitution in today's society, don't you think they would make the distinction that while owning a gun is a right, one must posses the knowledge to handle it safely? Times have changed and the society that George Washington lived in during the 1700s is different than the society today.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Benny_
                        Do you think in todays world that it is neccessary for people to overthrow regimes?
                        Perfect example just happened recently in Georgia. :P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Spectre
                          People always seem to shy away from the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists to enable the people to not only resist, but overthrow the government should it be necessary.
                          This may of been true a 100 years ago when both sides had muskets, but now the government has naplam and tactical nukes, so if they want take over we're not going to stop them.

                          Besides, the government already controlls everything we do. Any more and they would be greedy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            UMMM I am also a supporter of gun rights! But I also have seen alot of people that shouldn't be allowed 150ft from a firearm !

                            And requiring them to have them as a law is putting guns in those idiots hands.....
                            Was that Diablo flying that helio ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wolfie
                              Originally posted by Benny_
                              Do you think in todays world that it is neccessary for people to overthrow regimes?
                              Perfect example just happened recently in Georgia. :P
                              Touche, wasn't driven by an armed uprising though (although I'm sure it was close to escalating)

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X