The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh writes:

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

Now that is the kind of instrusive despotism we can all encourage.

mattathayde had written this in response to
http://rittercnc.com/metalworking/Sm...ns-195350-.htm
:


-------------------------------------
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:




The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the

tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd


i agree that everyone should learn how to safely learn to use a firearm
but i
think both extremes are just as bad, no armed citizens gives criminals
power,
how ever everyone being armed can pose just as many issues. there was a
novel
written a while back (cant remember the name and i never got to read it
but the
ending is simple), basically the society had everyone armed, some one
tried to
commit a crime and a citizen shot them, another citizen came onto the
scene and
saw a man holding a gun and some one down, so they shot, rinse, repeat and
the
body count kept going up.

i think there is a good middle ground but i sure dont want every one of my
neighbors with a gun even if they are "trained" cause i dont think most of
them
can use it properly.

that being said i still think we need 22 ranges in schools like my parents
and
grandparents had

-matt


##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.rittercnc.com/
Metalworking Forums
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
rec.crafts.metalworking - 169678 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

mattathayde wrote:

mattathayde had written this in response to
http://rittercnc.com/metalworking/Sm...ns-195350-.htm
:

-------------------------------------
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the

tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

i agree that everyone should learn how to safely learn to use a firearm
but i
think both extremes are just as bad, no armed citizens gives criminals
power,
how ever everyone being armed can pose just as many issues. there was a
novel
written a while back (cant remember the name and i never got to read it
but the
ending is simple), basically the society had everyone armed, some one
tried to
commit a crime and a citizen shot them, another citizen came onto the
scene and
saw a man holding a gun and some one down, so they shot, rinse, repeat and
the
body count kept going up.

That is a novel, i.e. fiction, it simply doesn't happen in real life.

Just like the doom and gloom wild west prophesies that the rabid anti
gun loons make every time new carry laws come into play never happen.
Civilians have been carrying concealed handguns for many decades and it
has never presented any problems.

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.



"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.


That is Belleview


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

On Aug 18, 12:26 pm, (mattathayde)
wrote:
mattathayde had written this in response tohttp://rittercnc.com/metalworking/Small-Florida-Town-gets-it-guns-195...
:

-------------------------------------

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.
They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.
There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.
Hooray for them!
LLoyd

i agree that everyone should learn how to safely learn to use a firearm
but i
think both extremes are just as bad, no armed citizens gives criminals
power,
how ever everyone being armed can pose just as many issues. there was a
novel
written a while back (cant remember the name and i never got to read it
but the
ending is simple), basically the society had everyone armed, some one
tried to
commit a crime and a citizen shot them, another citizen came onto the
scene and
saw a man holding a gun and some one down, so they shot, rinse, repeat and
the
body count kept going up.

i think there is a good middle ground but i sure dont want every one of my
neighbors with a gun even if they are "trained" cause i dont think most of
them
can use it properly.

that being said i still think we need 22 ranges in schools like my parents
and
grandparents had

-matt

##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.rittercnc.com/
Metalworking Forums
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
rec.crafts.metalworking - 169678 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

Matt

There is a lot of things that sound rational and look good on paper
that don't work out that way. Case in point Kennesaw Ga passed a
similar resolution in 1982, crime rates dropped dramatically and
stayed low.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

The statistics consistently show more guns in the hands of law abiding
citizens results in less crime. Novels are something made up. Read
all the novels for enjoyment all you want, but check the facts before
making decisions.

CarlBoyd

On 2009-08-18 07:58:54 -0700, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com said:

The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

Police answering a home intruder emergency call arrives with 9mm, .38
(.357),.41, or .45 sidearm and 12 ga. shotgun. Using lights and siren
for alarm response time 2 - 15 minutes.

Home intruder at my house meets me with .45 and/or 12 ga. shotgun.
Response time 0 sec.

Being ex-military and a retired Deputy Sheriff, I am trained well
beyond the ordinary person; however when I arrived at one attempted
home invasion robbery, the fact the lone eldery woman had blown out the
top of the door jamb with a 12 ga. shotgun spoke well for the deterent
factor to the would-be robbers. There was evidence at the scene that
in the process of running away, possibly one of the two had an
unxpected bowel movement but they weren't around to verifiy that.

I applaud the town council on their move. Bans only hurt the law
abiding. William Ralph Inge put it this way, "It is useless for sheep
to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a
different opinion."

To live life as a peaceful sheep is not a bad thing; but when the wolf
barges in, it's time to be a sheepdog.

