Ok I saw this in the local paper on Wednesday Dec 6 so yall get it shared with you
Councilman wants to arm Cherry Tree for self-protection
By Daniel Lovering
The AP
Cherry Tree- In this tiny community of clapboard houses nestled along the banks of a Pennslyvania river, many residents own guns for hunting and self-defense.
But a local councilman inspired by steps taken by an Idaho town, has proposed an ordiance that recommends all households keep the weapons and ammunition to ward off would be burglars and prevent crime from creeping into the area.
Council members in Cherry Tree, a bough of about 430 people, are to meet today to discuss the Civil Protection Ordinance put forth by Henry Statkowski, a 59 year old retired US Army master sergeant and Vietname veteran.
Talk of the proposal which also seeks to offer firearm training at the borough hall, has elicited cautious support and bitter rebukes from area residents, many of whom commute to jobs elsewhere.
Gun control advocates say such a measure would risk putting guns into the hands of criminals and increase gun violence.
Statkowski maintains the ordinance would keep crime down "way down" in Cherry Tree, a quiet village where streets are marked with wooden sighns and residents say crime is largely limited to drugs, vandalism, trespassing and speeding drivers.
"This is rural America" Statkowski said in a phone interview. "You want to break into someone's house here you might not like the consequences."
The ordinance is meant to be a proactive measure to complement the borough's police force, which consists of a handful of part-time officers who also have day jobs, Statkowski said.
"They can't be everywhere," he said. "When you need help, you need it now."
Statkowski said he decided to float the idea after learning of a similar ordinance passed last month in Greenleaf, Idaho, a town of about 850 residents where an estimated 80 percent of adults own guns.
That ordinance asks people in the pacifist Quaker-founded town who do not object on religious or other grounds to keep a gun at home in case they are overrun by refugees from disasters like Hurrican Katrina.
Statkowski acknowledged that Cherry Tree, a one time logging center about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, does not have a crime problem.
As written by the Altoona Mirror
so...how bout dem apples?
Full Version: Councilman Wants to Arm Cherry Tree
Cool! It's just common sense.
I'm stocked up on guns & ammo myself for fear of Katrina refugees/zombies/etc...
I'm stocked up on guns & ammo myself for fear of Katrina refugees/zombies/etc...
QUOTE (dinzag @ Dec 7 2006, 10:04 AM) 
Cool! It's just common sense.
I'm stocked up on guns & ammo myself for fear of Katrina refugees/zombies/etc...
I'm stocked up on guns & ammo myself for fear of Katrina refugees/zombies/etc...
Yup I just came back from the gun store and found 5 more boxes of East German (Chech) 7.62x54r on stripper clips so I'm trying to get my rate of fire up on the mosins
This will be an awesome learning experiment. I wish it could be done on a larger scale. In Switzerland(or is it Sweden? I can never keep them trait) about 90% of the male citizens are in the militia and thus are armed all the time. Needless to say, there's not much crime. In the US the chances that someone is armed is slim to none, especially if in public. Let's see, a law-abiding citizen can't be armed at schools, bars, and many urban areas (DC, NYC, CA). Guess where most violent crimes occur...schools, bars, and the urban areas where citizens can not be armed.
QUOTE (AegisDei @ Dec 7 2006, 01:07 PM)
This will be an awesome learning experiment. I wish it could be done on a larger scale. In Switzerland(or is it Sweden? I can never keep them trait) about 90% of the male citizens are in the militia and thus are armed all the time. Needless to say, there's not much crime. In the US the chances that someone is armed is slim to none, especially if in public. Let's see, a law-abiding citizen can't be armed at schools, bars, and many urban areas (DC, NYC, CA). Guess where most violent crimes occur...schools, bars, and the urban areas where citizens can not be armed.
Switzerland it is!
one of my former bosses was from over there and said every house with a service aged male resident had a military rifle in it.....and most others did as well.
not a hell of a lot of crime over there...............at least violent crime anyway....
Every able bodied, law abiding american citizen IS the militia ,-by definition. It is all of our civic duties to be armed and ready to defend our selves, our families, our neighbors, our country.
B)-->
Every able bodied, law abiding american citizen IS the militia ,-by definition. It is all of our civic duties to be armed and ready to defend our selves, our families, our neighbors, our country.
[/quote]
HUGE +1 to that. I'd rather die defending myself, my family, and my country as a law abiding citizen than be just gunned down defensless by some Piece of Shit who has no respect for the law or the country.
