In article ,
says...

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:00:39 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 7:19:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:54:24 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:







In article ,



says...







On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:06:51 -0500, wrote:







On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:56:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:







Small town in northern Georgia, the conservatives there are trying to



pass a law that makes household gun ownership mandatory, and this has



already been a conservative made law in a county in Georgia. But, this



got me to thinking, the conservatives are all about LESS LAWS, at least



those laws that they don't like, and here they are telling everyone you



MUST own a gun....











That is old news. Kennesaw Georgia has had that law for 20 years.



There is an exception for anyone who doesn't want to, so it is just



symbolic.







Yeah, but jps' irrational version was much more fun to read.











Salmonbait







Well, stupid, it was me who posted this, not JPS. Also, stupid, this is



about NELSON, GA, not Kennesaw, and Kennesaw is in the COUNTY that I



mentioned as previously enacting this law. BUT, none of this answers my



question as to WHY the right seems to think it's okay for them to



dictate whether or not I have a gun in my house, but they claim to want



less government intrusion in their lives..... purely hypocritical.







OK I was not willing to wait for you to try to find it (it wasn't the



top hit on Google so you didn't really have a chance)







The law includes this language







" Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households



who ... conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of



beliefs or religious doctrine"







I assume you would have a "belief" that would keep you from wanting to



own a gun so you are exempt.



Like I said, you don't have to if you don't want to.



It should also be noted that there is no penalty for breaking this



law.







http://www.nelsongeorgia.com/family-...tion-ordinance



Poor kevin. Proven wrong again.



You should learn to read, and research better.

YOU wrote: "WHY the right seems to think it's okay for them to *dictate* whether or not I have a gun in my house..."

But the law you are talking about actually says:

(2) 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.

So, if you lived there, you would not be required (dictated) to posess a gun. I beleive you qualify for an exemption on more than one count.

Oh, man, THE LAW states that a household must have a gun and ammunition.
I'll ask again, why is it okay for the right to mandate these laws when
the are constantly the ones that claim they don't want the government
interfering with them? It's really a simple question, try answering it.
I don't give a crap about loopholes, I am talking about the principal of
more laws.

On 3/7/13 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:06:03 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:35:24 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Which part of "you don't have to if you don't want to" do you have
trouble understanding?
This is a symbolic piece of legislation with a loophole for anyone who
is against the idea.

Nope, it's a law stating that you must have a firearm in your home.

Cite the law text.

"In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring
heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition."

I think it is silly but I don't see it as being that intrusive on
anyone's rights.

Really? You don't mind someone telling you you must own a firearm? Well,
then would you mind if someone told you you COULDN'T own one?

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring
heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.


Do I have to go look that law up and prove you wrong again?
It has the same exemptions for anyone who believes they do not want to
have a gun.

I am not convinced that is what the law actually says.

It was done as a response to other laws in blue states that prohibit
owning a gun. They are just making a statement.

What states say that you can't own a gun?

Until McDonald and Heller, Chicago and DC
They are still making it very hard to do hence the new suits working
their way through the courts.
There are also plenty of guns you can't own in most blue states and
when you can, it is a bureaucratic boondoggle.

So, again, "what states say that you can't own a gun?"

California (among some other states) won't let you have over 100
particular guns and I have already named a couple cities that are
still defying the SCOTUS with anti-gun laws and administrative rules
about owning any guns



It is Georgia, why do you care?

You've once again totally missed the point. I'll ask again. Why is it
fine with the right wing to tell people they must own a gun if they are
a homeowner, but then turn around and whine when a law is passed that
they don't like and their rebuttal is that they don't need more laws
telling them what to and what not to do?


Track down the actual text of the law and we can talk.

No I am not doing it, it is your rant, you do a little work yourself.

Again, you miss the point. The right is okay with a law that says that
you must have a gun and ammunition for it in your home, but then they
whine about wanting government out of their business.



These laws in Kennesaw and Nelson are voluntary compliance laws with
no penalty, which makes them more of a mission statement than a law.

If all of the government legislation allowed people to exempt
themselves if they didn't believe in it I would not be complaining
about big government.


Stupid laws for stupid people, whether they are enforced

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:00:08 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:54:24 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Well, stupid, it was me who posted this, not JPS. Also, stupid, this is
about NELSON, GA, not Kennesaw, and Kennesaw is in the COUNTY that I
mentioned as previously enacting this law. BUT, none of this answers my
question as to WHY the right seems to think it's okay for them to
dictate whether or not I have a gun in my house, but they claim to want
less government intrusion in their lives..... purely hypocritical.

OK I was not willing to wait for you to try to find it (it wasn't the
top hit on Google so you didn't really have a chance)

The law includes this language

" Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households
who ... conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of
beliefs or religious doctrine"

I assume you would have a "belief" that would keep you from wanting to
own a gun so you are exempt.
Like I said, you don't have to if you don't want to.
It should also be noted that there is no penalty for breaking this
law.

http://www.nelsongeorgia.com/family-...tion-ordinance

That does NOT negate from the fact that it is a LAW, and as such is
enforceable. It also does not negate from the fact that the right wing
acts as if they want less laws but make more laws when it suits THEM. It
also does not negate from the fact that the new law is in NELSON, GA,
not Kennesaw and is a different law that does not contain the same
verbage as each other. There IS a penalty for breaking this law, and it
is the same as other city penalties. Also, there are other laws on the
books in other states that have similar laws.


What part of "EXEMPT" do you not understand?
... and this is very similar to the law in Kennesaw if not word for
word.

