One Of Georgia's Safest Cities 'Requires' Its Citizens To Own A Gun; CNN Unsure Why Crime Is So Low

Authored by Scott Morefield via The Daily Caller,

When it comes to America’s response to gun crime, one Georgia town has been thinking outside the box since 1982, when its leaders passed a law requiring it citizens to own a firearm.

The Kennesaw, Georgia, law states that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm,” according to CNN, and was reportedly passed as a deterrent to crime.

“It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent,” Kennesaw Police Lt. Craig Graydon, a 30-year law enforcement veteran, told CNN. “It was also more or less a political statement because the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a city ordinance banning handguns from their city limits.”

As for would-be criminals looking for an easy mark, judging by the crime statistics it seems most have bypassed the Georgia town and moved on to easier targets. Even CNN was forced to admit that Kennesaw, populated by 33,000 people, has only had “one murder in the last six years and a violent crime rate of below 2%.”

“But,” writes CNN, “it’s unclear whether that has anything to do with the gun law.”

Kennesaw’s mayor sees it differently.

“If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Mayor Derek Easterling.

“It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren’t allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon,” said Wayne Arnold, a local resident who is a fan of the law.

With the gun issue being in the spotlight of late, town officials have been getting plenty of attention from all over the world about their law.

“We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law,” Lt. Graydon told CNN. “So that’s been somewhat of a benefit to us.”

Arnold noted the expectation of a “Wild West” environment with everyone walking around “with a firearm strapped to their side.”

“And it’s not like that,” said Arnold. “It’s strictly a home defense system type of deal. There’s no shootouts down the street.”

And a lot less crime than your average American city.


MK ULTRA Alpha bigkahuna Sat, 03/10/2018 - 07:58 Permalink

CNN is no longer a US specific television news show. It has a vested interest in bad mouthing the US for a global audience.

It 's similar to BBC in global audience, however, BBC external broadcast is for informing a global audience with real news, CNN is using slanted politically biased fake news to make the US look bad.

CNN takes bribes from many nations for making  favorable broadcast and to lie to protect say, the royals of Qatar. If CNN didn't take the bribe, then CNN would be kicked out of many nations.

Is there a law against taking bribes from foreign governments to report fake good news and not the truth about the regime?

CNN has been caught creating fake news, the reporter sets up the scene with paid actors.

And it wasn't Alex Jones or Watson doing the video of CNN creating fake drama news, it was someone who put it on Youtube and Jones stole it like he always has done and says it's his doing. Now CNN is trying to destroy Jones.

CNN has lost a tremendous number of viewers. They blame Jones, and again, the only original reporting I have ever seen of Jones was the indictment of CNN and Jones stole it and said it was his doing. A little research proved it was activist secretly taping it.

It was solid proof CNN was creating fabricated hoax news. 

However, the real reality of both CNN and the Alex Jones show, is both create a false reality. Both are designed for a cult following of the lowest common denominator.

I don't watch both of them, I would watch Jones when a big event happens to see his insane ranting and raving, and he always goes into a me, me, me narcissistic rant and I believe Jones is a liar just as bad as CNN.

We can only hope, CNN and Jones go out of business. Or better yet, Jones is always talking about himself as a tough guy when everyone knows in Austin, Jones is a big mouth who will never back his hate rant up with physical action when he is called out for his insanity.

What happens when someone hits Jones in the mouth, knocking his teeth out and breaking his jaw? His jaw would be wired shut for around four months, the question is, will that person who gave it back to Jones, would that person be a national hero? I think so.

Jones has lied over and over about physical confrontations he's had. Jones wouldn't fight back and Jones started it. Jones is a two faced back stabber USING people to get money out of them claiming he's some hero. Only the most ignorant watch CNN and Jones, these people are poorly read.

Jones has lost most of his audience. His products have been proven to contain lead. Jones terminated the staff that made him to save money by hiring kids. A man who surrounds himself with kids who know nothing about the world, has a serious confidence disorder. There is something bad wrong with Jones. He has played on people's emotions on many issues, bouncing from one side of the political spectrum after the other.

Now I hear Jones is going to jump on the hate Trump band wagon, because Jones didn't get a cable channel next to CNN, which he seriously believed he was going to get, remember Jones was saying he had more viewers than BBC, yes, BBC has around 300 million, Jones has proven one thing, the cocaine he uses has damaged his brain.

Jones is a cocaine addict. period. I know Austin real well.

