News Pennsylvania town mulls recommending guns for all

I can see good and bad in that. Not everyone should have a gun in their possession, IMO.

Well I think that no person should be required to have a gun in the house.

I would want to protect my self but it seems that the police would have little else to do in a 400-person town! (except camp out for 24 hours at a time trying to catch speeders??)

If you think the police can be everywhere at once, you are sorely mistaken.

My department is in a town of ~900, and we're part-time. We do not have the manpower for 24/7 coverage. You might be waiting more than a few minutes for an officer to arrive..police oftentimes clean up the mess -- we can't be everywhere to prevent the mess from happening in the first place.

Good point.
I understand police cannot be everywhere at once. But I also understand that if things are bad enough in a 400 person town that someone is considering mandating guns and ammo in every house then something is not right. Every person should be able to own a gun but not forced.

yeah i am all for gun rights, but on the other hand, i don't think the government needs to be regulating people's personal lives.

now if they really wanted to promote gun ownership, instead of making more laws, they should have free gun safety/education classes and open a public shooting range. that would do a better job of getting people interested in guns than just telling them they have to own one.

...

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

Hmm the tables can turn easily in this situation. Lets just say one of the home owners shoots a burglar for safety and acciddently kills the (wo)man. Now Ive read many news articles where a homeowner defended himself and ended up in jail. I think its stupid but thats my opinion.

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

...

"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."

They do have that responsibility. Are you telling me that as a father/husband, you would not be responsible for your family's safety? If not, I'm glad you weren't my dad.

Regardless, this statue does not appear to be mandating firearm ownership.

I'm glad I'm not your dad too. I would probably beat you...often.

"responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police..."

The way I am interpreting this is that they basically want to discourage calling the police in the event of anything like that happening. In a 400-person town that is ridiculous. I would definitely protect my family no matter what. (If you were my son I might use you as a decoy however seeing as there's no sense in saving your dumbass)But the point is that it might just be a nice thing to also know that perhaps 'backup' is on the way just in case.

Why would someone be trying to pose this really? Ask yourself that. Have you? I doubt it. You're just quoting me, assuming I did not read the statement, and making smartass remarks. So shut the fuck up.

I see that the proposal which may not be approved anyway does not necessarily call for a gun ownership mandate. DUH. Have you ever heard of the term legal precedence? Give and inch and take a mile? I'm looking down the road here and seeing what this proposal could become perhaps 10 years own the road. I'm wondering if its not a step in someone's agenda.

Might not be, but to be trusting of these kinds of things is just stupid.


I'm saying it should be left the hell alone. If people want to own guns, that's already their right, but to recommend, and state responsibility whether legal or not even suggests to look down on those who do not wish to carry a gun in the house. That is also their right to not bear arms if they do not feel comfortable with them in the house.

You're also encouraging others to take the law into their own hands more often and not to call the police basically. Not too smart of a move. You're going to have idiots shooting people that may not deserve to be shot.

Funny how you just 'happened' to miss that part. Where in that article does it say not to call the police?

You have quite an attitude -- any particular reason, or do you have no tolerance for opposing viewpoints and intelligent discussion? I'm thinking the latter, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I have no problem with oppsing viewpoints, hence my second post in this thread of "good point."

I do have a problem with someone only quoting something and bolding a word ot two insinuating that I obviously did not read the topic, which I did. I also get an attitude when someone makes a comment about me personally suggesting I would be a bad father or husbamd. THAT is what got my attitude out.

Simply replying with another viepoint would have been fine, but you did not do that.

I did not miss the waiting for help to arrive, hence the "..." indicating that there was more to the sentence.

The part of the sentence that you "did not miss" was rather necessary. By eliminating it, you dramatically distort the meaning of said sentence.

As far as my 'offensive' post -- it was asking a question, not making a direct accusation. Your post that I replied to was implying that the male head of the household does not have a responsibility to defend his family.

whatever floats their boat i see both sides of the stort

i think MANDATING every home should have a gun is a little ridiculous...i have no problem with the recommendation, however.

Good, they should strongly recommend gun ownership. Its a right that we've all but forgotten and let the Government take away from us. They've brainwashed us into thinking that "guns are bad/dangerous" and that "guns kill people."

Politicians nowadays can't understand what even our founding fathers did. They want people to rely on government / police in any and all situations. Not only that, but they brazenly fly in the face of the Constitution, saying this phrase doesn't apply to the people, but rather the national guard. It seems like a rather straightforward phrase to me.
-
-"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."

"The people"= citizens, as it does everywhere else in the Constitution.

I have very little respect for the anti-gun argument for 2 reasons. One, it is predicated upon fear, and two, it ignores the basic principles under which the U.S. was founded. Oh yeah, and gun ownership is THE MOST immediate way to protect life, liberty and property. Police are mostly reactive. Their ability to actively prevent violent crime is limited.

** Sorry I had to rant**

Matt look at murder rates in major cities. A majority of the worst are in liberal "gun control" states. Yeah, gun control has been doing a great job reducing violent gun crimes in Philly and Washington DC .......

The criminals do, why shouldn't the rest of us? Making it harder for everyone else to get guns doesn't impact criminals, aside from creating easy targets. Its not like felons are going down to their FFL dealer and picking up a new handgun. They're criminals because they break laws, so why do people think they'd abide by tough gun laws?