• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

City looks to make gun ownership mandatory

sangha said:
PPACA doesn't force anyone to purchase anything
Click to expand...

Technically correct but there is a tax penalty for many if not covered by "qualifying health care coverage":

Individuals who do not obtain or retain qualifying health care coverage will be required to pay a penalty as part of their income tax returns. In 2014, the penalty is $95 or 1 percent of the individual’s income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it increases to $695 or 2.5 percent of income. For families, the maximum penalty is three times the per-person flat-dollar penalty. The penalty for dependent children without coverage is half the cost of the individual flat-dollar penalty (e.g., $47.50 in 2014).
Click to expand...

PPACA: Breaking Down the Insurance Requirements in Health Care Reform: LarsonAllen LLP
 
jamesrage said:
Such law has not been struck down yet.
Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][SUP][17][/SUP]
(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.
​
Click to expand...


Yup. Kennesaw did it years ago as a form of publicity stunt and protest against that decade's gun control crap. It was worded in such a way that it is effectively meaningless except as a statement of principle.

Anything that was ACTUALLY mandatory, I would oppose, for two reasons...
One, it is statist and probably unConstitutional...


Two... one of the last things in the world I'd want to do is FORCE someone to possess a gun if they disliked/feared them and had no interest in learning to use them competently.
 
The point of arguing against gun control is the stupid laws that do nothing to improve safety and are an undue restriction on legal rights. The idiots in that city have accomplished an impressive feat: they have managed to write legislation that matches the stupidity and infringement of liberty of many local firearms ordinances. It takes a special kind of fool to turn a pro-second amendment position into nanny-state behavior.
 
forcing firearms ownership is just as ****ing stupid and wrongheaded as banning firearm ownership.
 
penn1954 said:
I dont like the mandantory part but I think it would be the safest town around !!!
Click to expand...

What is the big deal? Kennesaw, GA has has had mandatory firearm ownership on the books for at least 10 years, probably closer to 15.
 
Deuce said:
You know, what I really wanted was to make sure every abusive household has a chance to escalate domestic violence into a murder. Thanks, Nelson, GA! Let's have every family with lazy, neglectful parents be given the opportunity for tragedy. I had a dream, where every borderline schizophrenic was properly armed for when the lizard people came knocking at the door... or was that the mailman?
Click to expand...

You make it out like people never killed each other before guns.... The reality is that most people are not a few words short of killing someone, though, one could be curious why you feel people are that eager to kill each other and just need the tools to do it??

My take on this is different, this is like a call to the citizens to act as the militia. The police are saying that they are unable to effectively protect this town and so the citizens of that town must be willing to handle their own protection... And if all the responsible people in the town were armed then there would be a far better response than if they had to wait an unusual time for police assistance.
 
BmanMcfly said:
City looks to make gun ownership mandatory | www.wsbtv.com

Posted: 6:35 p.m. Tuesday, March 5, 2013



What would people think of MANDATORY exercise of the second amendment ??
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why this grandstanding bull plop won't pass, but just to play along, they better dish out the money necessary to provide firearms for those who cannot afford them. If not, they better lawyer up, because the people who get punished for this nonsense sure will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom