Skip to comments.Some US communities seek to make gun ownership mandatory
Posted on 03/09/2013 5:53:52 AM PST by RoosterRedux
A town of 140 people in western Maine is considering an ordinance making gun ownership mandatory, the latest of a handful of communities nationwide to pass or consider such a rule even though the measures are widely considered unenforceable.
All three members of the Board of Selectmen in Byron favor it, and Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmunds said she expects residents to approve it at Monday's town meeting, a New England institution where townspeople vote up or down on municipal proposals.
"We're hoping that the town will get on board with us but will accept whatever the town wants," Simmons-Edmunds said Friday.
Communities from Idaho to Georgia have been inspired to "require" or recommend their residents arm themselves ever since a gunman killed 26 youngsters and educators Dec. 14 in a school in Newtown, Conn., and raised fears among gun owners about an impending restriction on Second Amendment rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Makes sense to me, but it shouldn’t have to be mandatory. It already is the right to free choice (remember Freedom?) and the rights of the individual, either way they choose, shall not be infringed!
for example: Everyone must have a gun and be trained to use it. Everyone must use incandescent light bulbs. Everyone must drink a 16 oz soda every day. Everyone must use plastic bags at grocery stores to avoid health problems with reusable (salmonila-contaminated cloth bags). And so on..... Start with the exact opposite extremism as the opponent.
It’s one way to prevent anti 2nd amendment types from moving into town.
Not a good idea. The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t order us to have them.
Nelson, GA considering requiring its citizens to be armed.
I do not support such.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it does not say that we must bear arms.
If someone does to want a gun, then that is their choice.
I serve no man, nor should any other American.
From what I understand, this law is more of a statement than an enforceable law...a finger poked in the eye of the gun control crowd.
If another man can tell me that I “must”, then another man can tell me that I “must not”.
It is I who tells my representative musts and must nots, not the other way around.
Doesn’t the government require you to have health insurance?
I think that mandating (unenforced) gun ownership is good on the surface, but it needs to be fleshed out even further.
In Common Law, the county Sheriff is the official head of the militia. As such, he could deem “All adult persons of good character” to be in the militia, and thus technically law enforcement officers, so exempt from any state or federal gun limitation that is not applied to all the LEOs in the state.
Likewise, he could offer free voluntary range training once a year to those children who have turned 18 (or 21), so that in addition to being a county militia member, they would get a “range qualified” commendation. And, of course, if he wanted to, he could also show off the Sheriff’s Department in a Public Relations event at the same time.
The possibilities really grow from there. He could invite city police department and military recruiters as well. A real patriotic open house.
I like it!
If you want to capture some border line liberal’s hearts in this, offer “free” guns to those law abiding families that can’t afford one.
You totally missed my point Chris.
lol...that’s great. I’m gonna use that idea with some liberal acquaintances and watch their heads explode.
I understand your point of where a debate must start in order to reach a certain desired outcome.
But my point is that the debate of my God given rights starts and stops with God.
There simply is no debate.
I am not going to accept, tolerate, listen to or obey anyone’s opinion, command or law on my right to bear arms except His.
Nor should anyone else, not for any reason.
Shall not be infringed means there is no debate, there is no right to a debate.
It is as if these politicians are debating whether or not they should allow the sun to rise tomorrow.
Such is beyond their reach.
You say thereis no debate....try carrying in Illinois...there is one hwlluva debate going in...there shouldn’t be, but you’ll end up in jail in a Chicago minute if you me state your God-given rights to a Chicago cop while he is handcuffing you. However you are making my point exactly. If they want to debate, then the negotiation from the right should be exactly your starting position, and should not waver. Prob is the people debating for our side are starting closer to the middle...”we’ll, maybe if we had a gun that was a different color...” Starting there, they have accepted the premise of gun control and the whole agenda moves left as a result. So all legislation from our side must start as far right as possible and stick to it as closely as the left sticks to their position. Problem is the right continues to “negotiate” and the result moves left. You say there is no negotiation...I agree with your point of view, but the cat is already out of the bag...again the Chicago example.
Understood and agreed. While I say that there is no debate as far as I am concerned, obviously there are people who think that they have power that they do not have, and they certainly intened to use it.
My answer to this example of Chicago would be to do as I please, but not to tell anyone nor be caught doing it. My attitude at this point is that if only outlaws have guns, then outlaw will I be.
As far as our side knowing where to start a debate and even how to debate, they don’t. I would say that they are the most inept group of people I’ve ever seen, but I do not believe that is the case. They are dishonest and not to be trusted.
So at this point, outside of Cruz and Paul, our side and their side no longer represent me. Outside of the two men I named, I represent myself.
I know such an attitude could land me in jail, but that is a risk I will take. I believe that God entrusted me with the rights that he blessed me with, and I intend to guard them and keep them and return them to Him intact unpon my death.
That is the only way I will ever give them up, change them alter them or anything else.
I know some people might call me crazy, and maybe they are right, but I must do this.
Also, PatriotsFlag, I meant no offense with my original post. I am sorry if I imparted any. I am particular on this subject of the right to bears arms, and I realize that sometimes I may come across in a harsh way about it.
Here's the deal — turn the tables on the gun grabbers. If you own a gun, you are providing unpaid security against criminals. If you don't own a gun, you're benefiting from the unpaid neighborhood security provided by your neighbors with guns.
Therefore, the non-gun owners can either buy a gun or pay a tax to the community to reimburse the unpaid security. I think $10 per week is fair for individuals and $30 per week for businesses.
You’re not crazy...they thought the people who thre the tea in the harbor were crazy...”we” are just that crazy, and I hope I get you for a cell mate so we can continue our discussion! The solution to this is exactly as you stated. I never imagined a time I would even consider ignoring the law. That time now is upon us, it is going to get interesting, that’s for sure.
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.