Posted on 01/01/2013 10:59:00 AM PST by aimhigh
While many communities are calling for tighter gun control laws, there's a town in Klamath County that requires the head of the household to own a firearm.
It's now been more than 30 years since Chiloquin adopted an ordinance requiring the head of household to maintain a firearm, and ammunition.
. . . . The ordinance in Chiloquin was passed the same year a similar law was passed in Kennesaw, Georgia. Kennesaw city officials claim the law has reduced crime by 89 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at kobi5.com ...
Should be the law in every state in the Union.
They should inform these people NOT to call the police if their life is in danger due to another person. They wouldn't want the police to kill anyone in their name, would they?
They should also require their houses to display a "gun-free zone" sign so the bad guys would know which houses to attack.
Nope. Freedom also means freedom NOT to do something.
I think there might be an even better way of doing this.
Instead of requiring (unenforced) gun ownership, require (unenforced) that “all adult persons of good character” have automatic membership in the militia, or county posse, “and if summoned by a lawful authority, if they volunteer attendance, that they be armed with a pistol or rifle(*) and appropriate ammunition”.
That is, a voluntary muster law.
The advantage of this is that, instead of just mandating gun ownership for the sake of ownership, it mandates the recognition that adult citizens are their own first line of defense against threats, man-made or natural.
That they are *responsible* for the defense of their own person, defense of their family, and the mutual defense of the community, first, before any uniformed government employee. And that to do this, they *must* both own and carry a handgun or rifle(*).
(*) Okay, shotguns are fine, too.
You’re both right.
It should be a law everywhere. That’s just him voicing his opinion, he’s not saying all governments absolutely have to pass this and compel people to buy a private product (like a health insurance policy). “Should” is not “Must”. Should is “ought to”, Must is “you have no choice”. He was obviously arguing that it’s a really good idea and because of that, and the benefits it brings, it should be adopted across the country.
As the law he said should be enacted everywhere has an exemption clause in it nobody would have to that really didn’t want to - unlike the healthcare law. Further tying in to it don’t call the police if you’re under attack, we wouldn’t want to use guns to hurt your attacker, is a brilliant affirmation of the opt-outs views about guns. It would be hypocritical for these anti-gun folks to accept armed police help.
You are also right that local communities have the right to decide whether they want a law like this or not. He just thinks they’d be better off it they did have one. Not that they all must be required to pass one.
I'm thinking that "requiring" means "must" and that limits the freedom of those heads of households who prefer to remain unarmed for whatever reason.
Full Disclosure: I am not one of those who prefers to remain unarmed...
the law has an opt out clause, so it is not an absolute requirement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.