What penalty? Cite that. If it is not in the text of the legislation,
it is not there. It will either say the class of violation it is or it
will list specific penalties., Neither are there.

It's clearly there, $100.00 fine. But, once AGAIN, you are not answering
the question, why is it okay for the right wing to make up laws and ask
them to be enforced when they cry about wanting LESS government
intrusion while they are making MORE government intrusion?

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:06:03 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:35:24 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Which part of "you don't have to if you don't want to" do you have
trouble understanding?
This is a symbolic piece of legislation with a loophole for anyone who
is against the idea.

Nope, it's a law stating that you must have a firearm in your home.

Cite the law text.

"In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring
heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition."

I think it is silly but I don't see it as being that intrusive on
anyone's rights.

Really? You don't mind someone telling you you must own a firearm? Well,
then would you mind if someone told you you COULDN'T own one?

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring
heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.


Do I have to go look that law up and prove you wrong again?
It has the same exemptions for anyone who believes they do not want to
have a gun.

Here is the law:

"Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city
unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain
a firearm together with ammunition."

I am not convinced that is what the law actually says.

It was done as a response to other laws in blue states that prohibit
owning a gun. They are just making a statement.

What states say that you can't own a gun?

Until McDonald and Heller, Chicago and DC
They are still making it very hard to do hence the new suits working
their way through the courts.
There are also plenty of guns you can't own in most blue states and
when you can, it is a bureaucratic boondoggle.

So, again, "what states say that you can't own a gun?"

California (among some other states) won't let you have over 100
particular guns and I have already named a couple cities that are
still defying the SCOTUS with anti-gun laws and administrative rules
about owning any guns

I'll ask again, just what states say that you can't own a gun?



It is Georgia, why do you care?

You've once again totally missed the point. I'll ask again. Why is it
fine with the right wing to tell people they must own a gun if they are
a homeowner, but then turn around and whine when a law is passed that
they don't like and their rebuttal is that they don't need more laws
telling them what to and what not to do?


Track down the actual text of the law and we can talk.

No I am not doing it, it is your rant, you do a little work yourself.

Again, you miss the point. The right is okay with a law that says that
you must have a gun and ammunition for it in your home, but then they
whine about wanting government out of their business.



These laws in Kennesaw and Nelson are voluntary compliance laws with
no penalty, which makes them more of a mission statement than a law.

Not true at all. The Kennesaw law is a city violation, and as such is
punishable with a $100.00 fine, the same fine as any city violation.

"The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law.
If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined
by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably
a fine of about $100"

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:11:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

These laws in Kennesaw and Nelson are voluntary compliance laws with
no penalty, which makes them more of a mission statement than a law.

Not true at all. The Kennesaw law is a city violation, and as such is
punishable with a $100.00 fine, the same fine as any city violation.

"The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law.
If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined
by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably
a fine of about $100"


Both laws still exempt anyone with a belief that they don't want a
gun.

Here is your next challenge. Kennesaw has had the law for over 20
years. Fine me a conviction or even a charge.

You STILL don't get the question I've asked over and over and over
again, WHY is it okay for the right wing to make laws demanding that
homeowners own a gun, but then bitch and whine about other laws as being
intrusive to them??

On 3/8/13 11:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:11:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

These laws in Kennesaw and Nelson are voluntary compliance laws with
no penalty, which makes them more of a mission statement than a law.

Not true at all. The Kennesaw law is a city violation, and as such is
punishable with a $100.00 fine, the same fine as any city violation.

"The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law.
If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined
by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably
a fine of about $100"


Both laws still exempt anyone with a belief that they don't want a
gun.

Here is your next challenge. Kennesaw has had the law for over 20
years. Fine me a conviction or even a charge.

You STILL don't get the question I've asked over and over and over
again, WHY is it okay for the right wing to make laws demanding that
homeowners own a gun, but then bitch and whine about other laws as being
intrusive to them??



Because jesus said it was ok, silly.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:16:55 -0500, wrote:

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.?


Seems clear enough for even a liberal to understand. Anyone who believes he doesn't want to own a
gun doesn't have to own a gun.

Why are the liberals having a hard time understanding that?


Salmonbait

Damn you are stupid on so many levels.

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:47:29 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Why are the liberals having a hard time understanding that?

====

I think you are confusing some important issues. There are liberals
who are perfectly reasonable, educated, intelligent people. I've know
quite a few. There are liberals who own guns and enjoy using them.
There are liberals with strong religious beliefs and attend church
regularly. That said, I don't consider myself to be a diehard
liberal, just someone who is reasonably tolerant about the beliefs of
others. We could use a little more of that.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:47:29 -0500, J Herring
wrote:

Why are the liberals having a hard time understanding that?

====

I think you are confusing some important issues. There are liberals
who are perfectly reasonable, educated, intelligent people. I've know
quite a few. There are liberals who own guns and enjoy using them.
There are liberals with strong religious beliefs and attend church
regularly. That said, I don't consider myself to be a diehard
liberal, just someone who is reasonably tolerant about the beliefs of
others. We could use a little more of that.

BINGO!!! That's why I call (and I know I shouldn't) people like Herring
and Scotty "narrow minded". They can't fathom someone thinking
independently of what FOX spoon feeds them.

On 3/8/13 2:09 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:16:38 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

I would like to see a little less mockery of the beliefs of others.


Salmonbait
--

Why don't you set an example by not knocking the beliefs of others,
****head?