looking down the barrel, kennesaw style
by Sandra Neish
Published: July 3, 2008
As anyone with a pulse who has not been residing under a wood-pile for the past week knows, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms.” This landmark decision struck down the Washington, D.C. gun ban that has been in effect for 30 years. Everybody immediately jumped aboard the Constitutional Debate Express. What does the Second Amendment mean? What is “original intent?” What does the word “to” really mean? However, these are not the deep, philosophical questions this article seeks to answer.
Because the burning question is: instead of a gun ban, what would happen if a city were to require its citizens to own and keep a handgun in their home?
Kennesaw, Georgia is what would happen.
Being a Georgia native, I have always known of the anomaly that is the city of Kennesaw. Twenty-seven miles north of Atlanta, with a population approaching 30,000, Kennesaw is a quaint, Southern town steeped in history. In 1982, Kennesaw made the national news by enacting a law requiring, “every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition.” Many made fun of the law; the Washington Post even called Kennesaw the “pistol-packing capital of the world.”
Kennesaw did not pay any heed to the naysayers. And their crime rate dropped. In 2007, Kennesaw celebrated 25 years of being murder free. In 1982, before the law, Kennesaw had a small population (5,242) but a high crime rate (above the national average at 4,332 per 100,000 people). The statistics for 2005 show a crime rate of only 2,207 per 100,000 people with a population of 28,189. (WorldNetDaily)
Washington, D.C., however, did not see a dramatic decline in crime, especially gun-related crime, after passing the ban. In fact, since 1976, when the ban took effect, 8,400 murders have occurred. Eighty percent of the 181 homicides from 2007 were perpetrated by gun-wielding criminals. (CBS News)
Prohibiting guns, much like prohibiting alcohol, only means that guns are out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and in the hands of criminals. Illegal firearms will always exist in the United States, therefore, in order for citizens to protect themselves, their families and their property, the right to gun ownership must also exist.
It is a bit ironic, the city that bans guns has more crime problems than the city that requires them. Allowing the citizenry to arm themselves in protection of self and home is a right worth protecting. Requiring the citizenry to arm themselves will stop criminals in their tracks. If you doubt it, try breaking into a home in Kennesaw.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Nice job Sandra.
For even more background info, Google :More Guns, Less Crime” or start here:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
Russ
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Can we also pass a law that forces Hollywood stars to take a basic economics class before they make any type of policy-related commentary?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t know, but I find it a little odd that the four justices who dissented (because the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individuals, of course) are also the ones who think an individual’s right to have an abortion IS in the Constitution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
But it is Tom. It’s Ammendment 6B also known as the Right To Privacy Ammendment. Obviously, you’re no legal scholar.