Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A city councilman in Utah has proposed an ordinance requiring gun ownership. The rest of the council was understandably skeptical about it, but is moving forward with one RECOMMENDING it.

The author is citing precedent in an Atlanta suburb which enacted such a mandatory ownership law back in 1982. Apparently, the ordinance is working just fine as the town has increased in size from 5K to over 30K in the 30 years since the law was enacted in response to an outright ban enacted by a city in Illinois. I'm not sure where they got the numbers, but apparently the Georgia town has violent crime rates vastly below state and national averages and hasn't seen a murder in years.

Is this viable? It might work in that spot, but I'm not so sure it would work everywhere.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/01/utah ... mandatory/

This is as bad as people wanting to ban guns. Just let people live their lives the way they choose.

∞∞∞ wrote:This is as bad as people wanting to ban guns. Just let people live their lives the way they choose.

Yep...some people should not have guns...some don't want them, and some do...

Like the First Amendment allows freedom of, or from, religion...the Second Amendment simply gives the people the right to Keep and Bear Arms...it's not a mandate...

Col Hogan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:This is as bad as people wanting to ban guns. Just let people live their lives the way they choose.

Yep...some people should not have guns...some don't want them, and some do...

Like the First Amendment allows freedom of, or from, religion...the Second Amendment simply gives the people the right to Keep and Bear Arms...it's not a mandate...

SuperHornet wrote:A city councilman in Utah has proposed an ordinance requiring gun ownership. The rest of the council was understandably skeptical about it, but is moving forward with one RECOMMENDING it.

The author is citing precedent in an Atlanta suburb which enacted such a mandatory ownership law back in 1982. Apparently, the ordinance is working just fine as the town has increased in size from 5K to over 30K in the 30 years since the law was enacted in response to an outright ban enacted by a city in Illinois. I'm not sure where they got the numbers, but apparently the Georgia town has violent crime rates vastly below state and national averages and hasn't seen a murder in years.

Is this viable? It might work in that spot, but I'm not so sure it would work everywhere.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/01/utah ... mandatory/

Is this one of them unfunded mandate things?

∞∞∞ wrote:This is as bad as people wanting to ban guns. Just let people live their lives the way they choose.

There is nothing bad about this at all, its one state, if you dont like the law........dont live there. You have 49 other choices.

There is no argument that can be made that people DONT need guns.....the same way there is no argument that can be made that people shouldnt be forced to own them.

If you can be forced to have health care you should be forced to have guns.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:This is as bad as people wanting to ban guns. Just let people live their lives the way they choose.

There is nothing bad about this at all, its one state, if you dont like the law........dont live there. You have 49 other choices.

There is no argument that can be made that people DONT need guns.....the same way there is no argument that can be made that people shouldnt be forced to own them.

If you can be forced to have health care you should be forced to have guns.

Hell yeah! Gonna move to Utah and get me seven wives and gun for each one of 'em!

One thing I don't remember from the article is if the city is going to front for everyone's weapon (and thereby likely make them uniform issue, i.e. lowest bidder) or if they'll merely send out periodic inspectors to ensure everyone has one (with a concomitant city cost for salaries). Or, instead of an ordinance, they could just pass a resolution recommending or even urging people to do so.

Either way, as many have noted in this thread, not everyone will feel comfortable doing so, and if they do the ordinance right, there will have to be proper training, or SOMEONE (or maybe multiple someones) is going to have a negligent discharge incident in their home, perhaps killing some innocent bystander, like a little kid. ALLOWING something of this nature is great. MANDATING it is asking for huge problems. I disagree with Hogan's take on the First Amendment, but on the Second Amendment, he is spot on. Gun ownership has always been and should always be a PRIVILEGE vice a DUTY.

SuperHornet wrote:One thing I don't remember from the article is if the city is going to front for everyone's weapon (and thereby likely make them uniform issue, i.e. lowest bidder) or if they'll merely send out periodic inspectors to ensure everyone has one (with a concomitant city cost for salaries). Or, instead of an ordinance, they could just pass a resolution recommending or even urging people to do so.

Either way, as many have noted in this thread, not everyone will feel comfortable doing so, and if they do the ordinance right, there will have to be proper training, or SOMEONE (or maybe multiple someones) is going to have a negligent discharge incident in their home, perhaps killing some innocent bystander, like a little kid. ALLOWING something of this nature is great. MANDATING it is asking for huge problems. I disagree with Hogan's take on the First Amendment, but on the Second Amendment, he is spot on. Gun ownership has always been and should always be a PRIVILEGE vice a DUTY.

In what way?

Since Congress looks bogged down with the debt ceiling, spending & the fiscal cliff Biden today hinted that there would most likely be some gun reform done by Executive Orders.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding freedom FROM religion. All it says is that the government can't force any particular faith on anyone. All that means is that the state religions of Europe (i.e. extra taxes taken by the government on EVERYONE go to one specific church) don't happen here. Here, we can participate in (or not), donate to (or not) any faith group we so choose. That said, you don't have to if you don't want to. But it's a big step to go from there to not seeing it at all just because it "offends" you. That impacts on the freedom of others.

So your particular religion is "no religion." Fine. That does NOT translate to freedom FROM religion, since at the logical end of that is no religion for ANYBODY.

SuperHornet wrote:There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding freedom FROM religion. All it says is that the government can't force any particular faith on anyone. All that means is that the state religions of Europe (i.e. extra taxes taken by the government on EVERYONE go to one specific church) don't happen here. Here, we can participate in (or not), donate to (or not) any faith group we so choose. That said, you don't have to if you don't want to. But it's a big step to go from there to not seeing it at all just because it "offends" you. That impacts on the freedom of others.

So your particular religion is "no religion." Fine. That does NOT translate to freedom FROM religion, since at the logical end of that is no religion for ANYBODY.

That's what I mean by freedom from religion, so you can stop with the hand-wringing and whimpering. I would never suggest that you don't have every right to a belief system that thinks virgins have babies and dead people get out of their grave and fly away into the sky if that is your desire.

SuperHornet wrote:There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding freedom FROM religion. All it says is that the government can't force any particular faith on anyone. All that means is that the state religions of Europe (i.e. extra taxes taken by the government on EVERYONE go to one specific church) don't happen here. Here, we can participate in (or not), donate to (or not) any faith group we so choose. That said, you don't have to if you don't want to. But it's a big step to go from there to not seeing it at all just because it "offends" you. That impacts on the freedom of others.

So your particular religion is "no religion." Fine. That does NOT translate to freedom FROM religion, since at the logical end of that is no religion for ANYBODY.

You're so full of hate.