Get strapped or go to jail!

[cattlebaron]

I was trying to figure out what my first real post should be so I thought I'd start with a past event I bet most of you missed. South Dakotas legislature reviewed a bill to require gun ownership (as a way to thumb our nose at the healthcare mandate).

http://www.alan.com/2011/01/31/south-dakota-lawmakers-want-bill-requiring-gun-ownership/

[vesta111]

I was trying to figure out what my first real post should be so I thought I'd start with a past event I bet most of you missed. South Dakotas legislature reviewed a bill to require gun ownership (as a way to thumb our nose at the healthcare mandate).

http://www.alan.com/2011/01/31/south-dakota-lawmakers-want-bill-requiring-gun-ownership/

Why not, a local military  and civilians needs to help the police in times of natural disasters when looting goes wild, The police cannot do it all.

[cattlebaron]

Why not, a local military  and civilians needs to help the police in times of natural disasters when looting goes wild, The police cannot do it all.

You're right. Wouldn't bother me any, but that's not the point. The point is the government can't force us to buy a product. Liberals chewed on us for wasting tax payer money legislating it....I think compared to what we usually spend our time legislating that it was a giant leap forward in importance. lol.

[ExGeeEye]

Yep.  H5.

Not long ago I wrote a 2nd Amendment Miranda Warning-- as if the 2nd were taken as seriously as the 5th.

"You have the right to keep and bear arms.  No weapon you carry, openly or concealed, will be used against you in a court of law.

"You have the right to a sidearm.  If you want but cannot afford a sidearm, one will be issued to you.

"If you waive these rights today, you may reassert them at any time.  In the meanwhile, we will wish you the best of luck and ask for an organ donor card and the name and address of your next of kin."

[Dori]

Weren't all men 16 and older required to own a gun leading up to the Revolutionary war? I think they deemed it "in the interest of public safety".  

[rich_t]

I was trying to figure out what my first real post should be so I thought I'd start with a past event I bet most of you missed. South Dakotas legislature reviewed a bill to require gun ownership (as a way to thumb our nose at the healthcare mandate).

http://www.alan.com/2011/01/31/south-dakota-lawmakers-want-bill-requiring-gun-ownership/

Kennesaw GA passed a law like that in 1982.  Their crime rate allegedly plummeted shortly thereafter.

[cattlebaron]

Kennesaw GA passed a law like that in 1982.  Their crime rate allegedly plummeted shortly thereafter.

Really? I'd be interested in how that turned out or the status of that law. May be useful in a debate.

[NHSparky]

Kennesaw GA passed a law like that in 1982.  Their crime rate allegedly plummeted shortly thereafter.

In excess of 50 percent, IIRC.  Then again, my old stomping grounds at GT are more like Beirut of late.

[Big Dog]

Weren't all men 16 and older required to own a gun leading up to the Revolutionary war? I think they deemed it "in the interest of public safety".  

Dori,

I don't have any information about mandatory firearm ownership during the Colonial period, but the Militia Act of 1792 required every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45 to:

"provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service". (Paragraph 1, emphasis added)