Official proposes gun in every house!

[hunttheevil]

yea they will think its a right when they only have seconds and the police are five minutes away.

 

[javacodeman]

Alice Fry, another Cherry Tree resident, said she will not have a gun in her home. She doesn't see the need for such an ordinance since having a gun is the prerogative of the homeowner.

"When I have my four grandchildren here, I wouldn't want them getting shot," Fry said. "I would never have one in my home."

Resident Ken Farabaugh said he doesn't see the need for a gun.

"I don't think anyone should have a gun," he said. "The more guns you have, the more trouble you can get into."

I think Ms Fry and Mr Farabaugh have just unwittingly stepped to the front of list of which houses to rob in the Borough.

"I don't think anyone should have a gun,"--tell that to the raper/robber when he shows up and see how far it gets you.

People never cease to amaze me.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Everytime I hear someone say they won't have a gun in their home I challenge them to put a sign in their yard saying such, as I am more than willing to put up a sign that says my home is protected by armed resident. It is always funny how many people want to make their opinion known to YOU but don't want it made public to the rest of the world.

 

[wacki]

Everytime I hear someone say they won't have a gun in their home I challeneg them to put a sign in their yard saying such

Awesome.

 

[strambo]

These ordinances do not require anyone to have a gun. No freedom is being violated. You are free to be "gun free" (thus shirking your community responsibilities ) if you so choose.

Henry Statkowski is proposing a "civil protection ordinance" that would ask all heads of households in the 450-resident borough to maintain a firearm and ammunition so residents don't have to rely on police to do a "homeowner's job."

-bold added by me.

 

[Speer]

Henry Statkowski is proposing a "civil protection ordinance" that would ask all heads of households in the 450-resident borough to maintain a firearm and ammunition so residents don't have to rely on police to do a "homeowner's job."

Sounds good.

 

[FlaXD]

Everytime I hear someone say they won't have a gun in their home I challeneg them to put a sign in their yard saying such

As an alternative a sign in your yard: This household is armed, the house next door isn't ---->

Or: I have dangerous guns, next door is a safe zone ---->

 

[zoom6zoom]

Just so they don't interpret it as "a" gun in every home. I have more than "a" gun, and don't want to be limited to "a" gun! Gotta watch those sneaky bastagees.

 

[Limeyfellow]

It sounds like a good idea but what about the people who can't afford a firearm and ammunation. Those that can barely afford the rent. Where do they get the money to keep to this ordinance? Will they provide firearms and ammunation to these people and what rules would be associated with it if they have to be armed or will they just be fined or arrested for disobeying the law and spending the money to eat.

Will it also take into account those with mental problems that aren't allowed to have firearms? After all theses plenty of people who are questionable to own firearms under federal and most state's laws so when do we decide howfar we arm society. What will they do about that?

Finally what do they think the job of the police officer is? Obviously its not to protect and serve anymore. There are times when a civilian is just going to end up getting shot when those with training are required to solve a situration.

I hate when they throw around laws without thinking about all the consequences and answering everything properly. Sure it sounds like a good idea but they are just throwing it around for votes and thats about it.

 

[javacodeman]

Henry Statkowski is proposing a "civil protection ordinance" that would ask all heads of households in the 450-resident borough to maintain a firearm and ammunition so residents don't have to rely on police to do a "homeowner's job."

Limey, reread the whole article or at least the above quote. It is not a requirement but a strong suggestion.

I don't think that you'll see a rush on signs saying either of the following:

"I'm too poor to own a firearm, but sure wish I could to be in compliance with the new ordinance."

"I can't legally own a gun due to mental health issues, otherwise I'd be in compliance with the new ordinance."

As long as people don't put those signs up, the criminal element will only know that everyone in this town is encouraged to own a gun--a strong deterrent to crime.

BTW, can't the poor people just go out and pick up a Jennings? I've never used one, but I hear that they're great.

 

[GlenJ]

I saw the story about this on the supposedly conservative Fox News Channel.
The host was Julia Banderas host of Big Story Weekend. Her and all the liberal guests that she had on were all very against the ordinance. One of them even quoted that age old anti gun mantra "when there's a gun in the home the owners are more liable to be hurt with it themselves"

 

[crashm1]

Fox is getting more mainstream and elitist everyday.

 

[strambo]

These "ordinances" aren't really laws. They have no punishment attached. Think of them more like Congressional resolutions. Just statements with nothing behind them. If there was a punishment for not having a gun (beyond the law of natural selection ), I would be against it.

They could pass the opposite "We ask that no guns are in our city...." without a punishment= no law.

Some sort of support system to provide guns/training to people who show need would be cool, especially if it could be on a donation (not tax) basis. I'd donate instructor time for something like this. I bet local sporting goods stores would discount prices on pump shotguns and a charity could be set up to buy and distribute them. Hmmm....

 

[SniperStraz]

---

I know that in kennesaw GA there is a law like that. Not everyone listens to it, but every household must have a fire-arm in it.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Yes i have heard of that program too. All men who are fit to serve in the military are trained to fight and issued a fully automatic Sig rifle for them to keep in thier home.

Well either Finland or Switzerland is now on my list of countries to move to if that need should ever arise.

 

[strat81]

The story made the front page of Yahoo. It's a nice gesture to recommend homeowners have guns.

People always complain about how high taxes are... maybe we should lower taxes by eliminating police firearms or maybe even getting rid of police departments all together! Since so many big cities are essentially "gun-free zones" they're safe already... no need for the 5-0. :banghead:

The discussion about Finland and Switzerland made me think about mandatory military service. Israel and Italy (I think) also have similar service requirements. I think it would be good for our country, but I'm not in favor of the government telling me what to do. I never considered military or law enforcement service because of a physical disability that would prevent me from doing so. But the more I think "What if", the more I think it would help things. Being that it's the 21st century, women should be required to serve too. It could be like the next step after high school (which isn't mandatory). They could tie it into certain rights and privileges... service gives the right to vote, the privilege to drive an automobile, entitlement to social services or tax breaks, etc etc. Of course, nothing like this would ever happen in our country. Given the comments certain politicos have made over the past few months, the sentiment would be "Not MY children!"

 

[mindwip]

Mandatory military service. I say no but mandatory military reserves i think that would be cool.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

when was the last time finland or switzerland invaded another country? It would be one thing to be part of a military that was essentially for home defense. maybe more like the national guard here? another thing entirely to be part of a military that routinely exports its soldiers. I don't think a mandatory soldier program in america would be too popular.