Chaindrive

"mattathayde" wrote in message
oups.com...

i agree that everyone should learn how to safely learn to use a firearm
but i
think both extremes are just as bad, no armed citizens gives criminals
power,
how ever everyone being armed can pose just as many issues. there was a
novel
written a while back (cant remember the name and i never got to read it
but the
ending is simple), basically the society had everyone armed, some one
tried to
commit a crime and a citizen shot them, another citizen came onto the
scene and
saw a man holding a gun and some one down, so they shot, rinse, repeat and
the
body count kept going up.

i think there is a good middle ground but i sure dont want every one of my
neighbors with a gun even if they are "trained" cause i dont think most of
them
can use it properly.

that being said i still think we need 22 ranges in schools like my parents
and
grandparents had


The most important part of learning to use a firearm, is not how to aim and
fire, but when you have a legal right to use it.

States with conceal carry laws do a good job of assuring permits are only
issued to knowledgeable persons with a proven history of reasonable
judgment. That being the case, the scenario suggested by the novel simply
does not happen.

Bill,
This is a very difficult decision for any citizen to make. It is clear that the wait for response from the police can be more time
than you have, but on the other hand, the use of a handgun can and has cost so much in defending your actions in court, bankruptsy
often results. So, perhaps the answer I learned in Vietnam applies. If you need a gun and don't have one, that can cost you your
life. If you have a gun and don't need it, the cost is nothing. Your call.
Steve

"Bill Noble" wrote in message ...
so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not
wish to own one? This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.



"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message . 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

Bill Noble wrote:
so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one? This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

It's a resolution, not a law.



"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

Steve Lusardi wrote:
Bill,
This is a very difficult decision for any citizen to make. It is clear
that the wait for response from the police can be more time than you
have, but on the other hand, the use of a handgun can and has cost so
much in defending your actions in court, bankruptsy often results.

I think "often" is not even called for.
When one makes a questionable shoot, you'd best shut your mouth and get
a lawyer right now.
But in states that have Castle Doctrine or something similar, a
reasonable person is in pretty good shape, legally, after a righteous
shooting.

So,
perhaps the answer I learned in Vietnam applies. If you need a gun and
don't have one, that can cost you your life. If you have a gun and don't
need it, the cost is nothing. Your call.
Steve

Well said

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...
so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun,

If healthcare is a right, and the government is is going to provide it,
then they ought to provide a gun also, since self-defense is the most
basic of rights.

or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one? This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

Don't you read the news?
This government has thrown off the shackles that bound them previously.
Such things are the U.S. Constitution are no longer inflexible
restraints, just guidelines, and outdated ones at that.


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...
so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one? This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

Funny, the way I read it, it suggests that every household *should*,
posses, not MUST possess. How is that overstepping bounds? I wasn't aware
it was beyond reason for anyone to offer what is, especially in this case,
good advice.

Harold

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:48:42 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:48:42 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?


They are only meaningless to antigun ******s and those who simply dont
care if a bad guy breaks in, rapes the wife, and murders you and her and
the kids. Of course Im referring to the insane, and many Democrats.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:27:13 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:48:42 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

Mr. Noble is a Very liberal Democrat. Unless it has huge fines, years of
jail time and whatnot involved..it means nothing to any of them.

And even then..it generally means nothing to them, unless it was
proposed by another Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kook. Like gun control
laws and the like.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On 2009-08-22, Don Foreman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

OK, I see now.

People who keep guns accessible at home, make us all less likely to
suffer a home invasion.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus1057
scrawled the following:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

The text below indicates that the town council "resolved", that means
"suggested". See? You weren't reading it very closely. g


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
The town council of Belville, FL in Marion County has passed a
resolution, heartily upheld by the citizenry.

They have resolved that every household should possess, learn to use,
and keep available for use a firearm for personal protection.

There have been numerous home invasions in and around this little
community, and they feel that armed, informed, capable citizens are the
tools necessary to stop them.

Hooray for them!

LLoyd

---
So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives
that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
-- Daniel Henninger
WSJ Online, 4 June 2009
"Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail
The age of the induced industrial coma."

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:16:03 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus3972
scrawled the following:

On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Well said, LLoyd! clap, clap (Damn, I turned the light off.)


Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

Yes, the newspapers (as well as other media) who printed that made
sure that everyone in the city/county/state/USA knew about it. Also
please notice that the cities who do this don't end up with headlines
later with all sorts of violent gun actions, either, as your fellow
Liberal buddies would suggest. The council suggests it, more and more
people follow that suggestion, things quiet down in that town, and the
would-be perps leave town quietly, in the dead of night, heading for
safer places to do their crimes. Works for me!

---
So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives
that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
-- Daniel Henninger
WSJ Online, 4 June 2009
"Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail
The age of the induced industrial coma."

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

Yeah. Things like the citizenry keep some foodstocks and water in case of
emergency, own a portable generator, keep the dry leaves and vegetation from
around their houses, clean up their yards, meaningless stuff like that.

Steve

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:48:42 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to
own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?


