Bill in SD to mandate weapon purchase

[RS14]

kingpin008, the reason I ask about cars is the apparent general feeling that the government can compel auto insurance, but only if you choose to own a car. But if we decide such legislation doesn't matter because you always have the choice to not buy a car, then would we not by the same logic permit any other requirements, be they guns or health insurance?

How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?

A friend of mine lives in Kennesaw, GA and he told me that it is a law that every household has a gun in it. I am new to GA and do not live in that town (20 mins, north of Atlanta) so i can not verify. I do know that Kennesaw is a vice town with a low crime rate.

Once again i do not live there and i am only relaying what someone else told me.

In Kennesaw, GA, every head of household is required to keep and maintain a gun, but there is a long list of exemptions for people prohibited from possessing firearms, unable to afford them, morally opposed, disabled, etc. In any case, nobody has ever been charged with violating it. As a practical matter, it is not really required.

 

[nwilliams]

People should have the right to own guns if they choose. Period.

I don't believe that the government should force anyone in this country to do anything against their will and that includes owning a firearm.

On top of that there are plenty of people out there, besides criminals and the mentally unstable, that probably shouldn't own a gun for their own sake and for everyone else around them. Besides I have a lot of family and friends that are anti-gun and I respect the fact that they choose not to own firearms.

 

[kingpin008]

How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?

Ok, I already covered this in an earlier comment, but I'll try again:

The difference is that the requirement to purchase auto insurance is wholly dependent on owning a car in the first place. They can't compel you to purchase insurance for something that you don't own.

What this bill is talking about is compelling Americans to own guns, not gun insurance. To go back to the cars thing, that's akin to the government passing a law that says "YOU MUST BUY A CAR!" Which, obviously, they can't do. Therefore, there is a world of difference.

 

[52grain]

Quote:
How is it different for drivers to be required to maintain auto insurance, than it is for them to be required to own guns?
Ok, I already covered this in an earlier comment, but I'll try again:

The difference is that the requirement to purchase auto insurance is wholly dependent on owning a car in the first place. They can't compel you to purchase insurance for something that you don't own.

What this bill is talking about is compelling Americans to own guns, not gun insurance. To go back to the cars thing, that's akin to the government passing a law that says "YOU MUST BUY A CAR!" Which, obviously, they can't do. Therefore, there is a world of difference.

Not completely true. The government only requires that you purchase insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads. As far as I know you drive around a cow pasture all you want without insurance. Even then you don't always have to purchase insurance to drive on public roads. Here you can post a bond or deposit securities in the amount of (I believe) $50,000 with the state and then skip the insurance.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But if we could get past the, what i would call "the stupid stage" the implications for criminal activity decline are huge.

Yes, there is potential. Even so like the Giffords' shooting in AZ, really bad things can and will happen. Just last year, Jesse James Warren walked into his former job and opened fire, killing 3 and wounding 2 more. This was in Kennesaw, GA where households are all supposed to have guns, though this shooting did not happen at anyone's home, but a business. Georgia also has concealed carry and open carry by permit, of course.

This double murder was in a home in Kennesaw...
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-atlanta/kennesaw-man-charged-with-double-murder

Murder-suicide in the home in 2007...
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=107022
Kennesaw, GA does have a low crime rate pretty much across the board, even for crimes that would not be affected by people having guns in their homes.

If you Google the city, you may come across this artilce from WND, orignally done in 2007 right after the VT shootings. The article states that Kennesaw has been murder-free for 25 years, since mandatory home gun ownership was put into place. You will find this article mentioned all over the 'net and on this board was well....http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=271150&highlight=murder+free+kennesaw
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Don't be fooled. The article is a big fat lie. In just the years between 1999 and 2005, Kennesaw had 4 murders.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html

In 2006, the year before the WND article, this murder suicide occurred at a student's home...
http://onlineathens.com/stories/082306/news_20060823064.shtml

Don't get me wrong. Kennesaw seems to be a great place to live and has low crime rates. Just know that some of the over-hyped claims about aspects such as being murder-free are not correct.

 

[Wes B]

I thought this was the funniest thing I had read in a long while. If I was sure I wouldn't have sprained or strained something I would have been rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

When it came out I heard from a few people about how this was going to give a rise to accidents everywhere.
Being a smart aleck I mentioned that nowhere in the bill did it require anyone to buy bullets.

My second thought was:

In sweden, they give you a rifle. No need to purchase one.

But youre also enlisted in the Military.

But who fights with Sweden?

For the belligerent people I told them this was an end-run on to enact complusory enrollment in the armed forces. Again, I can be a smart aleck.


To make the bill better, they should have included the provision that the purschase would be entirely tax deductible. Not that SD has a state income tax. But I am still dreaming about a Monson MA Dan Wesson .44 with interchangeable barrels. I think it would suit my demeanor just fine.

 

[kingpin008]

Not completely true. The government only requires that you purchase insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads. As far as I know you drive around a cow pasture all you want without insurance. Even then you don't always have to purchase insurance to drive on public roads. Here you can post a bond or deposit securities in the amount of (I believe) $50,000 with the state and then skip the insurance.

All correct, but once again it's got nothing at all to do with the present conversation. So can we stop talking about insurance?

 

[jon_in_wv]

I don't support the government forcing people to buy guns any more that I support the government forcing people to buy health insurance.

 

[General Geoff]

Mandatory weapon ownership is just as tyrannical as banned weapon ownership; historically, even with the militia requirements, laws mandating ownership of a firearm were not strictly enforced for various reasons, including economic (some cannot afford a firearm), religious, or philosophical.