Geuda Springs City Council requiring all homes to be equipped with a firearm and ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimpeel; mcole

Jim -- thanks for the welcome, glad to be here...

mcole -- I checked Gueda Springs with Mapquest and it put me in the middle of Lyons KS for some unknown reason. However, if you will enter Arkansas City KS in the Mapquest search, you will find GS on the Cowley County & Sumner County line (west of Arkansas City) at the intersection with Cowley county highway 10. Are you from Kansas, too?
 
I don't like it.

The town should no more have the authority to decide that you WILL have a firearm in your howm than it should have that you WILL NOT.

The decision should lie solely with the homeowner. Period.
 
pershing rifle, i am from kansas. when i was in college worked for the kansas highway comm for a number of summers and traveled all of the state. knew kansas had a "gueda springs" but couldn't remember where it was. i did use map quest and it put it up in north central kansas; my recollection was that it was in s.w. kansas? mcole
 
I see this as enforcing an individuals duties to society. Like jury duty and voting, providing for the common defense is a civic duty. This town is just telling its citizens how to go about it.

Owen
 
Owen, do you realize that's a socialists view of society?

For instance, conscription. Socialism says we owe the government our lives.

The Capitalist way is to let everyone defend themselves, or voluntarily join a government run army.
 
If the government can tell us we must have smoke detectors in our homes, then they can tell us we must have firearms. No difference at all. Maybe this will wake some of the anti's up to the over-extension of government powers in America.
 
Sure enough, the gov't can't infringe on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. Believe it or not, that means (or should mean) that they can't keep you from keeping and bearing arms and they CAN'T make you keep and bear arms. The right is infringed when it is not allowed or becomes manatory. Having the right to keep and bear arms also means having the right to NOT keep and bear arms. The term 'right' means you have the option.

It isn't a right if you have to do it against your wishes. Remember the mandatory draft?
 
I would think a resolution encouraging residents to have guns for protection is better than another damned law, which we have far too many of already.
 
There IS an objector clause in the proposed ordinance. (boldface added for clarity)
Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.
So, effect, they are not FORCING anyone to own a gun.
 
G"E"uda Springs, down by the Ark River... Winfield and Ark City near the OK border

G"U"eda Springs... Lyon County

Depends on how ya spell it.
The one under discussion is down near Winfield methinks... veritable wide spot in road as PershingRifles says...

Adios
 
When our country was in the process of becoming a country, was it not stated in law that every man belonged to the militia and was required to provide his own musket, and ball and powder? I am not a historian, and I can not quote it.
Did not George Washingtons soldiers have to provide their own weapons? By law?
 
It's a trick to make confiscation easier: when the time comes they'll know who to go to (um...........everyone).:uhoh: ;)
 
I just saw a Brady member on MSNBC talking about this law. Do you think this is doing more harm than good to the RKBA movement? The residents are being portrayed as nutty.

One town with less than 300 people passes a law like this and it's national news, but if a major city banned handguns or something like that it would be seen as "common sense".

Oh yeah, the guy say said that the Brady campaign is not against gun ownership! Nearly knocked me out of my chair.
 
Forcing everyone in town to own a gun is just as bad as banning guns completely.

Certain people don't want to own firearms, they should not have to. In fact, this law is dangerous. Those who don't want to own a gun probably won't bother to train with it and won't exercise proper safety. Some people simply can not handle the responsibility, know that, and therefore don't own guns.

Anyway, it's unconstitutional....NEXT.
 
I don't like it either. It reminds me of certain nations which attempt to make voting mandatory. Granted, this is on a *much* smaller scale. But the underlying premise is still incorrect. No government can mandate that you own iron, anymore than government can madate you vote.

Also, I think the 2A is implicated, espcially if you take a broader view of it. The Second is about limiting the government's ability to regulate private ownership and possession of firearms. In this interpretation, a law forcing all good citizens of der Fatherland to have firearms is just as bad as one forbidding all citizens from owning them. In both cases the state is exceeding its authority, and in both cases the results are disturbing. A government that can mandate firearm ownership can take it away, as well.
 
They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

What such a law does, however, is make it more difficult for another jurisdiction to pass an ordinance banning firearms. It sets a clear precident for firearms ownership. And that, in itself, is a good thing.
 
They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.


Then what, pray tell, is the point of passing such a law if everybody can say "I object" and do as they did before? It's a waste of ink, time, and it lays the groundwork as precedant for other stupid laws.
 
...and it lays the groundwork as precedant for other stupid laws.
ROFLMAO :what:

Do you REEEEAAALLLY think that this law will be considered the precedent for stupid laws?

Look around brother, there's a LOT of stupid laws out there MUCH more inane than this one.

