Upon My Stars!!

[Melvin01]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

 

[OKTexas]

Link please.

 

[Melvin01]

Here's the link. There's another one in the mill right now but I couldn't find it:

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw


"KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

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

I found another proposal but it still isn't the one I heard about on the radio:

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1831

VT State Rep. Fred ] Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second A mendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as ‘a clear mandate to do so’.

He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont ’s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

 

[OriginalShroom]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

Oh My..

Requiring someone to purchase something to protect themselves with, unless they have moral objections to it is just as crazy and wrong as .. Say... Telling someone that they have pay for other people to have abortions, even if they are against abortions.

 

[peach174]

So you are upset because it brought the crime rate way down?
When this country started each and every man between the ages of 17 and 45 (differs with each state Constitution, but is about the general ages) had a firearm and were the state militia.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Tex, I wouldn't even bother with this fool...

I'm an old man but it would be one helluva mistake for you to call me a fool if you were standing close. Here's the link. There's another one in the mill right now but I couldn't find it:

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw


"KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

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

The law was a symbolic protest in response to the passage of a law in Morton Grove Illinois which banned handguns. It is not enforced and no one has ever been prosecuted for same. A better example for you would be the 2nd Militia Act of 1792.

PS because I am a newbie, I am not allowed to post links, so I had to remove the link in your quote.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks for the links, the law in GA was passed more than 30 years ago. Did you bother to read your link on VT, it is a debunked urban legend. The guy isn't even in the legislature any more. So before you cry foul, you might want to be sure there is a bird in the vicinity.

 

[Melvin01]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

Oh My..

Requiring someone to purchase something to protect themselves with, unless they have moral objections to it is just as crazy and wrong as .. Say... Telling someone that they have pay for other people to have abortions, even if they are against abortions.

Since we're in "Show Me" mode you show me where our government has ever paid for an abortion....names and specifics.

 

[Melvin01]

Thanks for the links, the law in GA was passed more than 30 years ago. Did you bother to read your link on VT, it is a debunked urban legend. The guy isn't even in the legislature any more. So before you cry foul, you might want to be sure there is a bird in the vicinity.

You wish. The only thing which appears more stupid than the spokesmen for NRA and the gun industry is dumb pricks who think army assault weapons are OK for John Q Public. When are you going to buy your first cruise missle or tank?

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks for the links, the law in GA was passed more than 30 years ago. Did you bother to read your link on VT, it is a debunked urban legend. The guy isn't even in the legislature any more. So before you cry foul, you might want to be sure there is a bird in the vicinity.

You wish. The only thing which appears more stupid than the spokesmen for NRA and the gun industry is dumb pricks who think army assault weapons are OK for John Q Public. When are you going to buy your first cruise missle or tank?

Poor baby, some one proves your full of shit and you revert to 3rd grade name calling. Good job commie, good job.

From your own link:

For anyone who thinks this is a ‘New Bill,’ be advised that Fred Maslack is not a current member of either the Vermont House or Senate. He was, years ago. Anyway, ,I’ve been hearing this story for years on the internet, since before I even started blogging in 2002. Once upon a time such a bill was introduced by him but, it obviously went nowhere. It certainly isn’t part of the 2011-2012 legislative session. Urban (or rural) legends die hard

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1831

 

[Mad Scientist]

Very good Melvin, you must keep Americans fighting amongst themselves so they do not notice the Banker Takeover!

Oh and Welcome to USMB!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

You gotta hand it to the R. They lie their damn heads off about how they want smaller government but all the while, they're pushing for more and more laws and MORE and MORE controls on US citizens.

In a nutshell:

NO to jobs
NO to disaster recovery
NO to the middle class
NO to high-speed rail
NO to veterans
NO to health care
NO to the unemployed
NO to students
NO to seniors
NO to choice
NO to the poor
NO to gays and lesbians
NO to science
NO to children
NO to the homeless
NO to equality
NO to teachers, police, firemen, and first responders
NO to corporate oversight and regulation
NO to responsibility
NO to voters rights
NO to gun responsibility

YES to the corporate welfare
YES to the super rich
YES to Wall Street
YES to Big Oil
YES to Big Pharma
YES to Big Insurance
YES to peeking in your bedroom
YES TO VOTER SUPRESSION

Republicans have made it crystal clear what they are all about and what they stand for and who they represent.

