• 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!

Missouri lawmaker introduces bill that would require AR-15 ownership

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
25,204
Reaction score
23,934
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri lawmaker introduces bill that would require AR-15 ownership | News Headlines | kmov.com

ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) – A bill introduced in Missouri would require residents to own AR-15 guns.

Andrew McDaniel (R-Deering) introduced House Bill 1108 late last month. The bill would establish the McDaniel Militia Act, “which requires every person between 18 and 35 years of age who can legally possess a firearm to own an AR-15 and authorizes a tax credit for a purchase of an AR-15.”

According to the proposed bill, any person who qualifies as a resident on Aug. 28, 2019 who does not own an AR-15 would have a year to purchase one. In addition, anyone who becomes a state resident after Aug. 28, 2019 would have no later than a year to purchase an AR-15.

If I'm not mistaken this has been tried before no?
 
In humor - Well if the Goverment can force you to otain insurance to cover your life, no reason they cant force you to have the tool to defend it.

But no. No one should be forced to obtain a tool to use in defense of one's self or others. That should be a choice.
 
This is just as bad as a bill banning the weapon.

Having the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to NOT keep and bear arms.

God damn it! I agree with Mycroft. Drink!

tenor.gif
 
Seems pretty ridiculous to me.
 
This is just as bad as a bill banning the weapon.

Having the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to NOT keep and bear arms.

There might be exemptions where you don't have to own an AR 15.
 
Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring everyone in the town to own a gun. It's isn't enforced.

Would you know if the law has been challenged in court?
 
Would you know if the law has been challenged in court?

No...the law is still on the books; however, its not enforced, and the text of the law leaves huge loopholes to avoid ownership.

Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(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.
 
This is just as bad as a bill banning the weapon.

Having the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to NOT keep and bear arms.

I agree it's a stupid idea, but it's funny to watch the Libbos get a taste of their own medicine.
 
This is just as bad as a bill banning the weapon.

Having the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to NOT keep and bear arms.

It's idiotic but if Missouri wants to try to pass such a law, then they're required to SUBSIDIZE the cost, AND they're not allowed to decide WHAT SPECIFIC KIND of firearm either.

In other words, if the law is passed, anyone whose income is below a certain level, say perhaps less than $150 thousand a year, reports to the State Armory and is ISSUED a firearm from a bunch of available choices, on the state's dime.

No tax credit nonsense either, the armory just issues the gun, period, because in keeping with the spirit of the 2A, persons should not have to submit tax information or otherwise involve the IRS in any way whatsoever....just present your legal ID and blammo, here's your gun, here's your boxes of ammo, and you get a paper with instructions on how the state wishes for you to maintain it.
 
Would you know if the law has been challenged in court?

I don't think it has, but I don't know for sure. It's been on the books for close to 30 years now.
 
This is just as bad as a bill banning the weapon.

Having the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to NOT keep and bear arms.

I think that's the point of the bill. To point out the absurdity and hypocrisy when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
Back
Top Bottom