And Jones told everyone, Trump calls him all the time, and he can pick up the phone to call Trump any time and he says he does all the time. Since Trump has not done this or acknowledged Jones after one) making a speech on Jones' platform, two) and Trump called Jones to thank him for his support, there has been no other contact with Jones. Jones stated Trump watches him all the time, this isn't true, it was Kushner who suggested Trump make a speech on the Jones show.

I can continue to dissect both CNN and Jones for hours and hours. My advise, please read the issue from all angles, then follow the trend over time, then you will be better informed. But it takes time, I know most of us don't have time, and we must trust the sound bite half truths of US media. I'm sorry it's this way, but CNN and Jones are not to be trusted.

In reply to by bigkahuna

Indo_Expat Stan522 Sat, 03/10/2018 - 14:54 Permalink

Apparently not, at least not as long as these stupid, vapid, attention-seeking shitbags continue to give the time of day to these cocksucking, jizm-gulping fake news faggots just to get their vacuous mugs on camera.

"Hi Mom - look at me... I'ze on the TV!" They don't give a fuck how much damage they do by even giving these fake news seditionists the time of day.

Americans should be blasting the motherfucking CNN traitors in the face instead of talking to them.

In reply to by Stan522

OverTheHedge MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 03/10/2018 - 08:10 Permalink

You haven't been watching the BBC if you think it is for "informing a global audience", unless you mean informing them that the White Helmets are good guys, and the Syrian "regime" eats babies and cuts women's heads off with chainsaws every Friday after prayers. 

Just one example of the endlessly slanted, leftist, globalist policy, Stephen Sakur on "Hard Talk" (an excuse to be rude to people and call it journalism) asked a guest two or three days ago: " Just how much more damage will another 6 years of Putin do to the russian economy?" Hardly a sign of unbiased, fair reporting, I hope you agree.

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

MK ULTRA Alpha OverTheHedge Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:08 Permalink

Yes, as of recently, last two decades, I've read Rothschild took over the BBC and the Economist.

I stopped my subscription to the Economist when the Economist started the support of homosexuality. That was perhaps ten or so years ago.

But BBC is not as bad as CNN for disinformation and dividing the US, that's what I was saying without detail. I also wanted to use the BBC because Jones was saying he had more listeners than BBC.

And look at you, a foreigner who will not admit his country of origin, posting from a foreign country trying to divide and destroy the American people who have been brain washed by a tribe of Khazar gypsies, the same ones who control Great Britain through the Khazar controlled London banking district known as "The City".

The relation between royals and the Khazars is still an operational reality, and no US media will explain it, no US media will explain Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, AIPAC, JINSA, ZOG, ZOA, ADL, JDL, etc. It's too much to believe, the US media will not tell the truth on anything.

We even have Russian Jews on this board posting from Israel trying to destroy America.

In reply to by OverTheHedge

MK ULTRA Alpha MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:19 Permalink

By the way, does Alex Jones ever explain these different groups? only one Bilderberg Group, because he didn't know it was a partnership between royals and Khazars. Has Jones ever explained about the Khazars.

Jones has stated anyone who believes the Jews are behind anything, that person is mentally ill. Jones never explains AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, JDL and the host of Khazar gypsies who are destroying this country.

After doing research on Jones in north Texas, I can say, Alex Jones' mother is a Jew. I went to live in  Dallas to figure this crap out, for nearly two years. Jones had copied the Austin libertarian mind, now he as reverted to his north Texas self, it's an extreme Zionist view of the world and anyone who doesn't think like Jones is mentally ill. Well most all of Austin who knows who he is want to take him out, Jones can't go out without a violent attack. People pour coffee on him, knock his water over, etc. It is likely and he knows it, someone is going to kill him.

I've run many surveys on Jones asking people what they think of Jones. Out of ten people each time, some don't know him but those do hate him and only one percent, one out of ten support him.

Jones has married two Jews in a row, now he says his new wife the escort hooker is not a Jew. Big lie, because Jones believed if he married Jewish, then he would break into movies and he would get his cable channel.

Jones has now been exposed as a Jew. His mother is a Jew and that's what everybody is saying from north Texas to Austin.

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

NidStyles MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:41 Permalink

The people claiming the throne as Windsor’s do not have the authority and the Rothschilds can no longer claim any titles.  

Jews can not occupy the throne, and can not hold titles. That is the law of the land, and anything else is a gross violation of that law. 