Does that about cover it?

 

[OriginalShroom]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

Oh My..

Requiring someone to purchase something to protect themselves with, unless they have moral objections to it is just as crazy and wrong as .. Say... Telling someone that they have pay for other people to have abortions, even if they are against abortions.

Since we're in "Show Me" mode you show me where our government has ever paid for an abortion....names and specifics.

Let's first start with the public tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood who aborted 300,000 children just last year. They couldn't afford to that if it were not tax dollars.

Then Obama Care. For each insurance policy under Obamacare, the insurance companies are charged a "surcharge" of $1.00 to fund abortions. Call it what you want... it is still a tax.

Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways. | Population Research Institute

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stop-obamacares-abortion-pill-mandate_633936.html

Ponnuru offers good advice to opponents of the mandate. For example, they should start emphasizing that it's an abortion pill mandate, not merely a contraception mandate:

Opponents of the mandate can take several steps to increase their chances of persuading voters to side with them. Too many of them have acquiesced to the White House/media line that what’s at issue is a “contraceptive mandate.” The mandate also covers the drug ella, sometimes dubbed “the week-after pill,” which induces abortion. It is to the great credit of non-Catholics such as Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), the sponsor of the Senate bill to overturn the mandate, that they have stood in defense of the freedom of Catholic institutions. But it is not just Catholics who object to abortion drugs, and highlighting their inclusion in the mandate would broaden the anti-mandate coalition. It is also worth noting that if the administration is correct in claiming it has the legal authority to impose this mandate, it has the authority to require coverage of surgical abortions as well. Only political prudence has stayed its hand so far.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Thanks for the links, the law in GA was passed more than 30 years ago. Did you bother to read your link on VT, it is a debunked urban legend. The guy isn't even in the legislature any more. So before you cry foul, you might want to be sure there is a bird in the vicinity.

You wish. The only thing which appears more stupid than the spokesmen for NRA and the gun industry is dumb pricks who think army assault weapons are OK for John Q Public. When are you going to buy your first cruise missle or tank?

The weapons employed by the army as general issue to our troops, such as the M-16 Assault Rifle, are strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. Currently there are no proposals pending in Congress to strengthen these restrictions. The proposals currently being considered are for weapons which are functionally equivalent to many commonly owned hunting rifles but have been cosmetically made to look like the M-16 Assault Rifle. Consider the analogy of a Hyundai automobile. If you put a rear spoiler on it and an ornamental hood scoop together with a racing stripe, it may look somewhat like a NASCAR racing vehicle. However, I assure you that it would not have a chance at the Daytona 500 because, after all, it is still a Hyundai.

BTW cruise missles and tanks are not arms as that term is employed in the 2nd Amend.

 

[OKTexas]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

You gotta hand it to the R. They lie their damn heads off about how they want smaller government but all the while, they're pushing for more and more laws and MORE and MORE controls on US citizens.

In a nutshell:

NO to jobs
NO to disaster recovery
NO to the middle class
NO to high-speed rail
NO to veterans
NO to health care
NO to the unemployed
NO to students
NO to seniors
NO to choice
NO to the poor
NO to gays and lesbians
NO to science
NO to children
NO to the homeless
NO to equality
NO to teachers, police, firemen, and first responders
NO to corporate oversight and regulation
NO to responsibility
NO to voters rights
NO to gun responsibility

YES to the corporate welfare
YES to the super rich
YES to Wall Street
YES to Big Oil
YES to Big Pharma
YES to Big Insurance
YES to peeking in your bedroom
YES TO VOTER SUPRESSION

Republicans have made it crystal clear what they are all about and what they stand for and who they represent.

Does that about cover it?

Are you and Melvin twins?

