I support a law that requires all citizens to carry guns wherever they go.

[quote=

I wouldn't go as far as to say an unarmed citizenry is a powerful attractent for tyrants. It obviously would be a factor, but if it is "powerful" like you say, then why hasn't totalitarian and authoratians regimes popped up after strict gun control has been implimented.[/QUOTE]

You mean like Hitler? And yes gun-free zones do have an increased crime rate. Look what happened in Australia when they started taking the guns, crime increased exponentially.

I will never have a sign on my door, but I dare you to break in. You will die.

You know, I kind of can't believe that nobody has brought up this little gem yet.

I like the way you think, BillyBob.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

So you would trample of peoples freedom of expression, right to liberty, and the right to property owners to regulate their land.

Wow, move to some socialist island already.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

I am glad you brought that up. From the link.

"In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared."

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

I doubt the ordinance had much to do with reducing crime. The firearms ownership in this town was probably already high (70-80%) before the ordinance, yet it still had a "problem" with crime. Clearly there is something else at play here.

The economy was pretty bad in 1982 when the ordinance was implimented. My guess for the main reason crime rates improved was that the economy improved gradually since 1982. More people found work, which is crucial for keeping people out of trouble in small working class communities. Plus the city generates more revenue, hires more cops, crime is deterred and goes down. You would probably find the same trend in most comparable towns.

Using the ordinance to explain every crime reduction is wishful thinking. Plus, the statistics aren't that amazing to begin with. No fatal shootings, okay, well plenty of towns can say they have zero or very few fatal shootings, and I doubt we would see a correlation with levels of gun ownership.

This ordinance also tramples on residents' right to liberty and right to regulate their property. The individual is sovereign, the government has no right to demand an individual to meet qualifications to be able to reside in a free and democratic society. The government should stay out of an individual 's affairs, unless that individual has violated someone elses rights.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

I never said that having guns was the reason for their low crime. Comprehension is key here my friend. I believe that the point the author was trying to make is this one.

That did not happen.

And no it does not violate their right to regulate their property, because they are required to own in order to fulfill an obligation to the city. Please go and actually read the article that was posted.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

Yea, but anyone with common sense would know that it wouldn't be the wild-west. There are plenty of towns already with high gun ownership, and they weren't even close to the wild-west.

Theres a reason the founding fathers made gun ownership a right and not a obligation, because an obligation is excessive government control. Its a violation of the right to liberty and unconstitutional.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Very true, but this does demonstrate that everyone can have a gun and still have low crime.



I agree, but the city did not pass the ordinance for the individuals personal protection, they did so for city defense. They are within their powers to do so.

I am not saying I agree with it. Just stating the facts of the matter.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?