It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Pro-Gun argument.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:23 AM
reply to post by donwhite

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?! YOU'RE the kind of reason this thread was started!
How DARE you suggest that I am not allowed to own more than "Six Guns" without a collector's license?
Why should I have to pay tax on SOMETHING I ALREADY OWN IN FULL!?! That is the SAME reason so many people are fighting against property tax. IT'S THEFT!
I own it. It is on MY property. It is MY BUSINESS. Guns are one of the BASIC RIGHTS promised to the american people! The founding father's specifically said that the civilian's ability to own and use weapons would ensure endured freedom. I got news for ya. Strapping, saddling, and choking gun owners with laws that HAVE NOTHING TO DO with responsible gun ownership.... IS NOT FREEDOM!

Restricting weapons ALWAYS mark the first little baby steps to subduing and enslaving the people totally. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Chairman Mao did it.
Do you want to follow in their footsteps?

As for what the founding fathers wanted, well, judging from your comments, you have no respect for them and their work.

DonWhite, NOTHING of what you said will make gun ownership more responsible. Like I said before, it is the human element. Responsibility cannot be created by levying huge, asinine taxes onto people. It cannot be signed into creation by a liberal politician.
In short, you are fool. You are willing to throw away your freedom for a minute, temporary amount of safety, which, ironically, can be better achieved by owning a gun.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett said that the problem is NOT the Legal guns, but the ILLEGAL ones. He said creating more gun laws would just make things worse, because now criminals who have obtained their guns on
the black market will have UNARMED victims.
As for child injuries, that is the OLDEST, most WORN OUT excuse in the book. Do you know how most of them arose? A parent was politely complying with asinine liberal policies, and refused to show or teach the child about firearms. To keep his child safe, he put his gun away.
However, all children, when not able to satisfy their curiosity, will go to seemingly inhuman lengths to do so. Kids can get anywhere and into just about anything. The child inevitably finds the gun, and since his parents never explained how it works or what it did (trying to protect his liberal innocence of course) he will play with it, invariably hurting himself.
Every teenager i have met who has been taught about guns from an early age has a healthy respect for them, and knows how to use them safely.

Responsibility MUST be taught. It cannot be signed into existence with new laws, and it is stupid to expect it to come natural.

Donwhite, you have no idea what you are talking about, and your "plan" will NEVER solve the problem, it will just disarm the american people, and shove more money into the already bloated pockets of politicians

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by Scramjet76

Scramjet, in my above post, i stated that the REAL killing machines are almost NEVER purchased legally. The attorney general in PA said more laws would make it worse, allowing said psychos free reign over people unable to defend themselves. I've got news for you. The police don't always arrive in time.

And as for you OTHER comment, about voting, I have some more news for you. An armed public DEMANDS the respect of the government. They should not be allowed to put ANY restrictions on weapons in my opinion.
You say our vote protects us from "big brother?" Well, once the people have been disarmed, the politicians and power players will no longer have any need for the vote, will they? And then, guess who's moving in?

Big Brother.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:08 PM
To fully explain the fallacy in *any* arguments voiced by Gun Control Advocates, we must fully examine the Constitution, the Rights it describes & the *meaning* of those Rights as held by the Framers of that same Constitution:

Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article 6, Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Also consider this:

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

A Republic form of government is defined as follows:

republic n
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government
2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government.
In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.

So let's look at these points:
1: All Government Officers, of all three branches, at Federal & State levels (please note that the required Oaths make no difference whatsoever as to whether the Officer is elected or appointed!) must take a legally binding oath/affirmation to act only in pursuance of, and limited by, the parameters of conduct written in the Constitution...That *any* action to the contrary is subject to Impeachment & followed by litigation & trial (as described by the Clauses concerning Impeachment & punishments).

2: The primary limitations imposed by these legally-binding oaths/affirmations is to safeguard the Civic Rights as written within the Constitution.

3: From the definition of "republic," as stated above, this means that the government should not be calling itself a "democracy" and has no duty to the "spread of democracy" anywhere in the world, let alone in America! The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy in the same way that Cold War Era America feared communism; The Founding Fathers designated a Republic because it means that no person or group of people, whether Public, Civic or Government, has the ability to "vote away" any Rights from any Citizen or group of Citizens!

In a democracy, anyone who wages a good PR campaign can sway public opinion (& votes) in any way they desire; after all, that's how Hitler gained power in Germany! So that means that the Pro-Control Advocates are using the worst characteristics of a Democracy in order to supercede the Constitutional Republic of America! While the Freedom of Speech does give them the Right to publicize their views, it gives them no right whatsoever to sway the public, government or any other official body the ability to vote on the matter!

