Heh, Good For Them

I actually agree with the Brady Campaign!

A gun control support group is suing a north Georgia town that has a law requiring gun ownership.

The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the town of Nelson. The group claims the law is unconstitutional. It contends the Second Amendment doesn’t require anyone to have a gun.

City leaders passed the ordinance April 1 requiring every head of household to have a gun and ammunition. But there are many exceptions.

Not on the suing part, because, frankly the towns that have this law NEVER enforce it, so its all show. But indeed it SHOULD be illegal to MANDATE gun ownership. We all know the right to free speech also includes the right to remain silent.

Still with all the exceptions, they might find themselves an uphill battle. Of course Irony is that this is the same group that SUPPORTED Chicago and DC’s ban on gun ownership.

But we all know how inconsistent they can be.

Still the best part is the Brady Camp is DIRT poor, and lawsuits are expensive, even bullshit ones like this. So I’m happy to watch them bleed out in the bush!


This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Heh, Good For Them

  1. AZRon says:

    Morton Grove/ Kennesaw

    G major/ E minor

  2. Divemedic says:

    Actually, this is PURE genius! A gun control group will have to argue that the Second Amendment, while protecting the right to keep and bear arms, doesn’t require it. In future lawsuits, pro RKBA groups like the SAF and NRA can quote freely from the Brady Campaign’s own filings where they argue that the 2A protects an individual right. This will be a minefield for the Bradys. They will win this battle, and in so doing, give their opponents the tools they need to win the war.

  3. Roadkill says:

    To play devils advocate, selective service says yes, you can be mandated to keep and bear arms.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well that would require you to be picked in a draft FIRST, and so far that only applies to males between the ages of 18 and 25.

      Still David notes membership in an Organized Militia can also mandate ownership.

      Still all of these things, as well as bearing arms for the Unorganized Militia are 100% voluntary.

  4. David W. says:

    I don’t know, everyone 15-45 (I think) is already a militia member by federal law. It could easily be mandated that they all own a weapon of some kind, and the first part of the 2nd Amendment would allow for a defense of the law should anyone sue.

    I just think in this day and age you can’t force someone to own something they don’t want to own. But Obamacare already opened up that can of worms so forcing people under penalty of jail and/or IRS killing you with tanks if they DON’T own a gun could probably be legal.

    Not right, but legal.

  5. Bob S. says:

    I’ll continue the trend and take the role of opposing counsel here.

    But indeed it SHOULD be illegal to MANDATE gun ownership.

    There is strong precedent saying otherwise; many cities and states required ownership of firearms for those eligible to serve in the militia.

    We all know the right to free speech also includes the right to remain silent.
    We often focus on the rights but seldom on the responsibilities. So yes, there is a right to remain silent but there is also a responsibility to speak up when inequality, illegal activities, etc are known.
    Why isn’t it the case with the right to keep and bear arms?
    First, there is the responsibility to protect yourself or your family. We shouldn’t call upon the resources of the city, state or federal government unless the situation is more than the individual can handle, right?
    Second, there is the responsibility to the community to protect it from all enemies foreign or domestic yes?
    How can unarmed people do that? With greater difficulty of course. Again, there is a long tradition in law and culture of requiring citizens to stand in its defense.
    Frankly, I think there should be a requirement for all kids to be taught marksmanship, first aid, and survival/woodcraft skills in school.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      You make some valid points, tho I’m not sure I can agree with MANDATED ownership, because frankly if you don’t WANT a gun, I’d rather you not have one. Just look at police marksmanship. The cops who spend their time off at the gun range are SCARY good shots, but the ones who first shot a gun at the academy, and only pull their piece when they’re order to qualify at the range for that year generally struggle to hit a piece of paper at 15 feet, let alone a moving man who’s returning fire.

      Still mandatory firearms safety training and basic marksmanship is NOTHING but a good thing. Because even if you’re anti-gun, that doesn’t mean EVERYBODY your child will encounter will be, and some good training and respect will do NOTHING but save lives, and maybe open some eyes away from the ignorance the anti-rights fiends wish we all had.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *