The small town of Nucla, Colorado, with a population of 750, passed the state’s first and only municipal ordinance in 2014 requiring heads of households to own guns and ammo, “in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the town and its inhabitants.”
“We more or less kind of wanted to give criminals a heads up. Stay out of this town. We’re armed,” stated board member Richard Craig.
Move on to the next page:
Wonder what the housing prices are there.
The average law enforcement presence is 2.3 officers per 1,000 citizens. Now, how the hell are they supposed to protect YOU!? Read this case and you decide. In layperson’s terms. Law enforcement is there to protect the public-at-large, not the specific individual. It is my hope you understand that law enforcement is far out numbers by the criminal element.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html
shoot him
LOCK & LOAD. FIRE AT WILL. ED
not that the right to bare arm the second adm, gives us that right in the first place! right “
Actually, no one is being required to own a gun. According to the article, the law says everyone except “paupers, or those whose religion or other beliefs don’t line up with gun owning. Papers would be anyone who could not afford a gun. The religion or other beliefs clause converts anyone who doesn’t want to own a gun for any reason, or no reason. So, the law applies to everyone except those who don’t want to. Basically, “You must own a gun, unless you can’t afford one or don’t want one.”
Zippy, thanks for the clarification. I have an issue with the “state” forcing any citizen to purchase anything. I am all for the citizenry being armed, but it should be by choice. There shouldn’t be an income threshold or required religious objection, it should just be merely by choice. Otherwise Obamacare is okay, which is ISN’T
I’m ready to move there.
I’m ready to move there.
G******N RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!