Now, let's take a good hard look at the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This basically means that each individual Citizen has the Right to Bear Arms...As well as the ability to form Civil Militias (which requires absolutely no State or Federal approval).
This Amendment designates no limits whatsoever on the type or amount of firearms, military-grade or not; of course, such weapons as rocket-launchers & howitzers are not classified as "firearms" & are thus rightly subject to limitations.
While not explicitly written, it is implied that the Citizen also assumes the civic & individual responsibility to be capable of maintaining, storing & using said firearms in a safe & responsible manner; this would also include the parental responsibility to educate their children in the same manner or (for children too young to understand) prevent their children from having access to the firearms...

IMO, those Citizens who do not assume the personal responsibility inherent to their Rights are the same type of people who let their kids shoot themselves (through negligence), commit crimes with firearms, and should be held legally responsible for those crimes. The concept here would be to limit those who violate the Rights of others, not to "abridge" the Rights of the normal Citizen!

Now, a quick look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By Constitutional definitions & interpretations by the Judicial Branch, this means that the Government cannot be allowed to regulate, legislate or enforce any limitations or restrictions in any manner (including requirement of license or permit) whatsoever upon any of the Civil Rights! This has been officially (by the Supreme Court) judged to include all Civil Rights, regardless of whether or not they are explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment itself. In short, there is no Executive Regulation or Legislative Statute (or Law) that can be held as valid if it attempts to "abridge" any Civil Rights!

My conclusion: Any arguments voiced by Pro-Control Advocates that deviate from these basic facts are merely off-track & completely irrelevant to the issue.

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:50 PM
Yeah, there's a significant time lag between my previous post & this one...

It may also help to understand the reasons that the Constitution framers had in mind when they included the Right to keep & Bear Arms for the general public...The best way to do this is to hear what they had to say about it.

These first two quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
“When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Here's a quote from George Washington:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Good 'ol George also recognized the synergy between the responsible exercise of the Second Amendment Rights.

In a nutshell, they not only considered the fact that firearms must be available to hunt for food & as defense from criminal offenses, but they most wanted the People to be capable of defending themselves from government tyranny. They all recognized that every tyrannical government throughout history could maintain their power only for as long as the People were kept defenseless from the government's own military.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:31 PM
Sorry...I made a post for another thread that got stuck in here by accident. Mods, feel free to delete this if you wish.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by donwhite

Sorry but the suggestions in this post are a far cry from the Republic this Country was funded upon...

Responsible gun ownership.
Every firearm should be registered and TITLED as is the case with a car or a boat. 1 gun, 1 title. Transfers of ownership would require buyer and seller to appear before a court clerk and sign a new title application, turning in the old one, and verification the firearm ID # agreed with the title and had not been altered. $25 new title fee.

With the exception to the very few people who own the allodial titles to there land and vehicles, The reason we pay such fees is because currently under this system the Government is co owner to said property. This is wrong and goes against any true Republican system.

I will not ever willingly participate into the abuses and usurpations of my rights.

Only adults
with no felony convictions - unless that penalty was partially remitted - could own, possess, use or have access to a firearm. Children from 14 to 18 could own .22 caliber rim fire rifles or . 410 shotguns of 1 or 2 shot capacity. Under 14, NO guns of any kind allowed.

In many states minors of a certain age may own and walk freely in the woods with a rifle.

Any person
owning more than a certain number of firearms - say 6 - would need a collector’s license. If he bought and sold more than a fixed number of firearms - say 3 - annually in which case he would need a dealers permit. $1,000 annual fee. And proof of liability insurance up to $1 million.

The abuse of the tax system is already bad enough, I will not tolerate a blatant abuse on a right by allowing it to be TAXED, Nor will I ever ask for permission to assert it.

Nor will I willingly have my right abused by a fascist system, to which I could essentially be robbed of that right through high rates or absurd rules and regulations by those insurances companies.

An annual property value tax
would be levied on each firearm. The typical property tax is around 1.5% to 2.5% per year. This would be based on the MSRP straight line depreciated over 25 or 50 years with 25% residual value. If the tax is not paid when due then a tax lien would be put on the firearm which must be paid before the next transfer. When unpaid taxes equal the MSRP, the gun BECOMES property of the State and failure to return it to the state would be a violation.

The state will not own my property nor will I ever sign over said property into a system which is designed to rob me of it.

Any infraction
of these laws would be violations - not up to the level of a crime - punishable by a FINE up to $5,000 and confiscation of the firearm. After the 3rd offense, the fine would be doubled on each subsequent offense. The government could at any time levy on other property of the gun owner to satisfy unpaid fees or assessments.