 

[Melvin01]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

You gotta hand it to the R. They lie their damn heads off about how they want smaller government but all the while, they're pushing for more and more laws and MORE and MORE controls on US citizens.

In a nutshell:

NO to jobs
NO to disaster recovery
NO to the middle class
NO to high-speed rail
NO to veterans
NO to health care
NO to the unemployed
NO to students
NO to seniors
NO to choice
NO to the poor
NO to gays and lesbians
NO to science
NO to children
NO to the homeless
NO to equality
NO to teachers, police, firemen, and first responders
NO to corporate oversight and regulation
NO to responsibility
NO to voters rights
NO to gun responsibility

YES to the corporate welfare
YES to the super rich
YES to Wall Street
YES to Big Oil
YES to Big Pharma
YES to Big Insurance
YES to peeking in your bedroom
YES TO VOTER SUPRESSION

Republicans have made it crystal clear what they are all about and what they stand for and who they represent.

Does that about cover it?

Are you and Melvin twins?

The other guy is nearly 7 years older than I am and he lives in Tennessee

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

You gotta hand it to the R. They lie their damn heads off about how they want smaller government but all the while, they're pushing for more and more laws and MORE and MORE controls on US citizens.

In a nutshell:

NO to jobs
NO to disaster recovery
NO to the middle class
NO to high-speed rail
NO to veterans
NO to health care
NO to the unemployed
NO to students
NO to seniors
NO to choice
NO to the poor
NO to gays and lesbians
NO to science
NO to children
NO to the homeless
NO to equality
NO to teachers, police, firemen, and first responders
NO to corporate oversight and regulation
NO to responsibility
NO to voters rights
NO to gun responsibility

YES to the corporate welfare
YES to the super rich
YES to Wall Street
YES to Big Oil
YES to Big Pharma
YES to Big Insurance
YES to peeking in your bedroom
YES TO VOTER SUPRESSION

Republicans have made it crystal clear what they are all about and what they stand for and who they represent.

Does that about cover it?

Are you and Melvin twins?

Translation: Dammit, Luddly is right and I'm a fool.

 

[whitehall]

You can bet the world is topsy turvy when a party who claims to support small government is advocating passing laws which require citizens to own firearms. They used to believe in balanced budgets but that disappeared when Reagan and the Bushes ran up a ten trillion dollar debt. Now they're very simply the party of "NO"

Next thing you know the Republicans will all be in the nuthouse.

Yeah mel, you are probably one of the people that republicans don't require to own a firearm. Feel better?

 

[PaulS1950]

In the early country there were quite a few laws that fined citizens for not owning a "militia" style weapon. Vermont (?I think) has a bill in congress to charge non-owners a tax to help cover the cost of emergency response for those who cannot defend themselves. I think it would be good to get back to those specific roots.
If you can't defend yourself from an armed attack you are more likely to need emergency medical care or the services of the corroner than an armed and prepared citizen.

 

[OKTexas]

You gotta hand it to the R. They lie their damn heads off about how they want smaller government but all the while, they're pushing for more and more laws and MORE and MORE controls on US citizens.

In a nutshell:

NO to jobs
NO to disaster recovery
NO to the middle class
NO to high-speed rail
NO to veterans
NO to health care
NO to the unemployed
NO to students
NO to seniors
NO to choice
NO to the poor
NO to gays and lesbians
NO to science
NO to children
NO to the homeless
NO to equality
NO to teachers, police, firemen, and first responders
NO to corporate oversight and regulation
NO to responsibility
NO to voters rights
NO to gun responsibility

YES to the corporate welfare
YES to the super rich
YES to Wall Street
YES to Big Oil
YES to Big Pharma
YES to Big Insurance
YES to peeking in your bedroom
YES TO VOTER SUPRESSION

Republicans have made it crystal clear what they are all about and what they stand for and who they represent.

Does that about cover it?

Are you and Melvin twins?

Translation: Dammit, Luddly is right and I'm a fool.

No the translation is your both fools who can't back up what they post, but carry on, you both good for a laugh. You did notice he's not defending his op, right?