TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Write Your Own Gun Law

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, if you are going to write a gun law that says "crazy people can't buy guns", then you need to specify how someone is deemed too crazy to buy a gun. By what mechanism will people be evaluated? Who decides that?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Let's hear it!

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

No Past, present, or future criminal shall be allowed to buy or carry any type of gun. Only good, law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns. No illegal guns are allowed in this country.

How is that?

ed11563 · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And, if you are going to write a gun law that says "crazy people can't buy guns", then you need to specify how someone is deemed too crazy to buy a gun. By what mechanism will people be evaluated? Who decides that?

Each applicant will have to fly to Nebraska, and be personally interviewed by Husker, who will approve or deny their application.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
No Past, present, or future criminal shall be allowed to buy or carry any type of gun. Only good, law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns. No illegal guns are allowed in this country.

How is that?

How do you stop a future criminal from buying a gun? wink

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
No Past, present, or future criminal shall be allowed to buy or carry any type of gun. Only good, law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns. No illegal guns are allowed in this country.

How is that?

How can you tell who a future criminal will be? Minority Report was fictional, you know.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And, if you are going to write a gun law that says "crazy people can't buy guns", then you need to specify how someone is deemed too crazy to buy a gun. By what mechanism will people be evaluated? Who decides that?
Each applicant will have to fly to Nebraska, and be personally interviewed by Husker, who will approve or deny their application.

That sounds reasonable.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And, if you are going to write a gun law that says "crazy people can't buy guns", then you need to specify how someone is deemed too crazy to buy a gun. By what mechanism will people be evaluated? Who decides that?
Each applicant will have to fly to Nebraska, and be personally interviewed by Husker, who will approve or deny their application.
That sounds reasonable.

smile

huskerbb · Guru

I'm not so sure that ALL those with a criminal past should be barred, either. Let's say some kid gets busted for pot as a teen, but then straightens himself out and never commits another crime. I don't think he should be barred forever from owning a gun. Those who have committed first degree assault, robbery, murder, of course, etc... should be barred.

huskerbb · Guru

The main problem is people, mainly criminals, buying guns illegally. Even the supposed lax rules at gun shows are a red herring. All the wanna be gangsters in North Omaha aren't getting their guns at some red neck gun show.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

So, what about mental health issues? If someone has a prescription for Xanax or an antidepressant are they disqualified? Should the gun shops pull up someone's medical records? Is there now going to be some national reporting system on everyone who has ever suffered from depression or had anxiety or any other issue? If someone is "angry" about something does that now disqualify them or make them a danger? I was watching Nancy Grace and she was showing a supposed "altercation" of a traffic stop between Flannigan and another motorist. It was actually a very calm exchange with no shouting, intimidation or anything other than a brief discussion over the motor vehicle incident and information exchange and then they were both on their way.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
So, what about mental health issues? If someone has a prescription for Xanax or an antidepressant are they disqualified? Should the gun shops pull up someone's medical records? Is there now going to be some national reporting system on everyone who has ever suffered from depression or had anxiety or any other issue? If someone is "angry" about something does that now disqualify them or make them a danger? I was watching Nancy Grace and she was showing a supposed "altercation" of a traffic stop between Flannigan and another motorist. It was actually a very calm exchange with no shouting, intimidation or anything other than a brief discussion over the motor vehicle incident and information exchange and then they were both on their way.

Sure, we'd all like to prevent people going off the deep end from getting a gun--but take Adam Lanza, he got one, anyway.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

These criminals know they are breaking laws when they murder people. Not sure how yet another law that they disregard is going to change anything.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
These criminals know they are breaking laws when they murder people. Not sure how yet another law that they disregard is going to change anything.

It won't. The only point in favor of gun control is if they didn't have one immediately available, it might prevent a few crimes of "passion" if they have time to cool down.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
These criminals know they are breaking laws when they murder people. Not sure how yet another law that they disregard is going to change anything.
It won't. The only point in favor of gun control is if they didn't have one immediately available, it might prevent a few crimes of "passion" if they have time to cool down.

Ten states and the District of Columbia have waiting periods that apply to the purchase of some or all firearms.¹⁴ See our summary on Background Check Procedures for state laws that prohibit gun sales or transfers until a background check is completed.

Additional states require firearm purchasers to obtain a license or permit prior to the purchase of a firearm. Licensing laws of this kind play a similar role to waiting period laws. See our summary on Licensing Gun Owners & Purchasers for information about licensing laws.