They are only meaningless to antigun ******s and those who simply dont
care if a bad guy breaks in, rapes the wife, and murders you and her and
the kids. Of course Im referring to the insane, and many Democrats.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

They actually like it when someone does that because it gives them more
cannon fodder in the war against guns. Wow, war against guns? Isn't that
like ****ing for chastity?

Steve

"Ignoramus3972" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i

Iggy, I think that bottom line, bad guys behave like the predators they are.
If they think that a homeowner may be armed, they may go to another locale.
It has been proven that gun ownership and relaxed concealed carry laws have
lessened crimes in a lot of states.

Steve

Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.

Bill Noble wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)


Dumbass. It is the first step in getting a local law passed.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

SteveB wrote:

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

Yeah. Things like the citizenry keep some foodstocks and water in case of
emergency, own a portable generator, keep the dry leaves and vegetation from
around their houses, clean up their yards, meaningless stuff like that.


That is a good description of the Belleview area. It was hit by
several hurricanes a few years ago, but almost no looting was reported.
People had food stockpiled. Some had generators. The county had most
of the schools open for shelters. People helped neighbors cut up fallen
trees, and took care of each other.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Larry Jaques wrote:

Well said, LLoyd! clap, clap (Damn, I turned the light off.)

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

Yes, the newspapers (as well as other media) who printed that made
sure that everyone in the city/county/state/USA knew about it. Also
please notice that the cities who do this don't end up with headlines
later with all sorts of violent gun actions, either, as your fellow
Liberal buddies would suggest. The council suggests it, more and more
people follow that suggestion, things quiet down in that town, and the
would-be perps leave town quietly, in the dead of night, heading for
safer places to do their crimes. Works for me!


I can only think of one shooting in Belleview, in the past ten
years. I drive through there almost every week to get groceries, or
other things I need.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

SteveB wrote:

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, Ignoramus1057
wrote:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money
to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to
own
one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.

This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall"
or
"must".

I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

i

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

so, this is just a bunch of guys getting together and saying that
everyone
in the city ought to have some guns? Is that what the citizens elected
their city council to do - have bull sessions and make meaningless
suggestions?

Yeah. Things like the citizenry keep some foodstocks and water in case
of
emergency, own a portable generator, keep the dry leaves and vegetation
from
around their houses, clean up their yards, meaningless stuff like that.


That is a good description of the Belleview area. It was hit by
several hurricanes a few years ago, but almost no looting was reported.
People had food stockpiled. Some had generators. The county had most
of the schools open for shelters. People helped neighbors cut up fallen
trees, and took care of each other.

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data: It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over to
pick up a bar of soap.

--
Ed Huntress

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus3972" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i

Iggy, I think that bottom line, bad guys behave like the predators they
are. If they think that a homeowner may be armed, they may go to another
locale. It has been proven that gun ownership and relaxed concealed carry
laws have lessened crimes in a lot of states.

Steve

someone should tell mr frommer that, or inform him that he needs to stay out
of a bunch of other states too

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ona-over-guns/

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:28:06 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus1057
scrawled the following:

On 2009-08-18, Pete C. wrote:
Bill Noble wrote:
so, what will happen to a household which does not have the money to
purchase a gun, or for religious or other reasons does not wish to own one?
This is as clear an overstepping of bounds as I am aware of.
This is a clear lack of reading comprehension, not overstepping of
bounds. Read again, the key word is "should" as opposed to "shall" or
"must".
I am a little lost, then, as to what exactly is the legal requirement
of this law.

The text below indicates that the town council "resolved", that means
"suggested". See? You weren't reading it very closely. g

I think the point is that a surprisingly number of adult Americans think
there is something wrong/scary/immoral about have a gun in the house.
Having the local authorities tell everyone in town "Go ahead, get a gun
and ammunition, learn to use it safely, and provide for the protection
of your household. We give our official blessing to all who wish to do so".
See, that makes it OK.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:00:16 -0700, "charlie"
wrote:


"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus3972" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i

Iggy, I think that bottom line, bad guys behave like the predators they
are. If they think that a homeowner may be armed, they may go to another
locale. It has been proven that gun ownership and relaxed concealed carry
laws have lessened crimes in a lot of states.

Steve

someone should tell mr frommer that, or inform him that he needs to stay out
of a bunch of other states too

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ona-over-guns/


45 of them to be exact.....

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:00:16 -0700, the infamous "charlie"
scrawled the following:


"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus3972" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.

Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd

Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i

Iggy, I think that bottom line, bad guys behave like the predators they
are. If they think that a homeowner may be armed, they may go to another
locale. It has been proven that gun ownership and relaxed concealed carry
laws have lessened crimes in a lot of states.

Steve

someone should tell mr frommer that, or inform him that he needs to stay out
of a bunch of other states too

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ona-over-guns/

Screw Frommer. Boycott Frommer Guides!

---
So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives
that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
-- Daniel Henninger
WSJ Online, 4 June 2009
"Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail
The age of the induced industrial coma."