You take the total number of gunowners in this country and I'll wager that over 50% of them would be considered incompetent to own them by most members of this board.

You'd think that ANY law that encourages lawfull gun ownership would be welcomed with open arms. (no pun intended) Nothing in this ordinance says that the homeowner has do do anything with the gun except maintain it and possess correct ammo for it. You don't have to carry it. Shoot it. Answer the door with it. Defend your neighbors life with it.
Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Do nothing but possess it.

You're energies would be better served by whining about the bad laws depriving good people their God-given rights instead of moaning and groaning about one that reinforces them.:rolleyes:
 
Look around brother, there's a LOT of stupid laws out there MUCH more inane than this one.

So because there's a lot of stupidity out there it's fine if we add a little stupidity to the mix. Sounds great!!!

You'd think that ANY law that encourages lawfull gun ownership would be welcomed with open arms.

This does not encourage anything, it requires it, and there's a world of difference. If they want to encourage it they can tell people about classes for gun handling, maintenence, CCW, self-defense, situational awareness, etc. That would be encouraging it, your law is nothing like that.

I oppose that law because fails to leave me alone. That is what made us a great nation, stupid govt regulations are what's taking us down.

Nothing in this ordinance says that the homeowner has do do anything with the gun except maintain it and possess correct ammo for it. You don't have to carry it. Shoot it. Answer the door with it. Defend your neighbors life with it.
Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Do nothing but possess it.


Then what bloody good does it do, except drain my bank account, to be forced to possess and maintain a firearm, regardless of my interest or skill with it? Some people dont have guns and we're the better for them not having guns, why force something on someone if they want no part of it?

You're energies would be better served by whining about the bad laws depriving good people their God-given rights instead of moaning and groaning about one that reinforces them

1 - That law reinforces no right, actually it infringes on my rights. A right is an inherent freedom that imposes no obligation on anyone else, and that law imposes on my a requirement to own a piece of property I might not want to own. My energies would be better served if I didnt have to engage in debates over stupid laws like this.

Can you get this simple message through your head?

LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
 
glock? Maybe you should consider this law as satire. I would like to see you challenge it on second amendment grounds in court. If you can take this one to court and win, then we will have second ammendment grounds to stop all restrictive gun laws. It would be a wonderful precedent, for the "individual rights" interpretation of the second amendment. Who knows, you might even get Sarah Brady and Charles Schumer to join in with you.

I am in Kansas, and if I find they are proposing a bill like this statewide, I will be pounding pavement and knocking on doors and telling everyone to support it.

I think I understand your point,,, I personally think they should not be allowed to pass a law, unless they repeal an old one that is no longer useful.:)
 
Welcome to Short Attention Span Theater

Then what bloody good does it do, except drain my bank account, to be forced to possess and maintain a firearm, regardless of my interest or skill with it? Some people dont have guns and we're the better for them not having guns, why force something on someone if they want no part of it?
OK let me repeat this one last time for those who can't comprehend...

They are NOT forcing anyone to own a gun.

It clearly states that those who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

ex-empt adjective
free or released from some liability or requirement to which others are subject


That means you don't have to do it.

So there should be no drain on your bank account.
(Especially if you don't move to Geuda Springs, Arkansas)


I realize that you don't like the law.
I just haven't figured out which part you can't understand.
 
The only purpose of having a law is so that it may be enforced, why pass this law when it is essentially unenforcable?

It is completely pointless.
 
The conversation around here is nearly brain-dead.

The purpose of the law is political activism. The 3 to 2 council vote was a political statement (along the lines of the 1792 Militia Act) which you should damn-well hope your own town had the juevos to make.

Next item...

The city-councilman, (who is also the only city employee) was interviewed this morning on 960AM (Phoenix) at about 8am on the syndicated Laura Ingraham show. Laura is the author of "Shut Up and Sing."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261014/104-9797186-8924717?v=glance

The guy, who was rather soft-spoken and unassuming said some interesing things. One was when Laura, a fairly staunch conservative and Bush supporter asked if the people of his town were Bush supporters. He said that he didn't really know, (and didn't seem to really want to answer the question). He then said that folks from his town hadn't liked any of the passed presidents for quite some time.

Then Laura asked him who he would vote for in the next election. He said, "Probably whoever is the Libertarian candidate." Laura tried to seem unperplexed, but I could tell she was a bit bothered.

He also said something that was very illuminating. When he mentioned that his town didn't have a police force, he explained that it used to. It was during the Clinton "100,000 new cops on the street program." The guy said, with a measure of annoyance, "We had six cops in a town of 250." He repeated for emphasis, "Six cops...250 people. There was nothin' for them to do....except go around and try to find out if we were breakin' the law." The six were apparently gone in short order.

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top