Backers of a newly adopted ordinance requiring gun ownership in a small north Georgia town acknowledge they were largely seeking to make a point about gun rights.
The ordinance in the city of Nelson — population 1,300 — was approved Monday night and goes into effect in 10 days. However, it contains no penalties and exempts anyone who objects, convicted felons and those with certain mental and physical disabilities.
City Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won't be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
Now, there's some real down-South type thinking. It won't be enforced but it will make the town safer.
I suppose this means we don't have to hear that old pro-gun refrain anymore that they don't require us to own gun so we shouldn't require that they don't. Of course, like most of the pro-gun talking points it doesn't even make any sense. What we require is that people be qualified to own guns and held accountable for their actions. That's all.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This ordinance can't force anyone to own a gun, so it hardly does what you say it does. Surely even you can recognize that it's a reaction to the gun control measures being considered in control freak states and in Congress.
ReplyDeleteThe more your side pushes, the stronger our response will be.
What kind of a strong response is that? The mandatory gun ownership is not really mandatory. It's symbolic. How does it help anything?
DeleteIt sends a message. It reminds people from the wacko enclaves what the rest of the country is thinking. It also fits into a broad list of resistance and push-back. We're issuing you due warning.
DeleteTechnically, a law is a law, and can be enforced if law enforcement chooses to do so. Same goes for "blue laws." So passing a law just to make a stupid statement about "rights" is a violation of the public trust.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, obviously not everyone who *can* own a gun *should* own a gun. This government-endorsed gun ownership statement is dangerous and irresponsible.
Every peer-reviewed study has shown that owning a gun INCREASES the chance of being shot. This does nothing to protect citizens -- the number one most important role of a government.
Every peer-reviewed study? You and your control freak buddies all agree, so we should just roll over? No, thanks.
DeleteBut Oregonian, did you miss the part about how anyone who objects is exempt? That means that the law is unenforceable. All you'd have to say is that you have moral reservations against owning guns.
And yet, enforcements can change over time, with little effort, compared to actually passing the law. But even if it is unenforceable, it is still a government endorsement of the "everyone-should-be-armed-despite-no-training" philosophy, which is just stupid and dangerous.
DeleteMikeB wrote, "Now, there's some real down-South type thinking. It won't be enforced but it will make the town safer."
ReplyDeleteMikeB, I applaud you for realizing (and I agree with your realization) that laws which are not enforced do not make anyone safer.
Please explain how the countless laws that are already on the books -- laws which prohibit criminals from acquiring and using guns to commit crimes and which are NOT currently enforced -- make us safer.
Please also explain how the countless additional gun control laws that you want -- which will NOT be enforced either -- will make us safer.
As you try to explain, please make sure you account for enforcement actions in locations like Chicago which is dead last in the United States for federal prosecutions of gun crimes. (Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/03/26/proof-the-obama-administration-is-going-after-the-good-guys-with-guns/)
What gun control laws on the books are not enforced? If you're not just mindlessly repeating what some other mindless gun nut said, tell us exactly what you mean.
DeleteAnd, what makes you think future gun control laws will not be enforced?
Mikeb, did you even read the comment? Anonymous put a link to an example of a law not being enforced. Sometimes your deliberate knuckleheadedness amazes me.
DeleteSame law in Kennesaw GA worked just fine to reduce violent crime. I believe that was also meant to be easy to get out of obeying as well. I fail to see the harm in it as long as those who do not wish to own guns do not have to. And yes, this ordinance is written so they do not have to. Largely symbolic, but still effective.
ReplyDeleteHow is it effective?
DeleteI'd say an 89% drop in the overall crime rate after it passed would qualify as "effective".
Deletehttp://www.13wmaz.com/news/topstories/article/226418/175/Ga-Towns-Mandatory-Gun-Law-a-Symbolic-Gesture
The video you linked to says that Nelson GA already has NO violent crime. Their gun ordinance will have no effect on that. In fact, imagine if next year they do have a shooting or two, will I be able to claim that the new law caused that?
DeleteSame in Kennesaw. The symbolic gun ordinance has nothing to do with it.