Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Did you think they were going to do anything less? After Colimbine there was a ground swell of support even though it looked impossible. And it took some time but got CCW in our state.Originally Posted by Dave
Who are you to want to escape a thugs bullet? That is only a personal prejudice, ( Atlas Shrugged)
"Those that don't watch the old media are uninformed, those that do watch the old media are misinformed." - Mark Twain
I think there should be some language in the bill (which I plan to discuss with weld county officials as a county law after the first of the year) that reads something like...
"Any person of a given household residing within the borders of our jurisdiction must leagally own a firearm for their own personal defense."
This would create a couple of positives as far as I'm concerned. The first one is that anyone who does not appreciate the value of a gun on hand would move back to... say... California (LOL). Second, any citizen who is not leagally entitled to posess a firearm would need to move to say...Kalifornia (LOL).
Kevin
You want to force people to have to buy guns, or will the government be providing these. This sounds a bit like forcing people to have health insurance. Just because something might be good for people doesn't mean you should force them to do it.
And honestly some people probably shouldn't be forced to own guns. What about people who have violent felonies, shall we allow them to have guns or force them to move out? What about people with deep mental health issues(I'm not trying to start a debate, so assume some crazed homicidal maniac who has made open statements), should they be forced to have guns or move out?
Check out Kennesaw, GA. Although at the city/town level instead of the county level, they have a law similar to what was suggested. It was more intended to ensure the right to firearms than anything, but they do give some good reasoning...see below from wikipedia -
Gun law
In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]
(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.Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[20] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[21][22] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]
(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.
The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.
So because they do something somewhere else we should do it here?
I like this! Where do I sign?
No, I was merely showing where what was suggested has been done before with an 'out' for those that don't wish to participate.
Of course you would need to purchase your own gun, I wouldn't want the government telling me what kind of gun i need to own (or cannot own).
You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here. However, if you don't want to participate in forced health insurance, you don't have an option at all, we're all part off the health care program now. There is a huge difference in local & federal government.
If you read my original post, lawful citizens would be the posessors of said guns. If you're not "lawful", I personally don't want you here to walk the streets with my family.
My point is this...
Unless you have been under a rock, you can surely recognize that the opposing party will stop at nothing to further thier political agenda. We must act where we can while we can to promote and protect our liberties and the constitution.
Kevin
What about conscientious objectors? Pacifists? Quakers?
And why should someone need to jump through your hoops to live in his own home? Have you bought and paid for his house?
It is exactly like forcing health insurance. Your want to force someone to buy something because you think it will benefit society/themselves/yourself/whatever. The reality is that you want to reduce others liberty through your authoritarian desires.
And by the way, telling someone that if they don't like they can leave does not preserve their liberty. I heard that there are some countries south of the border that don't have public health care or mandatory insurance and you can go ahead and leave based on your logic. Does that feel like liberty to you?
How do you plan to make sure that only lawful citizens have guns and the rest leave? On that note how do you suggest that the government ensure that all lawful citizens posses said firearm? What will you do with those who are not in compliance? Deportation or fines?
Do you think that we should just ship out all of our felons? What about if all the other states enact the same legislation? What do you suggest then?
The reality is that there are people who were at one period were 'unlawful' who walk the streets everyday. Some haven't changed a single bit and shouldn't be in society, however many have reformed their lives and have earned their liberty. Or maybe you think that someone who was caught with one tab of x should get a life sentence?
You are suggesting that you can impart legislation that would violate a person's freedom of choice and create a government that regulates further the aspects of daily life. The does not promote nor protect our liberties or the constitution but instead does the opposite. Your trying to tell people how to live their lives just like the opposing party that you accuse of doing so.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote