• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I actually agree with this Gun Control Group's law suit.

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ATLANTA (AP) — A tiny Georgia city and a national gun control group are facing off in a legal battle over a city ordinance requiring gun ownership, with the constitutionality of the law and broader messages about gun rights taking center stage.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in May filed a federal lawsuit against Nelson, a city of roughly 1,300 residents about 50 miles north of Atlanta, saying a recently adopted ordinance requiring heads of household to own a gun and ammunition is unconstitutional.

"We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it's passed," lawyer Jonathan Lowy of the Washington-based Brady Center said in a recent interview. "But it's also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws."

The government should not be forcing citizens to own a gun any more than they should be infringing on the right to own one.



Ga. city spars with national gun control group - Houston Chronicle
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
ATLANTA (AP) — A tiny Georgia city and a national gun control group are facing off in a legal battle over a city ordinance requiring gun ownership, with the constitutionality of the law and broader messages about gun rights taking center stage.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in May filed a federal lawsuit against Nelson, a city of roughly 1,300 residents about 50 miles north of Atlanta, saying a recently adopted ordinance requiring heads of household to own a gun and ammunition is unconstitutional.

"We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it's passed," lawyer Jonathan Lowy of the Washington-based Brady Center said in a recent interview. "But it's also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws."

The government should not be forcing citizens to own a gun any more than they should be infringing on the right to own one.



Ga. city spars with national gun control group - Houston Chronicle

Buying one is insurance.

And we already know the government can force you to buy insurance.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Buying one is insurance.

And we already know the government can force you to buy insurance.

Insurance can't accidentally shoot you or your loved ones.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you'd want to have all the untrained people required to have guns, seems like you're asking for more accidents to happen.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Insurance can't accidentally shoot you or your loved ones.
Neither can a gun.



Anyway, I'm not sure why you'd want to have all the untrained people required to have guns, seems like you're asking for more accidents to happen.
Any accident, would be an accident.

Not my job or the governments job to prevent them.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Buying one is insurance.

And we already know the government can force you to buy insurance.

By that logic the government can force you to buy anything that can even remotely be viewed as insurance.

Car doesn't have side curtain airbags?

You're gonna need to run out and have those installed.

They're "insurance".

Wife is on the pill?

Doesn't matter, go get yourself some condoms. They're "insurance".

What? You feed your kids without having all your food tested by one of the government approved independent food safety labs? That's a no-go. A neighbor could have thrown poison through your window.

Get that food tested (for a nominal fee). It's "insurance".

We can play this silly game all night!
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
By that logic the government can force you to buy anything that can even remotely be viewed as insurance.

Car doesn't have side curtain airbags?

You're gonna need to run out and have those installed.

They're "insurance".

Wife is on the pill?

Doesn't matter, go get yourself some condoms. They're "insurance".

What? You feed your kids without having all your food tested by one of the government approved independent food safety labs? That's a no-go. A neighbor could have thrown poison through your window.

Get that food tested (for a nominal fee). It's "insurance".

We can play this silly game all night!
:doh
None of which has to do with being forced to purchase a gun.
And a great argument against having to purchase insurance in the first place.
But we already know how that turned out.
But it is meaningless to this topic.


The government can force you to buy insurance.
A gun offers insurance.
So they should be able to force it's purchase.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Neither can a gun.

Any accident, would be an accident.

Not my job or the governments job to prevent them.

Gun's allow fatal accidents to happen, which wouldn't have happened had the gun not been there.

Neither is it the government's job to go out of the way to cause accidents.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Neither is it the government's job to go out of the way to cause accidents.
:doh
Really?
You are going to say something as ridiculous as that?
Really?

The Government wouldn't be causing the accident.
That is akin to saying the roads the government creates cause all the accidents.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
:doh
Really?
You are going to say something as ridiculous as that?
Really?

The Government wouldn't be causing the accident.
That is akin to saying the roads the government creates cause all the accidents.

If the government created roads and then didn't require anyone to have licenses, then yeah, the government was irresponsible, more so than any individual driver who caused an accident.

Equivalently, if the government is requiring ownership of guns, but doesn't regulate, you're asking for trouble.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If the government created roads and then didn't require anyone to have licenses, then yeah, the government was irresponsible, more so than any individual driver who caused an accident.
No. They would not be, as we are supposedly free to travel as we like on "Right-of ways".
Nor should it be their responsibility.

Equivalently, if the government is requiring ownership of guns, but doesn't regulate, you're asking for trouble.
Not even close to being equivalent.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No. They would not be, as we are supposedly free to travel as we like on "Right-of ways".
Nor should it be their responsibility.

Not even close to being equivalent.