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Purchases of All Firearms

State (Waiting Period)
California (10 days)¹⁵
District of Columbia (10 days)¹⁶
Hawaii (14 days)¹⁷
Illinois (24 hours) (long guns); 72 hours (handguns)¹⁸
Rhode Island (7 days)¹⁹

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Purchases of Handguns and Assault Weapons

State (Waiting Period)
Minnesota (7 days)²⁰

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Handguns Only

State (Waiting Period)²¹
Florida (3 days)²²
Iowa (3 days)²³
Maryland (7 days)²⁴
New Jersey (7 days)²⁵
Wisconsin (48 hours)²⁶

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
No Past, present, or future criminal shall be allowed to buy or carry any type of gun. Only good, law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns. No illegal guns are allowed in this country.

How is that?
How do you stop a future criminal from buying a gun?

Exactly my point

huskerbb · Guru

I wouldn't be against a nationwide mandatory waiting period if it was reasonable.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, he purchased his gun quite a bit longer prior to this incident so that wouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Most of the mass murders are very patient and calculating.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, he purchased his gun quite a bit longer prior to this incident so that wouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Most of the mass murders are very patient and calculating.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying it would prevent some such crimes. most certainly not all.

jlbear71 · Guru

I don't think that guns are the problem. Mental health is the problem. I think that gun owners should have a physical and mental exam every year in order to maintain gun ownership. Just like I think that drivers should pass a drivers test every year.

Hell, I think that all persons should have a physical and mental exam annually regardless of whether they are a gun owner, driver or whatnot.

Guns are not the problem. It that was the case, then cars would be responsible, not drunk drivers. All cars should be manufactured to have a breathalyzer. And all persons should wear a flotation device because water (pools, lakes, rivers, oceans, fountains, etc) drown people.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, that's the problem. We always want to place undo restrictions and expenses on the vast majority of people who are law abiding. We can't prevent everything. And, punishing a collective whole for the actions of a few is wrong. Can you imagine the time and chaos of having everyone retest for driving EVERY year? And, what does that really prove anyway? Or a physical exam? A lot of people are physically fine. And, evil people know what answers to give to pass a mental health eval. What would that really show or prevent?

jlbear71 · Guru

Tell me, did any of these people who did these type of mass shootings get any physical or mental health evaluation? very few! Maybe, just maybe, one of these would not have happened if they did. This person who shot the news crew on live television ADMITTED he was a ticking time bomb and needed help.

The kid who shot up a church? He needed help. The kid who shot up a school, the person who shot up a move theater, the person who bombed a federal building. Hmm, what is the common denominator?

Maybe one of them would not have done that if they had gotten help. We will never know.

And, since the problem is so few since so many are fine (your words), then why bother with any kind of control or restriction if it can't be prevented.

Why bother with schools and education laws? Surely you as a parent know best what to teach your children. No? You send them to school so they can be better education and guess what? They are tested on that knowledge before they are passed to the next grade or graduation.

People want safety and stricter laws. But they do not want to put the effort or money required to ensure the safety and stricter laws. They just want someone else to handle it and make it work without having to do anything about it themselves.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Maybe if we protected our children with armed guards they way we do our money, then some of those children could have been saved as well.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
Tell me, did any of these people who did these type of mass shootings get any physical or mental health evaluation? very few! Maybe, just maybe, one of these would not have happened if they did. This person who shot the news crew on live television ADMITTED he was a ticking time bomb and needed help.

The kid who shot up a church? He needed help. The kid who shot up a school, the person who shot up a move theater, the person who bombed a federal building. Hmm, what is the common denominator?

Maybe one of them would not have done that if they had gotten help. We will never know.

And, since the problem is so few since so many are fine (your words), then why bother with any kind of control or restriction if it can't be prevented.

Why bother with schools and education laws? Surely you as a parent know best what to teach your children. No? You send them to school so they can be better education and guess what? They are tested on that knowledge before they are passed to the next grade or graduation.

People want safety and stricter laws. But they do not want to put the effort or money required to ensure the safety and stricter laws. They just want someone else to handle it and make it work without having to do anything about it themselves.

I didn't say "don't bother". But, what I am saying is that to restrict everyone's freedom for the actions of the very very few has to be in balance. I don't care how many laws or restrictions you impose about anything. Crazy and evil is still going to find a way. Yes, we have to have a balance. And, in a free society, we accept certain risks. But, do you really think that other countries with martial law are safer than ours? You cannot legalize and legislate the heart or conscience of people.

jlbear71 · Guru

But we can't live in a bubble. And we can't just keep re-writing the same laws and blaming the same things for things that go wrong. It is not working. Something needs to change.

Guns and bombs are not the problem with violence. People are.
Cars are not the problem with impaired drivers. People are.
Food, soda, candy is not the problem of obesity. People are.

