Plan urges firearms in every Belleview home

Plan urges firearms in every Belleview home
www.ocala.com...

A proposed resolution set to go before the Belleview City Commission urges the head of every household in the city to have a gun in order to protect their families and to keep the peace in an emergency.

On Tuesday, the board will consider the plan, which has been introduced by Belleview resident Donny Barber, to encourage "all law abiding citizens to own a handgun, rifle or shotgun and receive adequate training to become proficient in the use of and safe handling of the weapon so they are prepared to protect themselves and their families."

The resolution also calls on homeowners to "maintain a firearm, together with ammunition" in order "to provide for the emergency management" of the city, as well as "to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare" of Belleview and its residents.

Tuesday's action would be the first of two steps to enact the resolution.

Commissioners would have to vote to direct staff to draft the document in the city's official format.

If they agree to that, the resolution would come back a second time in September for final adoption.

Barber is the executive director of the Sovereignty Action Committee, an Ocala-based group that wants the state to assert its rights against federal encroachment, as outlined in the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

His resolution offers 14 reasons why Belleview residents should arm themselves.

More at Link...


This should get some Air Play...

Why would the local Gov suggest something like this???

Do they know something we don't???

How could we get our local Gov to consider something like this???

Opinions?

[edit on 8/17/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963


How about a link to the story? Thanks!

here ya go

www.ocala.com...

Now this is what we've been talking about!!!

Think this would deter crime in a SHTF scenario???

I'm betting more than just criminals would have second thoughts about a few things...

I wanna see how long it takes for this to get the Feds attention!!!

Personally, I think this is freaking awesome.

Anybody attempting to do any harm in the neighborhood would like that person running a gauntlet.

I think this is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Enacting a resolution that would require people to use their 2nd amendment rights.... now there is an idea.

If the states and counties threaten to cut back police forces, just strap up.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Kennesaw Ga enacted a similar law many years ago. Crime went down exponentially. It is a model city, and a slap in the face of gun control protagonists.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

First: It's a proposal by a citizen. So, no OP. it's not their local government suggesting this.

Also in the article:

One commissioner reached for comment on Friday labeled the proposal "redundant" in light of the Second Amendment, and expressed doubt that the board would advance it. "They've got a long way to go to convince me" that the resolution is needed, Commissioner Ken Nadeau said. The proposal does contain great latitude. Exempt from the suggestion to own and keep a gun would be residents with a mental or physical disability that prohibits them from owning firearms, convicted felons, "paupers" and those who "conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine."

Read that last sentece as "doesn't want to". So this law will allow everybody who wants to to buy a gun... unless they aren't allowed to or don't want to.
Difference to current situation: none whatsoever. But a moral victory for gun nuts everywhere.

And on kennesaw let me quote somebody who quotes something

scienceblogs.com...

[edit on 17-8-2009 by debunky]

Everyone knows crime rates go up high in an economy like this. Its a great idea to increase security. I wish the federal government would take steps to encourage every adult not convicted of a violent crime, or found fighting in public, to carry a concealed firearm. A lot of crime would disappear instantly, especially robberies and muggings. It would also help kidnappings from becoming news.

Originally posted by debunky
Read that last sentece as "doesn't want to". So this law will allow everybody who wants to to buy a gun... unless they aren't allowed to or don't want to.
Difference to current situation: none whatsoever. But a moral victory for gun nuts everywhere.

That is how Oregon handled it's Gun Laws too. You are required to own a firearm and have a Concealed and Carry Permit by law, "unless you don't want to".

Laws that enforce your rights and allow you to choose not to abide them are far better than laws that take away your rights and arrest you if you don't abide them.

Although if we made all of our Laws "Thou shalt...unless you don't want to" rather than "Thou shalt not...or you shalt go straight to Jail, do not pass Go!, do not collect $200" then we wouldn't have much of a Penal System to earn $50 Billion US Dollars per year.

Originally posted by fraterormus

Originally posted by debunky
Read that last sentece as "doesn't want to". So this law will allow everybody who wants to to buy a gun... unless they aren't allowed to or don't want to.
Difference to current situation: none whatsoever. But a moral victory for gun nuts everywhere.

Laws that enforce your rights and allow you to choose not to abide them are far better than laws that take away your rights and arrest you if you don't abide them.

Actually no: they are useless. This proposal boils down to this "If you are allowed to buy a gun, and want to, you may"

Actually its like that where i live too (europe) And i don't think it's different in any part of the world, no matter how strict the gun laws: if you are allowed and want to, you may

... Now we can write 5678 other laws saying the same thing. And one that you are allowed to set your alarmclock to a point in time where you feel you will make it in a timely fashion to work. (Unless you don't want to)

Redundand laws are also a bad idea because if you change one and don't change one of the others, you might be in trouble.

Originally posted by debunky
... Now we can write 5678 other laws saying the same thing. And one that you are allowed to set your alarmclock to a point in time where you feel you will make it in a timely fashion to work. (Unless you don't want to)

Redundand laws are also a bad idea because if you change one and don't change one of the others, you might be in trouble.

It's not actually redundant at all. Beginning with the Magna Carta, and followed by the US Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights, a stand was made against Despotism and the laws that are enacted and abused to oppress. These historic documents differed because they stated Rights and made them Laws.

Following our Roman predecessors, we have an unhealthy fascination with law, where even long after the yoke of Monarchies have been shed, our governments still enact multitudes of laws that are far and beyond Tort Law. Under Tort Law, the only crime is when there is monetary damage to either person or property. However, it is not uncommon for laws to be enacted that deviate from this and make acts that neither cause monetary damage to either person or property criminal. The natural response to this is to enact laws that declare one's rights, so they cannot be criminalized.

And that is precisely what this proposed legislation is doing. Whenever the Federal government is anticipated to further restrict or criminalize those who are not violating Tort Law, the States proactively act by declaring such acts to be Rights by passing laws stating and thereby protecting those Rights. This establishes a precedent with the Courts which cannot be easily overturned or undone by Despotism in any form.

"You have the Right to...unless you don't want it" makes perfect sense in ensuring one's rights be protected from others who may seek to pass laws taking away those Rights.

Originally posted by debunky

And on kennesaw let me quote somebody who quotes something

scienceblogs.com...

An opinion blog piece, Here are the real facts.

Residential Burglaries drop 89% in Kennesaw

The problem with the gun issue is too many ppl on both sides of
the argument are willing to lie and distort the truth to get what they
want and I think as we have the 2nd amendment I want to keep
my guns because history has shown taking the guns from the ppl
is one of the early steps on the road to Tyranny.

But it's not even on state level, it's on town level.
If in a hypothetical world the 2nd ammendment gets revised/abolished/whatever what use would be a (now unconstitutional) town ordinance (or however they call it) be?

There isn't actually a right granted by it either.

If haven't even got the slightest inkling how the US Law system works, but if your constitution doesn't trump local laws I'd be very suprised.

As for the numbers: Wikipedia quotes your's and mine In the same paragraph even. I guess without some serious research getting raw data it will be hard to determine who is more trustworthy. (not to mention the interesting question: did gunownership rise in Kennesaw?)

go get em floyd.....
2nd line gives you time to re-load

PEACE,
RK