US town may encourage all residents to arm up...

[Osborn F Enready]

U.S. town may encourage firearms - CNN.com

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration on Wednesday wins approval from local officials.

Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them. Cherry Tree, 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents.

The town council was scheduled to vote on the proposed "Civil Protection Ordinance" on Wednesday evening.

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

Its about time some towns start using a common sense approach to crime control, and look, it doesn't even require you to pay more taxes.... :eek:

Kudos for you Cherry Tree, and I hope your citizens take their "RESPONSIBILITY" seriously.

[Osborn F Enready]

As it turns out, it was voted down.....

A shame, and a sign of the mentality that is invading America under the progressive movement.

[The Bacon Guy]

Sounded like a good idea to me. People taking some responsibility for their protection instead of relying entirely on the state can only be a good thing. 'Tis a shame it was voted down.

[brien]

As it turns out, it was voted down.....

A shame, and a sign of the mentality that is invading America under the progressive movement.

Yes it is a shame that people do not want to take responsibiity for their own protection. This is why we have fascist state. People are all too willing to hand the protection of their freedoms over to the multi layered police agencies. The end result being when their freedom and liberty disappears, it is similar to death because they don't even notice it. :(

[Kamehameha34]

Encouraging firearm ownership among responsible adults?
Perfectly valid.

Requiring it by law?
No thanks.

[Chancellor]

U.S. town may encourage firearms - CNN.com




Its about time some towns start using a common sense approach to crime control, and look, it doesn't even require you to pay more taxes.... :eek:

Kudos for you Cherry Tree, and I hope your citizens take their "RESPONSIBILITY" seriously.

Yes, like fighting criminals instead of fighting some vague philosophical concept called "crime."

[ghost_stalker]

If everyone was walking around with guns then you wouldnt have to worry about crime. Who in their right would try to mug you, knowing that they would be shot dead. If Pres. Bush came to the town that when the local police would have a problem

[JohnMK]

Encouraging firearm ownership among responsible adults?
Perfectly valid.

Requiring it by law?
No thanks.

My thoughts coincide. I would have voted down the law as it stood. A "Sense of Council" resolution, however, would have been much more likely to pass while being only trivially paternalistic.

[Apokalupsis]

The town has 400 residents and is out in the stix. It has under 20 streets total. [/I]How much crime can there be in that town that a bill would be introduced for the residents to arm themselves?

[kubedawg]

Was this a law or a guideline? What I mean is, if this were to be approved, would it require every resident to own a gun or just recommend everyone own a gun?

[Osborn F Enready]

I didn't read the law, I only read the article.

Regardless, it is the individual responsibility to protect yourself, so I think this was the towns way of covering their ass against "nanny-state" lawsuits from the police not showing up on time.

"We told you to arm, you're fault you didn't" would be the excuse of the law.

I liked the idea, but don't know enough about the actual law to say I support it or not.

I support the idea 100% though.

[Fonceai]

There would have been so much potential for problems.

First, I thought they would actually force someone to carry a gun... which you can't do.

Second, I figured it would have the effect that Osborn detailed above... no protection if you didn't protect yourself.

I think ultimately the problem with this would be the problem I have mentioned in other threads; that some people don't have the disposition to use guns.

Doesn't someone have the right to be protected if they acknowledge that they don't have it in them to protect themself?

In the Darwinian sense, the answer is no.

But there are plenty of people that know that they couldn't bring themselves to taking a life, even in self-defense.

I can't honestly fault those people.