QUOTE(G O B @ Dec 7 2006, 01:44 PM)
Every able bodied, law abiding american citizen IS the militia ,-by definition. It is all of our civic duties to be armed and ready to defend our selves, our families, our neighbors, our country.
[/quote]
HUGE +1 to that. I'd rather die defending myself, my family, and my country as a law abiding citizen than be just gunned down defensless by some Piece of Shit who has no respect for the law or the country.
......being in a state that was flooded with Katrina refugees, I can relate to this personally. Rate of burglaries, etc., went up dramatically !! New Orleans being a fed-funded, state supported welfare state for the most part, a lot of those "refugees" just can't grasp the concept of having to make an honest living, and as a result, the communities they came into suffered.
This is not to say that all of the Katrina refugees were criminal, or on the welfare tit.......many of them came into the new areas and made homes and contributed to their new surroundings...............
Having spent many years in and around New Orleans, I am and always have been prepared to deal with any intrusion into my space and property......AS WE ALL SHOULD BE, AND AS WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE. CAN I SAY HAVE THE DUTY TO BE??? Hell, yes !!!!!
This is not to say that all of the Katrina refugees were criminal, or on the welfare tit.......many of them came into the new areas and made homes and contributed to their new surroundings...............
Having spent many years in and around New Orleans, I am and always have been prepared to deal with any intrusion into my space and property......AS WE ALL SHOULD BE, AND AS WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE. CAN I SAY HAVE THE DUTY TO BE??? Hell, yes !!!!!
Everyone seen the NRA's website reguarding the confiscations in New Orleans?
http://www.givethemback.com/
...And don't the Swiss get to live without the NFA regulations we have? Thought I heard that somewhere.
http://www.givethemback.com/
...And don't the Swiss get to live without the NFA regulations we have? Thought I heard that somewhere.
QUOTE (KySoldier @ Dec 7 2006, 08:21 PM)
Everyone seen the NRA's website reguarding the confiscations in New Orleans?
http://www.givethemback.com/
...And don't the Swiss get to live without the NFA regulations we have? Thought I heard that somewhere.
http://www.givethemback.com/
...And don't the Swiss get to live without the NFA regulations we have? Thought I heard that somewhere.
Man that is some scary stuff. You can't trust a liberal government.
........yeah, they took that old lady's gun from her pretty easily, didn't they...?? Wonder why they didn't try to disarm some of my buddies who live down there?? I promise it wouldn't have gone so easily for them. Ended up that the N.O. chief of police resigned after the NRA filed a federal lawsuit naming him and the sheriff of one of the surrounding parishes there as a result of the UNLAWFUL CONFISCATIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS....................
Talk about scary, anybody see this shit 
:
D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias
Lawyers Say 2nd Amendment Doesn't Apply To Individuals
POSTED: 5:33 pm EST December 7, 2006
UPDATED: 6:01 pm EST December 7, 2006
WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys
for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to
bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
Survey: Who Has Gun Rights?
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law
that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and
pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd
Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a
well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in
nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun
owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's
ban on high-powered weapons.
In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in
2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The
plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for
protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this
case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters
passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it
violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and
hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the
District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority
to ban all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the
way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much
later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and
noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the
meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated
militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still
necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer
necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we
decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the
Constitution?"
:D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias
Lawyers Say 2nd Amendment Doesn't Apply To Individuals
POSTED: 5:33 pm EST December 7, 2006
UPDATED: 6:01 pm EST December 7, 2006
WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys
for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to
bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
Survey: Who Has Gun Rights?
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law
that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and
pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd
Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a
well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in
nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun
owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's
ban on high-powered weapons.
In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in
2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The
plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for
protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this
case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters
passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it
violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and
hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the
District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority
to ban all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the
way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much
later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and
noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the
meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated
militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still
necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer
necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we
decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the
Constitution?"
.........Chicago is the same way.
It's illegal to own a handgun in Chicago.....(unless, of course, you're a politician.....or connected......)
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states left with no CCW provisions at all.............
You have to have a mandated F.O.I.D. (firearms owners I.D.) card to own even a long gun or buy ammo in Illinois..........
They don't much give a damn what the Constitution says.................
It's illegal to own a handgun in Chicago.....(unless, of course, you're a politician.....or connected......)
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states left with no CCW provisions at all.............
You have to have a mandated F.O.I.D. (firearms owners I.D.) card to own even a long gun or buy ammo in Illinois..........
They don't much give a damn what the Constitution says.................
