The Only American City with a Reasonable Government

[DoomYoshi]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/04/02/us_city_makes_it_illegal_not_to_own_a_gun.html

Finally somebody has realized that it is not a right, but rather a responsibility for every citizen to protect themselves from government enslavement.

Armed resistance is the only honorable thing. Hopefully they start shooting politicians now, which is the whole point of the second amendment.

[Symmetry]

NELSON, GEORGIA—Backers of a newly adopted ordinance requiring gun ownership in a small U.S. town acknowledge they were largely seeking to make a point about gun rights.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder how many deaths from gun violence occurred in that town.

I can only assume it's a lot since I've heard that gun ownership itself, not the criminal use of guns, is the main cause for gun violence.

[The Bison King]

This may be the most retarded thing I have ever read, and I read flowers for Algernon.

[Ace Rimmer]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

[thegreekdog]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

[DoomYoshi]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

No, there is an exemption for conscientious objectors.

Also, it's not a law for conservatives. It's a law for people who are moral.

[Symmetry]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

That was my first thought too.

[Ace Rimmer]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

No, there is an exemption for conscientious objectors.

Also, it's not a law for conservatives. It's a law for people who are moral.

So by not owning a gun I'm immoral?

[BigBallinStalin]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

Three points:

(1) re: underlined, I know, right?
(2) Maybe it doesn't matter because nearly all of them already own a gun.
(3) Maybe it doesn't matter because the law won't be enforced. It's simply symbolic.

[Ray Rider]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

Three points:

(1) re: underlined, I know, right?
(2) Maybe it doesn't matter because nearly all of them already own a gun.
(3) Maybe it doesn't matter because the law won't be enforced. It's simply symbolic.

You're right about #3. From the article:

City Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won't be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
“I likened it to a security sign that people put up in their front yards. Some people have security systems, some people don't, but they put those signs up,” he said. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city.”

I don't really see what the big deal is about this. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law in 1982 and although the gun control advocates warned the place would become like a modern Wild West, there was not a single fatal shooting for over 25 years even though the population is now five times larger. Compare that to the trend of crime rates in other cities such as Washington DC and Chicago which tried to go to the opposite extreme and implement gun bans.

[Timminz]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

Three points:

(1) re: underlined, I know, right?
(2) Maybe it doesn't matter because nearly all of them already own a gun.
(3) Maybe it doesn't matter because the law won't be enforced. It's simply symbolic.

You're right about #3. From the article:

City Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won't be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
“I likened it to a security sign that people put up in their front yards. Some people have security systems, some people don't, but they put those signs up,” he said. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city.”

I don't really see what the big deal is about this. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law in 1982 and although the gun control advocates warned the place would become like a modern Wild West, there was not a single fatal shooting for over 25 years even though the population is now five times larger. Compare that to the trend of crime rates in other cities such as Washington DC and Chicago which tried to go to the opposite extreme and implement gun bans.

A town with fewer than 24,000 people (and only 5,242 when the law was enacted) is hardly comparable to Chicago or DC.

[Ray Rider]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

Three points:

(1) re: underlined, I know, right?
(2) Maybe it doesn't matter because nearly all of them already own a gun.
(3) Maybe it doesn't matter because the law won't be enforced. It's simply symbolic.

You're right about #3. From the article:

City Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won't be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
“I likened it to a security sign that people put up in their front yards. Some people have security systems, some people don't, but they put those signs up,” he said. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city.”

I don't really see what the big deal is about this. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law in 1982 and although the gun control advocates warned the place would become like a modern Wild West, there was not a single fatal shooting for over 25 years even though the population is now five times larger. Compare that to the trend of crime rates in other cities such as Washington DC and Chicago which tried to go to the opposite extreme and implement gun bans.

A town with fewer than 24,000 people (and only 5,242 when the law was enacted) is hardly comparable to Chicago or DC.

Yes they're on a radically different scale, but we do know:
*that on a small scale, Kennesaw's gun requirements have worked (or at the very least, haven't exacerbated the situation).
*that on a large scale, Washington DC and Chicago's bans haven't worked (or at the very least, haven't helped the situation).
Call that what you will.

If you want to compare cities of similar size, you could've continued reading the article I linked where they compared Kennesaw with Morton Grove, Illinois, which was the first town in America to ban handguns. In Kennesaw, the crime rate dropped after instituting the law; in Morton Grove, the crime rate increased thereafter. Actually, Morton Grove dropped the ban in 2008, so I guess it must not have been worth preserving.

[Lootifer]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

Actually, they should hate it because it requires people to buy something (like, for example, health insurance).

Three points:

(1) re: underlined, I know, right?
(2) Maybe it doesn't matter because nearly all of them already own a gun.
(3) Maybe it doesn't matter because the law won't be enforced. It's simply symbolic.

You're right about #3. From the article:

City Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won't be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
“I likened it to a security sign that people put up in their front yards. Some people have security systems, some people don't, but they put those signs up,” he said. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city.”

I don't really see what the big deal is about this. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law in 1982 and although the gun control advocates warned the place would become like a modern Wild West, there was not a single fatal shooting for over 25 years even though the population is now five times larger. Compare that to the trend of crime rates in other cities such as Washington DC and Chicago which tried to go to the opposite extreme and implement gun bans.

Every single rational objection to this law has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with gun violence/crime/community safety/etc.

Its also a brilliant test for all our true conservatives out there. I feel deep down NS would have no problem with this law (though on these forums I am sure he would object to try and remain consistant); i'd suggest PS would go along with a story such as "well if the town voted on it and thats what they wanted its a good law" and someone like Nobunga would object.

[DoomYoshi]

Conservative =/= libertarian. Or does it all of a sudden?

[thegreekdog]

Conservative =/= libertarian. Or does it all of a sudden?

Depends.

I don't think the labels "conservative" or "liberal" actually mean anything. Or, more accurately, I think they are names for people who support the Republican platform and Democratic platform with virtually no question. So a conservative is someone who is in favor of all thinks Republican, even when the thing they are in favor of is antithetical to their views on the same thing. For example, a conservative would be in favor of this law, but not in favor of the requirement to purchase health insurance.

I agree with Timminz to a certain extent, except that clearly the gun laws in DC and Chicago have been wildly unsuccessful. And I think that means that problems with gun violence have less to do with access to guns and more to do with other things.

[john9blue]

this isn't actually a law, it's more of a political statement.

i agree that this would not work as well for large governments. but then one has to question why large goverments are needed in the first place...

[Night Strike]

"True conservatives" such as Night Strike should hate this law, because it is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights to NOT bear arms.

No, there is an exemption for conscientious objectors.

Correct, anyone can can choose not to follow the law because there are no penalties for not following the law. The people who choose not to follow that law are actually in a theoretically better place than in other cities because the new assumption in the city is that everyone in the city has a gun instead of people only have a gun if they choose to.

And if there were actual penalties to this law, then I would be against it. But in its current form, it's benign and essentially neither here nor there in my view.