Mandatory gun ownership for or against?

government should not force people to buy things

Government didn't, if you had read the article!

a city ordinance is passed by the city's government (aka local government) so I still stand by what I said

Look, dipstick! The citiy ordinance did not force anyone to own a gun. Read the article, OH never mind you can't comprehend!

law is force.... just like how the individual mandate on Obamacare is seen as force since it is by law... or is it where I need to change for to "tell" on my original comment

Less crime there, criminals like people who protect them by not allowing guns. It's not mandatory that you live there, so if you don't like the law, move elsewhere.

Kind of slow getting to this, but I live in an area, where gun ownership is near 100%. Living in the country.

Everybody I know has them.

Like me, armed and dangerous;-)

Only way to be my friend.

Lock'nload, ready'nsteady,thanks, for being a friend!

You're welcome, glad we are friends.

You are Right as Always!

While I am seriously considering the purchase of a firearm, I do not want to be told that I must have one. This is just as bad as telling me I may not have one.

But good to have to start a 21st Century civil war and especially when so many Conservatives still have the mentality of the 18th century.

In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2...

THe Liberal Rant has proven to be so mistaken this is the only way to figure it.

The Moyer's Story was quite a reach. (almost 50years old) In all this time the Gun Control has again proven to be a FRAUD..... But there's that p;d MARXIST RANT of "Just give us a little more time,,,,,, Well Democrats have gotten more money than is in the Universe and they have not lifted the ship of State. It's a God Damned Marxist LIE>

Perfect, perfect answer!

You did not read the entire article!

Compulsion and freedom cannot coexist.

You did not read the entire article!

I gave my opinion, based on my principles, that was what you were looking for - correct?

If you would have read the article you would have read this:
In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.


(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.


Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2...

Yeah - nothing better than laws that serve no purpose whatsoever.

ohhhh. . . laws that serve no purpose? you mean your stricter gun controll laws and/or total ban on guns meant to "keep criminals from obtaining firearms"? criminals will always be capable of obtaining weapons and guess what? breaking the law is what they do. why not allow citizens to protect themselves? you know how many less cassualties there would have been if at least one or even two movie goers in the batman shooting had their concealed permits? you realize that body armor or not that it would have only taken one magazine maybe a little more to put him 6 feet and would have easily taken less than 30 seconds. im a strong advocate for allowing us the ability to obtain guns to even the odds in case of an emergency where we would be forced to defend both ourselfs and those we care about. im tired of the anti gun movement. its all fanatics that talk as though they dont know a single thing about the crap they babble on about. dont be one of them and just stop spewing stupid. thank you

I don't support gun control. Gun Control = Force. Mandatory Gun Ownership = Force.

Both are equally stupid - I'm aware. Are you?

That town did NOT force anyone to own a gun. Read below, it's from the article.
In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.


(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.


Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2...

Law is the initiation of force - this just happens to be a toothless, purposeless law. No less stupid, imo.

Your opinion. My opinion is it gives the residents the option of getting armed or not, without repercussions, therefore making for a safer town!

The Second Amendment gives residents the option of getting armed or not.

Towns can have ordinances against gun ownership, think Chicago, IL or does the second amendment not exist there!

This town has no ordinance against guns - you're cluttering your thinking unnecessarily. Laws have consequences and they must be enforced. Purposeless law is precisely what our founders warned against.

Purposeless law , is a meaningless law. The current occupants of the White House are above the law and you're piss'n and moan'n over a Kennesaw Georgia's city ordinance.

What does Obama have to do with this law's purposelessness?

I'm consistent in my rejection of false logic. There a problem with that?

There is no such thing as false logic, it's either logical or illogical!
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

Yep - and passing law that serves no purpose whatsoever is about as illogical as one can get.

It does have a purpose and that is to pad the resume of current politicians in their hopes of being re-elected next time around. :( Or am I too cynical?

So you are going to deny the results of an "illogical" ordinance? The purpose it serves is the reduction of crime, which you can not deny. The proof is in the statistics!

Exactly!