I don’t know anything about his mother being a Jew, and honestly, that doesn’t actually make you a Jew anymore. The law of return requires a DNA test. There are specific markers that only a percentage of Jews in diaspora carry. From what I understand only Jews with those markers, or loyal converts are allowed into Israel which is the defining factor to whether you’re a “Jew” or not. Being a Jew is not the same as being an Israeli or Hebrew either. These are all very different things. The Hebrews were a specific religious order that doesn’t exist anymore. 


In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

MK ULTRA Alpha NidStyles Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:49 Permalink

I've read Rothschild took over both the Economist and the BBC. This has been around a decade or so.

I noticed it in the Economist, it had always been a neutral reporting, excellent publication, then it started on this political slanted biased agenda. The last straw was the Economist promoting a homosexual agenda.

I didn't renew my subscription. After that is when I would search for why, it was Rothschild money and agenda.






In reply to by NidStyles

MK ULTRA Alpha OverTheHedge Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:45 Permalink

Coming from a homosexual transvestite foreigner admitted shamed of his own country, posting from another foreign country he's living in, posting constant hate for America, across the entire political spectrum.

For what purpose? to divide the US, what?

It's because the US would not allow you in during Obama's homosexual campaign, thus you moved to another country, you admitted and spend all your free time posting hate for Americans.

It's good the US won't let you in and now the door is closing forever.

Furthermore you took me out of context, BBC is not as bad as CNN of Jones.

And it was mainly the BBC listeners numbers which Jones was bragging he has out done, that was all.

How many times have you worked to discredit me, because of my anti-homosexual comments?

Isn't it weird someone from a foreign nations posting hate for the Americans, spending all their free time doing it, could it be, these are mentally ill posters, that's right, some of the foreigners post the same agenda, slightly different, but isn't same as a robot troll. It's good the fools calling themselves Americans with absolutely no control of Jew controlled government is waking up to the fact foreigners have been leading them by the nose with disinformation.

Take your homosexual agenda down the road, that agenda has been rejected by the majority of the Americans, and you're angry about it.

We don't want your kind in the US. PERIOD.

In reply to by OverTheHedge

0hedgehog Killtruck Sat, 03/10/2018 - 09:41 Permalink

It never made sense to me unless you have young children, to lock a firearm and it's ammo up requiring a period of time for vulnerability. The only way a firearm can help you in a defense situation is if it is loaded, unlocked and ready to go. If you don't carry it out with you, by all means, when you're out, lock it up but when you are home and cognizant of it's whereabouts (unless a child is present), it should be ready to fire, otherwise it's just a paperweight.

In reply to by Killtruck

iadr hedgeless_horseman Fri, 03/09/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

With due respect HH, I'll throw around some comments to mildly disagree with you on this one. 

What I am about to say is a little less idealistic that I usually like to be, but it's real politik, maybe?

- such a law raises consciousness on the issue. It reduces the sense of conflict in peoples mind about being the one to own (or even carry).


Yes, it can be argued it's authoritarian, but it creates the "permission" feeling some citizens need, and thrive animals for better or worse.

  I think we are better off saying, "Sure, yeah..."  to such a law...then drawing a very tight line on enforcement. As in: what... are they going to provide you with the gun at no charge? check on your having it close at hand? Ammunition and skills levels up to par? No none of those enforcement are remotely practical.

So this is symbolic. Like veterans day, or labour day. Some of us might disagree with those (but I digress).

I know I know we have enough frikken symbolic laws. And it weakens "our" public commitment to minimalist law structure. But evidence is everywhere that allowing things to go the opposite way is 20 times more dangerous to civil liberties.

But this law works, from what we see presented here. Doesn't that matter? Supporting pragmatism with tiny downsides is a problem why? What am I missing? when, I repeat the alternative downsides are massive. Correct me if I am wrong but there is racial diversity in that country, there is drug use, there is welfare. Maybe not as much of any of those 3 as in the hotspots... but it comes down to culture. What does this place in Georgia have right and how can we expand it. How did they not lose thier common sense over hte last 50 years? Those are the basic questions. How did this town not get suckered in by the underhanded trickery and abuse of human weaknesses of Rev. Sharpton and his ilk, and so on...


- peer pressure and related sociological principles might be infact are- ugly, but... if you are going to force large groups of people to coexist there needs to be some conversation which crowds people a bit into a common culture. I'd rather it be through conversation and some symbolic gestures- than through, for instance, religion taking on that role.

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman

Global Douche iadr Sat, 03/10/2018 - 01:24 Permalink

Let's talk about something similar that the Swiss must recognize. To my understanding, each Swiss household must possess a functional firearm. You hear about very little crime there and they're also strict on getting undesirables, even those simple little visa overstays, being arrested and deported in short order. America could learn much from actual implementation of these actions, and FUCK the Ninth Circuit mouth-breathers!