The battle is going to be won-or-lost at the local and state level. We all need to support our rights everywhere. If it is legal to prohibit constitutional rights ANYWHERE, they will prohibit them EVERYWHERE.
What galls me the most is that there still are (very many!) firearms owners living in this country with their heads stuck far up their rectums who still think that a certain segment of the government is not out there trying to actively disarm them.
They call the aware gun owners who show concern "paranoid."
How much more frigging proof do you need than when you read crap like this in a national publication?
They call the aware gun owners who show concern "paranoid."
How much more frigging proof do you need than when you read crap like this in a national publication?
+1,000,000 on that , Gaddis.........
Kennedy, Klinton, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer....... All the anti-gun groups with these politicians and various entertainment and media "stars" (fucking Rosie O'Donnell for example....) trumpeting the need to disarm all of us....... (while keeping their guns and armed bodyguards, of course....)
Pay attention to what these people are saying....against our constitution and against the welfare of our nation....... Against us.
"Head in the sand" attitudes can and will put us in the same boat as any other socialist/fascist dictatorship in the world......
The first step to total control is to disarm the populace........ (and control the press, which they've already accomplished for the most part......)
BE ACTIVE. BE POLITICAL. JOIN PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR INTERESTS LIE.
Kennedy, Klinton, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer....... All the anti-gun groups with these politicians and various entertainment and media "stars" (fucking Rosie O'Donnell for example....) trumpeting the need to disarm all of us....... (while keeping their guns and armed bodyguards, of course....)
Pay attention to what these people are saying....against our constitution and against the welfare of our nation....... Against us.
"Head in the sand" attitudes can and will put us in the same boat as any other socialist/fascist dictatorship in the world......
The first step to total control is to disarm the populace........ (and control the press, which they've already accomplished for the most part......)
BE ACTIVE. BE POLITICAL. JOIN PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR INTERESTS LIE.
And the funny thing to me is that not *ONE* of the people on that list you just recited there Jeaux E has ever lifted a finger (in my knowledge? 
) to defend this country by serving honorably in any of it's Military branches. 
Might offend some on the forum here by me admitting this, but I firmly believe that you should *NOT* be allowed to set policy in this country (i.e. - make laws we all must abide by) unless you have actually made the sacrifice yourself to actively protect it's Constitution.
) to defend this country by serving honorably in any of it's Military branches. Might offend some on the forum here by me admitting this, but I firmly believe that you should *NOT* be allowed to set policy in this country (i.e. - make laws we all must abide by) unless you have actually made the sacrifice yourself to actively protect it's Constitution.
QUOTE (Gaddis @ Dec 10 2006, 06:41 PM)
And the funny thing to me is that not *ONE* of the people on that list you just recited there Jeaux E has ever lifted a finger (in my knowledge? ) to defend this country by serving honorably in any of it's Military branches.
Might offend some on the forum here by me admitting this, but I firmly believe that you should *NOT* be allowed to set policy in this country (i.e. - make laws we all must abide by) unless you have actually made the sacrifice yourself to actively protect it's Constitution.
) to defend this country by serving honorably in any of it's Military branches. Might offend some on the forum here by me admitting this, but I firmly believe that you should *NOT* be allowed to set policy in this country (i.e. - make laws we all must abide by) unless you have actually made the sacrifice yourself to actively protect it's Constitution.
.Politicians take an oath of office when they're elected. They swear to protect and defend the constitution of the USA........... These people are actively traitorous in their activity in office. I really don't feel that military service be a requisite for holding office, but allegiance to and adherence to the country and the Constitution should be required........
These are the politicians just elected to power over us....... We need to do everything possible to see these people defeated in '08........
oh yeah.....I forgot to include Pelosi in my previous list. Don't know how I could've left her out........
Yeah, I agree. I sure hope American society in general wakes up and regains it's sensibilities in two years and votes a more generally libertarian (across the board) party in.
I don't know though. There's just too many "stupid" liberal slanted Americans and Americans who just don't give a shit how things turn out for us politically running around and reproducing out there.
I don't know though. There's just too many "stupid" liberal slanted Americans and Americans who just don't give a shit how things turn out for us politically running around and reproducing out there.
Sadly guys, as hard as I fight members of my generation on all of this, I think I'm on the loosing side. Think about how much legislation has come into effect during your lives.
We have conservative and liberal parties, where is the moderate party?
Its been that way for over 20yrs where I live....Kennesaw ,Ga. where gun ownership is expected.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.