If we don't recognize and accept the problem, how can it be fixed? We can put many laws, rules and restrictions on the items. It is still the people who control what and how it is used. The problem is the people, not the item. So, how does it get fixed?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Where did I say to live in a bubble? The people living in the bubble are the ones who think we can call schools "gun free zones" and pretend a psychopath isn't going to show up there with a gun. That's the bubble. Guns are a reality in America, like it or not. We can either deal with that reality or pretend otherwise. Why do we arm people to protect our money but not our children?

jlbear71 · Guru

The "why bother" part was my words.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
But we can't live in a bubble. And we can't just keep re-writing the same laws and blaming the same things for things that go wrong. It is not working. Something needs to change.

Guns and bombs are not the problem with violence. People are.
Cars are not the problem with impaired drivers. People are.
Food, soda, candy is not the problem of obesity. People are.

If we don't recognize and accept the problem, how can it be fixed? We can put many laws, rules and restrictions on the items. It is still the people who control what and how it is used. The problem is the people, not the item. So, how does it get fixed?

I agree. The problem is people. You change society by changing the hearts of people. You reduce violence when people value the sanctity of life and aborted limbs of children aren't tossed aside as trash. You change hearts when people realize they are sinners and in need of a loving Savior and whom they want to honor with their life do good things. As for the mentally ill and crazies, you can't do anything about them except put them in an institution. But instead, everyone has their "rights' so we cannot commit people or they can just walk out of treatment. So, yes, I would support mental health laws that allow more involuntary commitment.

-- Edited by Lady Gaga Snerd on Saturday 29th of August 2015 10:55:24 AM

jlbear71 · Guru

I never said that you live in a bubble. The people who live in a bubble are the ones who think they can control the violence by writing another law.

You asked what gun law would we write. Since the gun itself is not committing the crime, it is the people who have possession of the gun. And why not subject them to an evaluation? Yes, I know it will not stop all crimes. Hell, I would be happy if it stopped just one. But it just might stop some.

I live near a city that has some of the highest gun crimes and murder rates in the country. It has always been in the top five. Less than 5% is committed by legally owned weapons. No law on gun control that is passed will affect the crime and violence that occurs there.

-- Edited by jlbear71 on Saturday 29th of August 2015 11:02:28 AM

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I am not against laws. I am not against gun laws. I am not opposed to a waiting period. And, they already do background checks instantaneously when you purchase a gun so it's not as if these kinds of checks aren't already in place. What else do you propose? Calling all their former employers? Calling their landlords? How would you go about this in a REAL practical manner?

huskerbb · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
Tell me, did any of these people who did these type of mass shootings get any physical or mental health evaluation? very few! Maybe, just maybe, one of these would not have happened if they did. This person who shot the news crew on live television ADMITTED he was a ticking time bomb and needed help.

The kid who shot up a church? He needed help. The kid who shot up a school, the person who shot up a move theater, the person who bombed a federal building. Hmm, what is the common denominator?

Maybe one of them would not have done that if they had gotten help. We will never know.

And, since the problem is so few since so many are fine (your words), then why bother with any kind of control or restriction if it can't be prevented.

Why bother with schools and education laws? Surely you as a parent know best what to teach your children. No? You send them to school so they can be better education and guess what? They are tested on that knowledge before they are passed to the next grade or graduation.

People want safety and stricter laws. But they do not want to put the effort or money required to ensure the safety and stricter laws. They just want someone else to handle it and make it work without having to do anything about it themselves.

Adam Lanza, and he killed his mom to get his gun. Stop that.

huskerbb · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
I never said that you live in a bubble. The people who live in a bubble are the ones who think they can control the violence by writing another law.

You asked what gun law would we write. Since the gun itself is not committing the crime, it is the people who have possession of the gun. And why not subject them to an evaluation? Yes, I know it will not stop all crimes. Hell, I would be happy if it stopped just one. But it just might stop some.

I live near a city that has some of the highest gun crimes and murder rates in the country. It has always been in the top five. Less than 5% is committed by legally owned weapons. No law on gun control that is passed will affect the crime and violence that occurs there.

-- Edited by jlbear71 on Saturday 29th of August 2015 11:02:28 AM

Then all the laws and evaluations in the world won't make any difference.

thats the problem. Gun laws will only affect those whom they are not needed for except in a few exceptions.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 29th of August 2015 11:09:38 AM

jlbear71 · Guru

But there is no follow up testing/evaluation. Even with a drivers license. And there should be. Maybe not every year but at a minimum, every four years.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. We have senior citizens who can barely walk or see but they are driving everyday because they can renew their license every few years. No one says anything until a crash occurs. I know someone who is paralyzed and still has their license to drive renewed every four years. They do not have a vehicle that has been converted to accommodate him. It is legal for him to get behind the wheel and drive even though he cannot feel or move his legs. Fact is that humans change everyday. We should have to take a test for competency ever few years in order to renew our driver license.