Again, my property is my property you can create whatever laws you want it still doesn't not change this, My property will never be confiscated because I didn't play your game of what you think I should have to do with my property

Any time a firearm
is involved in the commission of a crime or is in the possession of an ineligible person, every person in the chain of title would be required to offer all good assistance to law enforcement. This would tend to make sellers’ more particular who their buyer is. Giving false information to the Government is like any other perjury, a crime. That can give you more trouble that you really want.
I'm not responsible for another persons crime, nor will I be forced into doing Law enforcements job.

Should this ever come to be then I say only this, I will commit my own crimes under these absurd laws, while happily flipping everyone who decided they were in my best interest the bird.

As respectfully as one can say it, Your ignorance of the Constitution, The Founding Fathers, And this Republican Government are quite apparent.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by C0le]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:57 AM

A Nation of Cowards: Excerpts

...Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property...

...Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity...

...A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
"He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."...

...It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens...

...In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact...

...Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."...

(More at Source-link)

To better emphasize the point, here's a few quotes:
Niccolo Machiavelli penned the The Prince (in Chapter 14):
“. . . being unarmed makes you despised. . . . between an armed and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants; since, when the former is suspicious and the latter are contemptuous, it is impossible for them to work well together”. [Emphasis added.]

James Madison, The Federalists, No. 46:
“Americans [have] the right, and advantage of being armed 'unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

George Mason, Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution:
”I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

Noah Webster, "An Examination of the Leading Principles Of the Federal Constitution," (1787):
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” [Emphasis added.]

Samuel Adams, Writings:
“It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control . . . The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.” [Emphasis added.]

Patrick Henry, "Give Me Liberty" Speech :
“They tell us . . . that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? . . . Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? . . . Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty . . . are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” [Emphasis added.]

Lawrence Tribe (renowned Harvard Law professor), American Constitutional Law, 3rd ed.,Vol .One, [2000], page vi:
“. . . an avalanche of scholarly investigation, including my own research on the subject . . ., has required me to revisit the meaning of that amendment, . . . . My conclusions . . . are: . . . (2) that the Second Amendment does indeed protect individual rights as well as collective rights . . . . [Emphasis added.]

Mathew Quigley; Quigley Down Under (movie):
"They say that God made all men, but Colt made all men equal."

So, who still "justifies" the idea of enforcing Gun Control legislation of any kind whatsoever?

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:07 AM
For those who have a problem with the "lethality" of guns, I have a simple question for you:

Considering prescription drugs are responsible for more deaths than firearms, would you also wish to ban those?

Remember, any time a politician wants "reasonable" regulations on anything, reasonable means a stepping stone to outright bans.

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:39 AM
I just do not understand why there is even an argument into this matter. People are always lobbying for bigger government regulation and creating new laws. We have a set of guidelines to follow. Its called the Constitution.

Takes guns away so noone can use them to kill.
Take knives away so noone can use them to kill.
Take cars away so noone can use them to kill.
Take fireplace pokers away so noone can use them to kill.
Take shovels away so noone can use them to kill.
Fill in earth everywhere there is a cliff so noone can use them to kill.
Every American will be issued a super safe bubble wrap suit to be safe.
No more squares, everything must be round to eliminate running into a jagged edge.
No more coffee tables to protect toes.
Where does it end?
It ends with everyone living thier life in a padded room eating nothing but hummus sandwiches on whole wheat sipping distilled water.

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
Here's a few more points against gun control:

--In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--In 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by their governments in the 20th Century because of gun control.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:48 AM

Originally posted by slackerwire
Considering prescription drugs are responsible for more deaths than firearms, would you also wish to ban those?

Big Pharm problems results mostly from decades of lobbying government (particularly the FDA) to hide the fact that they can't make money with curing health problems...Instead of what they actually do, profiting from providing never-ending treatments (in short, "job security" & "guaranteed continuing markets"). It would be much better to make them clean up their act rather than ban them outright. But this is off-topic for this thread...Start another thread if you wish to talk about Big Pharms.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Today your weapons don't protect you from big brother your vote does.

Even after all the controversies that surround voting procedures, from the Watergate break-ins to the "paperless" voting machines, do you think your vote still counts for anything? Nope, your Right to keep & bear arms is the final method you have to protect the rest of your Rights. Without your weapons, how would you defend your Rights to Speech, Press, Assembly, everything?...Literally, the defense of all of your Rights hinge on the 2nd Amendment.

From The Supreme Law Firm: Excerpted

The Second Amendment: America's First Freedom
By Charlton Heston
At the National Press Club, September 11, 1997

Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press...

...The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class, or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate.

That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime. The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule. We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

I agree wholeheartedly ... a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all...

