About Us

iBoaterer[_2_]

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.

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?"

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.

F.O.A.D.

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

iBoaterer[_2_]

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"

iBoaterer[_2_]

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??

F.O.A.D.

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.

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:48:54 -0500, 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??

Blythe California has a law saying you can't wear cowboy boots unless
you own at least 2 cows.
So what?
You will never get me to say the government does everything right.
My question is why single out this one silly law when the books are
full of them and some have real penalties.

BTW the Mayor of Nelson was on CNN today saying there IS NO PENALTY
for violating this proposed law. It has about the same legal standing
as our congress passing a law renaming a post office and that happens
several times a month.

Never mind, you can't answer the question.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A good case against being narrow minded.	iBoaterer[_2_]	General	2	December 27th 12 05:57 AM
New Narrow boat	Maffi	General	2	March 9th 06 08:11 PM
Weak Minded Dems	Skipper	General	44	December 17th 05 08:46 PM
Somple-Minded Beliefs	Harry Krause	General	20	July 23rd 04 04:09 AM
OT here go the narrow minded Republcans....again.	basskisser	General	20	May 7th 04 01:42 PM

Menu

About Us