 |
| |
|
|
oedo
|
 |
and the revolution
Feb 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Kan. town requires homes to have guns
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. -- Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.
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.
"This ordinance fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Councilman John Brewer.
"This is simply using the U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment in particular - to the city of Geuda Springs' advantage."
Geuda Springs has no local police force; the Sumner County Sheriff's department is responsible for policing the area. Sheriff Gerald Gilkey said the ordinance makes him concerned for the safety of his officers.
"This throws up red flags," he said.
The town's city attorney, Thomas Herlocker, also opposes the measure, which has not taken effect because it has yet to be published. He said he plans to ask the council to reverse itself on the issue. The council meets next on Dec. 1.
Whitney Watson, a spokesman for Attorney General Phill Kline, declined to comment on the legality of such an ordinance, which is similar to one passed in Kennesaw, Ga., 21 years ago that is still in effect.
Many Geuda Springs residents refused to talk about it, and others were tightlipped, saying outsiders should stay out of it.
"It's nobody's business but our own," said Phillip Russell, who owns a motorcycle shop in the town. "Everybody out of town is making this their business." |
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...g=Gun%20Mandate
and the best thing on it: since they have no police force, how will they ever get one cent frome these "criminals"?
Geuda Springs 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Is it just as horrendous to require citizens to have something than to require them to not have it?
(Yes, yes, I know it said there was exceptions for short-bus-riders, etc., and objectors to guns and related policy. But it's a relevant topic regardless.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
 |
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Just came back from the range, fired 150 rounds with a 9mm pistol, and another 100 rounds with a forty-year-old .38 special.
I like the .38 better -- it's got history, and I'm much more accurate with it. |
Me too!
When I was with the B.I.A. (Bureau of Indian Affairs) in the 70's I carried a Model 10 Smith & Wesson and used a CCI Super Sphere rated at 1280 fsc (Hollow Point,Copper-Jacket)
I too fel it is an all around good handgun.
I however still favor what i used in the Military Police, Colt .45!
As for the response for the thread about the citizens being "forced" or "required" to stock an arsenal of any size, I am against this for if folks have a firearms cache then they may use first and ask second, for without proper training a person could be innocently killed, with a larger caliber firearm in the hands of a novice, make that a NERVOUS-NOVICE IN AN INTENSE situation they may "pull" the trigger and miss the intended intruder and kill an innocent bystander, even a child or a neighbor coming to their aid..
Just my unsolicited $0.02 worth is all
Peace
Grandpa Troll
P.S.
Is this the picture of the Town Councilman whom came up with this?
 Attachment: jessejamesdoh.gif
This has been downloaded 147 time(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-11-2003 04:35
|
