1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pondering implications of "required ownership"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ZeSpectre, Oct 29, 2007.

  1. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Well-Known Member

    A recent news article got me thinking about places like Kennesaw, GA, GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan, and Virgin, Utah where there is "required ownership of and safety training for" firearms and unless you meet some of the exemptions (convicted felon, conscientious objector, financially unable to comply, etc.) you can face a (small) fine for noncompliance.

    A few of the notions that passed through my (admittedly pro RKBA) mind were...

    -Mandatory safety training makes us ALL safer.
    -Hands on experience would dispell a lot of myths regarding firearms and firearm ownership.

    -Imposition on individual freedom?
    -Cost involved
    -Time involved (both for citizens and for "enforcement"?

    anyone care to help me flesh these ideas out a bit?
  2. strat81

    strat81 Well-Known Member

    Given the amount of time most of the population spends watching TV and surfing the net, a minor intrusion would be... well, minor. When I started grad school I was freaked because I didn't have any spare time for it. It turns out I did... I watch about 3-4 hours of TV per week now, as opposed to 20-25. Not much net surfing (or range time) either.

    A Maverick 88 shotgun costs $200 new. That's about 40 packs of cigarettes or 34 six-packs of beer. It's not much. No, everyone is not making six figures, but most people, even those considered low income, can scrape together for it.

    Perhaps the rule should be you must own a gun before you can get cable TV.

    Probably the hardest to refute, but, as they say: Freedom isn't free.
  3. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Well-Known Member

    I agree that people should not be forced to bear arms because it imposes on their personal freedoms. I think we have a right to bear arms, not a requirement.

    You have the right not to own a gun, and I have the right to own one if I please.
  4. jefnvk

    jefnvk Well-Known Member

    I have a real problem with people that insist that if everyone had a firearm, the world would be better.

    Some people are not comfortable around weapons. Those people are never going to be able to safely and sanely handle firearms, and I don't see how forcing them to do something they are completely uncomfortable with is going to make everyone safer.

    BTW, this logic applies to drafting as well. I don't see the point in forcing those unwilling to kill others if necessary, to fight along side those that would, and risk their lives.
  5. joab

    joab Well-Known Member

    Or ,in the case of Kennesaw, you just don't want one

    I see nothing wrong with mandatory ownership for anyone that wants to own one
  6. RLsnow

    RLsnow Well-Known Member

    i heard they dont enforce the law actually and mean it more to urge people to own gun...
  7. SDC

    SDC Well-Known Member

    In the case of Kennesaw, their law is written to exempt "conscientous objectors", so if you don't WANT to own a gun, you don't NEED to own one.
  8. 40SW

    40SW Well-Known Member

    Isnt it true that in most municipalities where there is mandatory compliance, actual compliance already exists, so its really a non issue. I do however agree that there are obviously practical issues involved. I would like to see how well the model has worked in Switzerland where there used to be a similar quasi mandatory compliance doctrine.
    Now, from a practical standpoint, mandatory firearms ownership and proficiency compliance has a number of benefits for a society.

    1. Builds character and responsibility , (especially in youth).
    2. Strong deterent against invasion (if you don't believe it, read up on the quotes from the Imprerial Japanese Naval Admiralty and why they didn't op for a ground amphibious invasion of San Diego harbor in WWII).
    3. Deters domestic crime, home invasion, (the old adage from Heinlein, an armed society is a polite society, it is true).
    4. Encourages recreational activity and grows the shooting sports, a great coomraidare and social bond).
    5. So in the end, its a positive for a nation, but I think a ground work should be formulated where it is voluntary and the benefits spelled out.

  9. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    The RKBA was originally a right and a duty at common law.

    People yap endlessly about their rights, but are silent about their duties. Just look at all the "my rights" threads we have here at THR in contrast to the training threads we have.

    It's time to make the right to arms a right and a duty again. I would start by making competence with an M16 a requirement for voting.:)
  10. mavracer

    mavracer Well-Known Member

    Hey Z you forgot one big PRO Kennesaw which is near Atlanta (a relatively high crime large city) has not had a gun related murder in the 25 years since it passed.
  11. 6_gunner

    6_gunner Well-Known Member

    I would object to it on the basis of personal freedom, mainly because of the cost and time involved. I personally don't own a cell phone because I don't want/need one enough to spend money on it. I wouldn't take kindly to the government saying that I HAD to buy a cell phone. Same thing with guns for most people.

    However, the government could supply used military and police guns to people who don't have one, with little cost to the taxpayer. They could make training a part of the public school curriculum. I would be okay with that.
  12. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    You are not forced to own a gun if you do not one.
  13. tinygnat219

    tinygnat219 Well-Known Member

    I think the Constitution here works both ways. Yeah, the state should not interfere with my constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. On the same coin, if I don't have a gun it's not the state's responsibility to ensure that I have one. I do have a right to choose NOT to have a gun. I would definitely respect that right. I keep having a feeling that some anti-gunner is going to move down there and get the fine and then sue the town for violating their Constitutional Rights. I'd just leave the "required" off of the books and make it "friendly" for people who support the 2nd Amendment.
  14. fireflyfather

    fireflyfather Well-Known Member

    Links please.
  15. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Well-Known Member

    - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
    (Japanese Navy)
  16. Technosavant

    Technosavant Well-Known Member

    I would side with those who oppose mandatory ownership on grounds it imposes upon the freedom of the individual. The way Kennesaw's law is written, it really isn't mandatory ownership. Mandatory means that you have to do it, and saying "I don't wanna" is no excuse.

    While El Tejon's "duty" reasoning does appeal somewhat to me, I still do not find it persuasive. There's enough people out there who want to own them to defend even those who don't want them (and won't wield them).

    We aren't required to exercise our other rights- we can indeed waive our rights to free speech, unreasonable search, and so on. Why should the right to own implements of self defense be any different?
  17. RoadkingLarry

    RoadkingLarry Well-Known Member

    I'd much rather see a resolution "strongly encouraging" private firearms ownership and City/County/State partnering with local level organizations to provide safe and affordable places to shoot and receive training.
  18. Grizzly Adams

    Grizzly Adams Well-Known Member

    Read the laws carefully. As stated above these laws have exemptions that amount to just saying you don't want to own or don't like guns!
  19. K3

    K3 Well-Known Member

    And by M-16, you mean M-16 rather than just an AR? I like it! There should be a CMP program for M-16s too. That old registry thing gets in the way though.
  20. rritter

    rritter Well-Known Member

    K3, that brings up an idea I've had. The government should make surplus infantry weapons (M-14, M-16 through M-4 and on to whatever replaces that) available at a reasonable cost (the government's cost + 10%, maybe) to anyone who is legally qualified to own a rifle. These would be considered militia weapons, and you would have to produce it once/year to show that it's still in good working order. There would be no transfer fee involved, although it would be registered (no real way around that with the government supplying it).

    That would produce a well-armed militia. Some additional requirements (training/proficiency, for example) might also be added, but it would allow any citizen who is legally allowed to own a rifle to buy a cheap, select-fire militia weapon, in exchange for being willing to participate in the militia.

Share This Page