And my vehicle needs to be inspected and registered every year. I know that varies from state to state. And I must maintain insurance on it.

Why can't we do the same for guns? Have a physical and mental exam (similar to an MMPI but a little shorter) in order to obtain and maintain a gun license. Also have the gun registered and inspected on a specific time frame, such as every two years. And why not have a requirement of having the gun insured?

And I say this as a person who will be having another gun transferred into my name in a few months. I just found out about it this past week and am in the process of making arrangements with the local gun shop to have all background checks run so that it can be transferred legally into my name.

I am also a gun owner. It was too easy to for me to get the gun that I currently own since I inherited it. It was never registered. There was no transfer and there is no record of me owning it. I could fire it in public and there would be nothing to trace it back to me unless you saw me shooting it.

huskerbb · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
But there is no follow up testing/evaluation. Even with a drivers license. And there should be. Maybe not every year but at a minimum, every four years.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. We have senior citizens who can barely walk or see but they are driving everyday because they can renew their license every few years. No one says anything until a crash occurs. I know someone who is paralyzed and still has their license to drive renewed every four years. They do not have a vehicle that has been converted to accommodate him. It is legal for him to get behind the wheel and drive even though he cannot feel or move his legs. Fact is that humans change everyday. We should have to take a test for competency ever few years in order to renew our driver license.

And my vehicle needs to be inspected and registered every year. I know that varies from state to state. And I must maintain insurance on it.

Why can't we do the same for guns? Have a physical and mental exam (similar to an MMPI but a little shorter) in order to obtain and maintain a gun license. Also have the gun registered and inspected on a specific time frame, such as every two years. And why not have a requirement of having the gun insured?

And I say this as a person who will be having another gun transferred into my name in a few months. I just found out about it this past week and am in the process of making arrangements with the local gun shop to have all background checks run so that it can be transferred legally into my name.

I am also a gun owner. It was too easy to for me to get the gun that I currently own since I inherited it. It was never registered. There was no transfer and there is no record of me owning it. I could fire it in public and there would be nothing to trace it back to me unless you saw me shooting it.

But those would affect only those who obey the law in the first place. You, yourself said that less than 5% of the gun crimes near where you live are committed with legally obtained weapons. What good, then, does your proposal do? Create a huge bureaucracy that would prevent barely any crimes, anyway?

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 29th of August 2015 12:12:12 PM

jlbear71 · Guru

But those Are not the crimes that make people scream for more gun laws. It the movie theater shootings or the school shootings or similar that make people take notice.

huskerbb · Guru

jlbear71 wrote:
But those Are not the crimes that make people scream for more gun laws. It the movie theater shootings or the school shootings or similar that make people take notice.

I know--but people are stupid. This is why gun control is useless. None of the laws proposed will do any good.

Assault wepons ban? Most crimes are committed with handguns.

magazine capacity? Very few crimes would that have made a bit of difference.

Gun shows? Very few crimes are committed by guns bought at those.

If if it isn't going to do any good, anyway--then there's no point in doing it. More unnecessary government expense.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Laws don't matter to the lawless. The only thing the law can do is try to erect some barriers.

Ohfour · Hooker

jlbear71 wrote:
But there is no follow up testing/evaluation. Even with a drivers license. And there should be. Maybe not every year but at a minimum, every four years.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. We have senior citizens who can barely walk or see but they are driving everyday because they can renew their license every few years. No one says anything until a crash occurs. I know someone who is paralyzed and still has their license to drive renewed every four years. They do not have a vehicle that has been converted to accommodate him. It is legal for him to get behind the wheel and drive even though he cannot feel or move his legs. Fact is that humans change everyday. We should have to take a test for competency ever few years in order to renew our driver license.

And my vehicle needs to be inspected and registered every year. I know that varies from state to state. And I must maintain insurance on it.

Why can't we do the same for guns? Have a physical and mental exam (similar to an MMPI but a little shorter) in order to obtain and maintain a gun license. Also have the gun registered and inspected on a specific time frame, such as every two years. And why not have a requirement of having the gun insured?

And I say this as a person who will be having another gun transferred into my name in a few months. I just found out about it this past week and am in the process of making arrangements with the local gun shop to have all background checks run so that it can be transferred legally into my name.

