
A welcome sign to Spring City is shown Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, in Spring City, Utah. Officials in a small Utah town are urging citizens and teachers to arm themselves for everyone’s safety against any aggressor. One member of the Spring City council wants to make the edict mandatory, but police are urging restraint. Councilman Neil Sorensen says he’s drafting a measure that will go before the full council in February. At first, Sorensen wanted to mandate a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. Credit: AP
SPRING CITY, Utah (TheBlaze/AP) — Officials in a small Utah town want to make sure every head of household has a firearm and knows how to use it, and they want to give school teachers training with guns too.
Spring City Councilman Neil Sorensen first proposed an ordinance requiring a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. The rest of the council scoffed at making it a requirement, but they unanimously agreed to move forward with an ordinance “recommending” the idea.
The council also approved funding to offer concealed firearms training Friday to the 20 teachers and administrators at the local elementary school.
“It sends a statement that criminals better think twice,” Sorensen told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “If a teacher would have had a concealed weapon in Sandy Hook, I think the death loss would have been fewer. If sane, trained people had guns, they could have shot back.”
The measure, which will go before the full council in February for further review, seems to have the support of the council’s five members and many residents in the farming community about 90 miles south of Salt Lake City.

North Sanpete School District Superintendent Leslie Keisel makes remarks during an interview Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, in Mt. Pleasant, Utah. Keisel doesn’t think arming teachers will keep children safer and isn’t encouraging teachers to attend Friday’s concealed weapons training in Spring City. Officials in a small Utah town are urging citizens and teachers to arm themselves for everyone’s safety against any aggressor. One member of the Spring City council wants to make the edict mandatory, but police are urging restraint. Credit: AP
Some school administrators don’t think arming teachers is wise, and they are not encouraging teachers to participate in Friday’s training.
“The more guns you have in the school, the more dangerous it is,” said Leslie Keisel, superintendent of the North Sanpete School District.
Councilman Noel Bertelson said making guns in every house mandatory was too much, but he agrees the town would be safer if everyone was armed. With only a part-time police force, he said, response time is not like it is in a big city.
“If a person is able to take care of themselves for a while, it would probably be a good thing,” Bertelson said.
The community is still reeling from the double-murder on New Year’s Eve 2011 of an elderly couple in nearby Mount Pleasant. Sorensen said what used to be a peaceful, quiet town has been sullied by increasing criminal activity.
Thefts of metal for scrap and other property also have become a problem, Councilman Boyd Mickel said.
“We are kind of tired of people breaking in and taking stuff,” said Mickel, explaining why he voted to urge every house to have a gun.
Timm Thompson, a coal miner and father of four girls who lives in Spring City, backs the council’s measure.

Timm Thompson makes remarks during an interview on Main Street in Spring City, Utah, Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013. Thompson supports the council’s ordinance to recommend guns in all households, saying drugs and crime are rampant in Spring City. He doesn’t support arming teachers in the elementary school, though., in Spring City, Utah. Credit: AP
“People think small towns are a good place to live,” Thompson said. “But there is more crime and drugs than you can imagine.”
Thompson, who owns 78 guns he keeps locked in a safe, doesn’t want teachers to act as police officers. He said some kids are “hooligans” and could overpower teachers for the guns.
Sisters Katy Harmer and Caroline Lott, however, say arming teachers would make them feel better about sending their children to the Spring City Elementary School. The co-owners of the town’s coffee shop, Das Coffee, said most Spring City residents keep guns for hunting, leaving only a handful without weapons.
Angela Johnson, owner of the Sinclair gas station, said she doesn’t like guns but backs the council’s proposal.
“If criminals knew they would be fired against, I think it would cause pause,” Johnson said.
Because the Spring City Council is stopping short of a law requiring gun ownership, elected officials won’t run afoul of state law, former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told KSL.com.
Shurtleff said that when the Washington County town of Virgin enacted a local law in 2000 requiring households to keep guns, he warned them against trying to enforce the measure.
Spring City leaders say they got the idea from a city in Georgia that passed a similar law. In 1982, Kennesaw, Ga., made headlines by requiring heads of households to own a gun and ammunition. On its website, Kennesaw boasts that its burglary rate declined after the law took effect.
Teachers at Spring City Elementary School won’t be required to attend Friday’s concealed weapons training, but can if they wish, Principal Mark Thomas said.
“I don’t think there is anything wrong about being educated how to use a gun,” Thomas said.
But Thomas doesn’t believe having more armed teachers would necessarily prevent or mitigate the damage in mass shootings. Utah law allows teachers to have concealed weapon in classrooms, but the district doesn’t advocate for that, Thomas said.
“By bringing weapons into school, are we creating more problems than we are solving?” he asked. “It could create a new problem. We don’t want to deal with that problem.”
The proposed ordinance will be discussed at the Feb. 7 City Council meeting. A public hearing will be held three weeks later.





















































































