Right from the mouth of "Moses" himself (Yes, I added the bold emphasis in the Source up there)...
Get the point?

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:27 AM
People who are on the side of gun control usually are the ones that beg for help from government entities when things go wrong. They miss the entire point of what the original intent of the second amendment was: to allow a failsafe against totalitarian government by allowing an armed populace. An armed civilian is a citizen, an unarmed one is a subject. The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was to confiscate all private firearms. Same with Stalin and the rest of the despots that have continued this trend since modern times. Mao said that power is not wielded by a pen but by the barrel of a gun. These words could not be more true.

When it comes to personal defense against non government entities, who gives the powers that be the right to say you are not allowed to defend yourself by any means? Citizens that have acquired a conceal carry permit or other likewise legal recourse have gone through criminal background checks and have followed the rules. I highly doubt the "individual" that is carjacking you or attempting to rape your wife at gunpoint has done the same.

This right we have in America (even the occupied territory I live in) is the main reason I have not left the country. I will not depend on a foreign socialist government to protect me or give my murderer 5 yrs at a country club. Nope, a well armed populace is a polite populace.

I give you this fine example of a mandatory law of private firearm ownership in my state. I love this city.

Kennesaw GA

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:41 PM
In the USA:

Fact: Doctors kill more people than guns
Fact; Automobiles kill more people than guns
Fact; Boating accidents kill more people than guns.

Firearms are a right not a privilage, Boats, Dr.s and Cars are not. No license to purchase or own or collect is needed. The government should have no right to tell anyone what they should own nor how many. Taxing our rights is anethema to Americans and should be forever. No police force or cop can be every where they are needed to keep the peace. Only armed citizens can. The argument that citizens are not trained to use arms is a misnomer. many are. In the past alot more where but through political correctness it is slowly being denied the common person!


[edit on 6/25/2008 by ZindoDoone]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by shai hulud

Excellent point from your link to the Kennesaw gun law...I've given your post a star.

I've taken the liberty of getting the actual gun/crime statistics from the Kennesaw City Hall & Law Authorities, posting them here & in this thread. Since they're only accepting actual statistical info over there & the fact that some people might not give any credence from anything posted at Rense, perhaps a few Kennesaw statistics might sway the opinions of some "gun control freaks." At the very least, you've found a helluva bargaining chip for Pro-2nd Amendment people (like me) to use!

First, posting of the original Ordinance:

Source: Kennesaw Ordinances (Using Advanced Search function, keyword "firearm")

Chapter 34 (Civil Emergencies), Article 1 (In General):
Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(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 therefor.
(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.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
(Code 1986, § 11-1-4)
Secs. 34-3--34-25. Reserved.

Here's a little something I found in the Ordinances for Parks & Recreation:

Chapter 66 (Parks & Recreation), Article 1 (In General):
Sec. 66-2. Parks--Regulations governing conduct.
These rules and regulations are developed to set standards of conduct in the parks owned and operated by the city. These rules are designed to ensure the safety and enjoyment of park participants.
Enforcement. Any person engaging in any activity which shall unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of a park by citizens or who shall violate any ordinance of the city, park rules or regulations or law of the state shall leave the park upon notification by any authorized park employee or any law enforcement officer and shall not return to such park for a period of 24 hours. Refusal to leave such park when ordered or return to the park within the specified 24-hour period shall be unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor.
It shall be unlawful to:
(4) Have in their possession any knife that could be used as a weapon, or any type of weapon, excluding firearms.

Here's the Crime Statistics:

Source: Kennesaw Police Department Crime Statistics

City of Kennesaw 1981 (Year Before Gun Law Passed)
Population: 5,242
Total Part 1 Crimes: (per 100,000 pop): 4,332

City of Kennesaw 2005
Population: 28,189
Total Part 1 Crimes (per 100,000): 2,027 -7% from 2004

U.S. Average 2005
Total Part 1 Crimes per 100,000: 3,899

Summary: Although the population of the City of Kennesaw and surrounding area has increased dramatically since 1981, on a per capita basis crimes rates were actually lower in 2005 than in 1981.

Note: To control for population differences and make comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons.

Part 1 crimes consist of: Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson.

For more information on F.B.I. UCR Crime Statistics Click Here

[edit on 27-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Crusader of Truth
to be more specific, the harmful ones are Hippies, Neo-Nazis, and Communists.

You're kidding, right? Watch out for the Neo-Nazi communist hippies?

Are we forgetting the relatively recent mass forced disarming of Americans, on American soil? Carried out by toadies of the Bush Administration? There's the reality of firearm ownership support by the non-Neo-Nazi non-communist non-hippies...

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in