We're going to go nowhere with this discussion. I'm going to say the comparison holds, and government is responsible. You're going to say they aren't. We're going to keep going back and forth, with nothing besides rhetorical skill deciding who "wins," and I doubt either of us would ever say the other won. We have fundamentally different views about what government is. With that being said, let's agree to disagree.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
We're going to go nowhere with this discussion. I'm going to say the comparison holds, and government is responsible. You're going to say they aren't. We're going to keep going back and forth, with nothing besides rhetorical skill deciding who "wins," and I doubt either of us would ever say the other won. We have fundamentally different views about what government is. With that being said, let's agree to disagree.
We can do that, but you are still wrong. :mrgreen:
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,160
Reaction score
17,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gun's allow fatal accidents to happen, which wouldn't have happened had the gun not been there.

Neither is it the government's job to go out of the way to cause accidents.

Which is around 600 a year.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. 600 out of 310,000,000 firearms is 0.00019%
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,160
Reaction score
17,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ATLANTA (AP) — A tiny Georgia city and a national gun control group are facing off in a legal battle over a city ordinance requiring gun ownership, with the constitutionality of the law and broader messages about gun rights taking center stage.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in May filed a federal lawsuit against Nelson, a city of roughly 1,300 residents about 50 miles north of Atlanta, saying a recently adopted ordinance requiring heads of household to own a gun and ammunition is unconstitutional.

"We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it's passed," lawyer Jonathan Lowy of the Washington-based Brady Center said in a recent interview. "But it's also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws."

The government should not be forcing citizens to own a gun any more than they should be infringing on the right to own one.



Ga. city spars with national gun control group - Houston Chronicle


I can agree with this lawsuit. A right implies that it is optional for you to exercise.
 

tech30528

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,243
Reaction score
3,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Anyone here from Georgia?

Oh wait, I'M from Georgia.

You know why an outside group had to complain about the law instead of someone in Nelson? Because they likely all owned guns anyway. They just expressed it as law so candy assed lawyers like this meddling asshole would know where not to visit.

K I'm off to bed. Got a two day rifle instructors course in the morning.
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,673
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If the US Government can force you to buy health care insurance then why can't a local government force you to own a gun?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062047662 said:
If the US Government can force you to buy health care insurance then why can't a local government force you to own a gun?

especially since one can argue that police protection and cleaning up a robbery costs us tax payes money
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062047662 said:
If the US Government can force you to buy health care insurance then why can't a local government force you to own a gun?

Certainly the SC can justify a Federal gun ownership mandate then by calling such legislation a tax.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ATLANTA (AP) — A tiny Georgia city and a national gun control group are facing off in a legal battle over a city ordinance requiring gun ownership, with the constitutionality of the law and broader messages about gun rights taking center stage.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in May filed a federal lawsuit against Nelson, a city of roughly 1,300 residents about 50 miles north of Atlanta, saying a recently adopted ordinance requiring heads of household to own a gun and ammunition is unconstitutional.

"We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it's passed," lawyer Jonathan Lowy of the Washington-based Brady Center said in a recent interview. "But it's also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws."

The government should not be forcing citizens to own a gun any more than they should be infringing on the right to own one.



Ga. city spars with national gun control group - Houston Chronicle
[sarcasm]Let's do like ObamaCare does: You don't have to own a gun, but if you don't own a gun then you get to pay a special tax every year.[/sarcasm]

*****
What you're not seeing about this law, how it's a wolf in sheep's clothing, is that you have to be able to prove you own a gun in order to comply with the law. You have to prove you own a gun, and the only way to enforce that is with registration.

I don't know why heymarket liked your post because heymarket supports registration.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Insurance can't accidentally shoot you or your loved ones.
Neither can a gun.

The person holding the gun does the shooting. The gun doesn't act on it's own.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,324
Reaction score
36,802
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I dont know that i agree with the law, but at least there IS constitutional backing. As per the Constitution and the US Code, every able bodied adult is a member of the militia (organized or un organized) and as such could be tasked to provide for the defense of the country. Like the US Code, the law in this town provides for exclusions based on conscientious objector status.
 

Morrigi

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
351
Reaction score
124
Location
IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The law in question also allows those unwilling to own a gun to opt out and it is more of a political stand than anything else.
 

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,168
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Heh. Just me, or did a lawyer for the Brady Campaign just concede that the government has no business keeping people from owning guns?
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,470
Reaction score
32,295
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gun's allow fatal accidents to happen, which wouldn't have happened had the gun not been there.

Neither is it the government's job to go out of the way to cause accidents.

Not if the perp you're up against has a gun.
 
Top Bottom