In reply to by iadr

Sun Rabbit ultrasonic Sun, 03/11/2018 - 01:38 Permalink

Here in Germany the euphemism used is always "a man of southern appearance." Everybody knows the deal. But what pisses me off is that in my town we already had 2 muslime gang rapes of young girls at the public swinmming pool. Even if gun ownership was easy here (which it is NOT) then you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody swimming with a gun strapped to their hip.

In reply to by ultrasonic

Oliver Jones Global Douche Sat, 03/10/2018 - 08:15 Permalink

What you say about firearms in Switzerland is not true.

Swiss gun ownership is not mandatory, unless you happen to be Swiss, and you're enrolled in the armed forces. Reservists must keep a functional weapon at home, although the days when every reservist was also responsible for keeping a certain amount of sealed ammunition (with regular inspections) are over.

However, where Switzerland differs from the US is in how guns are purchased, controlled and monitored. If you want to buy a weapon, you will ordinarily need at least permanent residence. If you don't have permanent residence, you will also need confirmation from your home country's embassy that they don't have an issue with you purchasing, owning and operating a firearm in Switzerland. Note that some countries (like the UK and Germany) simply don't issue these letters for their citizens.

Once you're eligible, you fill out an application for a Waffenerwerbschein (known as a WES, or weapons acquisition permit), and a background check will be done on you. That often takes just over 3 weeks (and typically includes an interview with the local police), and you'll then receive a letter in the post, asking you to come with your ID to the security counter of your local town hall, with 50 CHF to pay for the application. With a WES in hand, you can then buy up to three firearms, but only all from the same weapons dealer - and in the same transaction. So, if one of your guns takes more than 12 months to arrive, then you need to wait until your dealer has them all in stock, before you can collect them.

When you buy your firearms, one part of the WES is kept by the dealer, one is forwarded to your town hall, and one is returned to you. But that's not the end of the story - once you own your guns, the town hall will keep an eye on you: If you have purchased your guns for sport (which is the only reason you don't have to justify, by the way), and you haven't joined a local gun club, you may eventually get a knock on the door from the police, asking why you have purchased guns, but aren't using them.

Joining a shooting club will, typically, require permanent residence - no matter how you obtained your weapons: When you apply to join, a basic military clearance check is done on you, and the military will refuse to clear anyone who doesn't at least hold a C permit (permanent resident visa), no matter how much the staff of the gun club like you. So, if you're planning to move to Switzerland, understand that weapons ownership and practice doesn't come automatically, nor is it a right.

While it's true that the regulations here are a lot more relaxed than those in Europe, the Swiss do have their own regulations - and they are strict about enforcing them. That's one good reason why crime is low, here - another is because crime is actually frowned upon by Swiss society: Not following the rules is a serious taboo, and it means you'll find a public assumption of honesty and trust that would seem ridiculous in many other countries (the sheer quantity of honesty boxes and even unmanned grocery stores speaks for itself!)

Getting permanent residence, these days, is much harder than it used to be - and you'll need to make a serious effort to learn the local language, in order to qualify: Simply spending 5-10 years here with gainful employment is not enough. You will need to have lived in your community for a certain time - not just time spent in Switzerland, and you and your family will need to show that you've made an effort to integrate.

TL;DR: The Swiss manage to walk a fine line between allowing weapons, but strictly controlling their use. (Concealed carry, for example, is only available if you can prove your life would otherwise be in danger - that means you're either extremely rich, a security guard or someone with very good political connections.) In the eastern cantons of Switzerland, shooting is very popular, and Knabenschiessen is celebrated every year in Zürich. It's not uncommon to see children handling (and competitively shooting with) firearms, which the Swiss see as a way of preparing their children for their days of mandatory military service (age 16 and up.)

In reply to by Global Douche

TheEndIsNear iadr Sat, 03/10/2018 - 02:41 Permalink

The law requiring people to own a firearm in Kennesaw isn't actually enforced.

At least a third of the people where I live do "walk around with a firearm strapped to their side” even in church and without needing government permission to do so, and it's the safest place I've ever lived. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a homicide here, although every week there are usually a couple of DUIs and drug arrests. Most of the people are very poor financially with many on welfare, but they are the friendliest and most helpful people you could ever hope to meet. Also, there are no Africans here.

In reply to by iadr