I am also a gun owner. It was too easy to for me to get the gun that I currently own since I inherited it. It was never registered. There was no transfer and there is no record of me owning it. I could fire it in public and there would be nothing to trace it back to me unless you saw me shooting it.

Why in the world would you register a gun thats being transferred to you? Thats just going out of your way to do something that doesnt need to be done nor is it required.

huskerbb · Guru

I'm more fatalistic. I don't think the government can do much more on this issue. Does that mean we shouldn't try? No, but it does mean I am going to have a high degree of skepticism for proposals that would have negligible, if any, results, especially if such proposals add to the expense and bureaucracy of government.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, he purchased his gun quite a bit longer prior to this incident so that wouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Most of the mass murders are very patient and calculating.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying it would prevent some such crimes. most certainly not all.

Preventing ANY murders is a step in the right direction.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yes, but you believe that simply creating another law is somehow to going to prevent that. And, it won't. Laws can do very little against people who do not self govern themselves. Yes, we can try to put up some steps to prevent things. But, think about it, do you really believe we can stop all violence? We live in a free and open society. Ever summer there at lots of people sitting out in the open at Little League games or at the swimming pool or wherever. Do you really believe or want to turn the entire country into a Police State? Someone who has intent and is bold and aggressive is going to be able to kill people who sitting by. The only real hope is that someone else has a gun or means to disable them to limit the damage they can inflict. So, if you want to prevent mass murders, then armed law abiding citizens is the only real deterrent.

ed11563 · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Yes, but you believe that simply creating another law is somehow to going to prevent that. And, it won't. Laws can do very little against people who do not self govern themselves. Yes, we can try to put up some steps to prevent things. But, think about it, do you really believe we can stop all violence? We live in a free and open society. Ever summer there at lots of people sitting out in the open at Little League games or at the swimming pool or wherever. Do you really believe or want to turn the entire country into a Police State? Someone who has intent and is bold and aggressive is going to be able to kill people who sitting by. The only real hope is that someone else has a gun or means to disable them to limit the damage they can inflict. So, if you want to prevent mass murders, then armed law abiding citizens is the only real deterrent.

Yes.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Mine is simple.

By 12, every person must take and pass a course on basic gun use.

Every house should required to own a gun and when renewing drivers license, renew their carry permit.

As for criminals, after a certain time, depending on crime, rights to have a gun should be restored.

If you commit a crime while using a gun, and found guilty, you get the maximum sentence.

If a house is found without a gun, fine and or jail time.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Mine is simple.

By 12, every person must take and pass a course on basic gun use.

Every house should required to own a gun and when renewing drivers license, renew their carry permit.

As for criminals, after a certain time, depending on crime, rights to have a gun should be restored.

If you commit a crime while using a gun, and found guilty, you get the maximum sentence.

If a house is found without a gun, fine and or jail time.

You actually think you could FORCE a person to own a gun?!!!!!

That is just a stupid idea.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, he purchased his gun quite a bit longer prior to this incident so that wouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Most of the mass murders are very patient and calculating.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying it would prevent some such crimes. most certainly not all.
Preventing ANY murders is a step in the right direction.
flan

At what cost? Banning all violence from TV would probably prevent just as many murders--but are we willing to sacrifice freedom of speech in that manner?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, he purchased his gun quite a bit longer prior to this incident so that wouldn't have changed anything in that regard. Most of the mass murders are very patient and calculating.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying it would prevent some such crimes. most certainly not all.
Preventing ANY murders is a step in the right direction.
flan
At what cost? Banning all violence from TV would probably prevent just as many murders--but are we willing to sacrifice freedom of speech in that manner?

husker, I was agreeing with your statement about a longer waiting period.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Kennesaw, Georgia

(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.
An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun.

href="http://kennesaw.patch.com/articles/poll-gun-carry-without-a-permit">survey

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Kennesaw, Georgia
(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.
An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun.
href="http://kennesaw.patch.com/articles/poll-gun-carry-without-a-permit">survey

Yes, I know, that city has been brought up several times before.

Here's the deal: I don't take away YOUR guns and you don't FORCE ME to own one.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Mine is simple.

By 12, every person must take and pass a course on basic gun use.

Every house should required to own a gun and when renewing drivers license, renew their carry permit.

As for criminals, after a certain time, depending on crime, rights to have a gun should be restored.

If you commit a crime while using a gun, and found guilty, you get the maximum sentence.

If a house is found without a gun, fine and or jail time.
You actually think you could FORCE a person to own a gun?!!!!!
That is just a stupid idea.
flan

It's no more stupid than forcibly taking them away.