Posted on 04/02/2013 4:31:08 AM PDT by Biggirl
(Reuters) - A small Georgia town on Monday passed a law requiring the head of each household to own a gun as a way to keep crime down.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I looked up the demographics for Kennesaw. It has a very “diverse” population.
The factor resulting in lower crime is that there is a consensus of acceptable behavior, and that standard is not “liberal”.
It’s optional.
>>> The Nelson ordinance exempts convicted felons, residents with physical and mental disabilities and those who do not believe in owning firearms, Cronic said.
Another thing I find interesting here...
In the case of convicted felons and the disabled, we don’t really have an “exemption”, but rather a clarification of PRECEDENCE of one law over another.
In the case of religious freedom or belief, we have a CHOICE.
Please think about what the specifics of the application of this law says about religious freedom and the dangerous precedence that it sets;
One could argue that by exempting religious belief, the lawmaker is establishing a preference for religion that places that or any religion “above the law”.
We see the same thing in Obamacare... for if you are a muslim who doesn’t believe in gambling, and your religion classifies insurance as gambling, you are not required to purchase health insurance... while other faiths are excluded by omission.
This is why the constitution states that congress shall make NO LAW which establishes OR prohibits the free exercise thereof.
Which is it that the Nelson gun ordinance violates? The freedom to not believe? or the compulsion to believe???
The argument can be made for either, depending on your desire or CHOICE to own a gun.
Do you not see how the law is being directed at CORPORATE society as opposed to the individual?
Laws which are unenforceable for ANY reason are useless, and serve only to undermine the general RULE of law which requires that all laws be fully and evenly enforced to be effective in society.
And it works.
In America, as the Western frontier illustrated way back when, the presence of guns tended to enforce a taboo structure which kniotted society together. Policital correctness has unraveled that, just as it was aimed to do.
Years ago (decades, actually) when I got my first concealed carry permit in Calhoun County, AL, the act made one an automatic reserve deputy, and the Sheriff could call upon any and all CCP folks in a County emergency. Seemed like a good idea back then, since Fort McClelland (chem-bio weaponry storage facilities) is in that county.
Who is laughing? I was serious as a heart attack. I have an idiot next door neighbor and bought one of those signs to make a point. I did not place it but instead showed it to her from my yard. She almost freaked out, but she did admit she got the point.
I was working at the time for the federal judge who heard the constitutionality question on the (almost identical) Kennesaw gun ordinance, back in the 1980s. It's constitutional, because of the "conscience" exemption.
None of the consequences you fear have transpired in the 30 years since the Kennesaw ordinance went into effect.
>>> None of the consequences you fear have transpired in the 30 years since the Kennesaw ordinance went into effect.
I was not speaking to Kennesaw, but in general practice.
Would you say that the Rule of Law is stronger today in society? or weaker?
This ordinance is not very difficult to figure out, and a lot of you are over-thinking it. It’s mostly an official “middle finger” to the gun control crowd. The Kennesaw, GA, ordinance is a bit more serious. It’s been on the books since the early 80s, and the results are pretty impressive.
Are you a lawyer? A professor or just being difficult. This is their way of telling Obama and the gun control crowd to f off.
>>> Are you a lawyer? A professor or just being difficult.
lol... well, I guess I’m just being difficult because i’m neither a lawyer or a professor.
>>> This is their way of telling Obama and the gun control crowd to f off.
I don’t doubt this for a minute.
But if you understand my point, then you shouldn’t be surprised when Obama and the gun control crowd FAIL to be phased or offended by it.
If this is insane than so was George Washington and the first congress who passed a law requiring every male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a gun with at least so much amo.
In the modern day context I think its brilliant provided you have a citizenry willing to take responsibility for upholding the law.
“Would you say that the Rule of Law is stronger today in society? or weaker?”
I suppose that depends upon where your referring to. There are places in theses united States where the rule of law is stronger, and there are places where it is weaker.
It also depends upon which law you speak of, Federal or state, Constitutional or legislative, civil or criminal.
People have little respect for some laws and much respect for others. what has really weakened the laws is when people stopped upholding them.
This has already been done before, I’m sure.
>>> If this is insane than so was George Washington and the first congress who passed a law requiring every male citizen between 18 and 45 to own a gun with at least so much amo.
Hey... now THAT is a good point.
But wasn’t that more like conscription into the military?
Is it accurate (not saying it isn’t) to equate the Nelson Ordinance and Washington’s law?
If that is the spirit in which this town council passed the ordinance, then far be it from me to disagree.
There is often substantial value in having a respected entity--government or otherwise--openly proclaim various expected standards of behavior, even if the only only "punishment" for non-compliance is that one's behavior will be regarded as being outside the norm. Consider, for example, the laws which specify the correct orientation for a U.S. flag which is hanging over a a road. If someone wanted to hang their flag over a road in a fashion contrary to the law, the person wouldn't be subject to arrest or fined, but anyone who saw the flag would know that it was backward.
Basically, the law in this case is a statement of what people should do, and what they should expect others to do. In many cases, social pressures are in fact more effective than government punishments in promoting compliance with societal norms.
Openly proclaiming various expected standards of behavior is NOT a mandate.
Good points though.
No it was part of the milita clause.
Washington and the first congress considered us all members of the militia and wanted us armed to provided for the defence of our state and federation.
Read about it if you like:
http://www.militaryheritage.org/MilitiaAct1792.html
insolently they didn’t want to pay for the arms themselves so they told us to.
This law was often sighted by liberals as an example of an individual mandate. But of course it has nothing to do with healthcare, or even women for that matter who are to this day still excluded from the milita unless their part of the national guard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.