Comments (100)
ferggie
Jan. 9, 2013 at 7:50amI just love it when a stupid liberal spouts dribble about how by allowing more guns somewhere will just make it that much more dangerous. For all you stupid fricking liberals out there please read this real slow so maybe it might have a slight chance of entering that pee sized brain and help you realize just how stupid that that statement is. If an increase in the number of guns relative to the population equates to an increase in danger and murder rate the most dangerous place in the USA would be Gun ranges, Police station locker room & military bases. Wake up and address the real problem. It is mental health not gun control that needs to be addressed.
Report this comment
joeslick
Jan. 9, 2013 at 8:15amGood points. And having been in law enforcement for many years, I can tell you for sure that when bad guys with guns hear that the good guys with guns are coming…they run like hell.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 11:17amFACT: Add a gun to ANY situation and statistically there is much greater chance for injury or death.
That bottom-line FACT can not be disputed.
So if its not at all a gun issue but a mental health or some other issue then…
Please explain what our response / action should be to our nation’s extreme gun violence and gun injury and death rates.
What are you pro-more-guns folks offering – other than… ADD MORE GUNS to all of society – ???
Should there be any restrictions on arming ones self?
Should we be able to own ANY type and amount of arms we like?
Where does that arms race end?
Did our fore-fathers have any foresight whatsoever as to the type of firepower an individual could have? Should not that lack of awareness at the incredible advances in weapon-ology be at least considered as we discuss our HUGE national gun violence and injury and death problems?
Why is the supposed most free, god-loving, nation on earth the most violent?
So I suppose only liberals are allowing their kids to read, watch, play violent materials?
(I guess it must be liberals making threats agaisnt the newspaper that published gun owner info. ???)
Should we ban violent materials? Who determines the violence content standards?
I thought those on the Right did not want govt telling them what to do / how to raise their children.
Now you want to tell others just that?!?!?
Report this comment
DMONIC
Jan. 9, 2013 at 2:45pmFACT: Liberalism is a mental illness.
FACT: Liberals wont discuss mental illness because they know they have it.
FACT: Liberals hate guns because they know with new gun laws against the mentally ill, they would be disqualified, hence- ban them for everyone else.
FACT: Liberals should be put down like rabid animals- they only cause harm to others around them.
Report this comment
dcgirl
Jan. 9, 2013 at 5:37pmZapparules – the citizens should be allowed to have the same type of firepower that their government has. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to stop government from becoming tyrannical.
Report this comment
SwampFoxHiggy
Jan. 9, 2013 at 6:21pmmaybe you should check your BOTTOM LINE FACTS.
FACT: more people are killed by medical mal-practice every year than buy guns. 6000 times more likely to by doctor error than homocide
FACT: of the mere 12000 gun deaths per year, nearly 500 hundred are justified homocides. apprx. 250 by private citizens.
FACT: the US no.1 in gun ownership, yet 28th in the world in gun related death
FACT: The violent crime rate in England(guns are banned outright) completely eclipse those of the US
FACT: Chicago has fiercest gun laws on the books, yet boast the highest murder rate in the country
feel free to reference the book “more guns, less crime” or the uniform FBI crime statistics… that is unless it’s against your liberal code to actually take FACTS into account and not emotion.
Report this comment
SwampFoxHiggy
Jan. 9, 2013 at 6:28pm@ZAPP that is unbelievably insulting to our forefathers. they were the innovators of their time. you should do some research on advancements in weaponry during the time of the revolution, like the rifling of barrels to greatly increase range and accuracy, to name one of many(note that Washington lead a force of men from Kentucky in exactly that against redcoats). advancements in weaponry is the EXACT reason the 2nd amendment says ARMS and not MUSKETS, genius. and assuming your ideology is correct, then your freedom of speech does not cover the internet and other forms of mass communication and media, therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to post what you want whenever you want… get a freaking clue moron
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 7:25pmDCGIRL…
The govt / military has nukes.
So I get to have a nuke – eh?
We could work our way ‘down’ the firepower ladder from there but… Since you say a civilian should have the same firepower as the govt. why not just start at the top?
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 7:59pmSWAMPFOXHIGGY
Every fact you offer starts ‘past’ the baseline fact that… Add a gun to ANY specific environment / situation and statistically the injury and death rate climbs.
You want massive amounts of guns in your home? Great! Have at it. I don’t care what you have in your home. Just don’t bring those weapons into my environment.
I happen to fully understand we can now not remove the weapons that have been integrated into our society – by both those that would use them in a criminal manner and those for sport/protection – which actually… If the Right keeps arguing how we can never take the guns away from those that would use them in crime then… How does the Right ALSO argue the govt will take them away from law-abiding citizens?
And by the way… I do NOT seek to remove any existing weapons owned by law-abiding, mentally competent citizens. Another failed assumption of the Right
Curious. In gun ‘free’ England… What is their per-capita rate for gun-related injuries or deaths?
Violent crime is identified differently (sometimes VERY differently) in each country.
Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.
Would be interesting to hear from those who have DIRECTLY experienced (non-combat) gun-related injury or death (fact) of a loved one (emotions) and of those… How many support ADDING more guns to our little social experiment.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 8:27pmSWAMPFOXHIGGY…
Last time I checked… Words have not killed any one. They can indeed do LOTS of damage – but they themselves do not kill.
Words do not kill people – people kill people. And in America, that is too often done with a gun.
What did I say?
Should not that lack of awareness at the incredible advances in weapon-ology BE AT LEAST CONSIDERED as we discuss our HUGE national gun violence and injury and death problems?
I do ALSO happen to think the recent, previously unimagined advances in communications SHOULD ALSO BE considered as we seek to develop reasonable, responsible limits on the use of such.
(Or maybe you think Freedom of Speech means being able to ‘speak’ anything one wants – using any method that may be construed as ‘communication’ – regardless of any possible extended negative ramifications of such?) FIRE!
—
So are you like DCGIRL – believing citizens should (must) have the same firepower as govt?
With enough money… One can buy any level of firepower.
And you’re OK with that huh?
Would love to hear you argue that point with our finest – those that serve (in the military and police) – and who have to deal with an advancement of firepower going against them.
Great idea you folks have there. Lets have our police and security forces have to deal with even greater firepower out there.
Yea – that will make things safer for everyone in society.
—
Love your name calling. It adds so much to your argument.
Report this comment
JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:47amI still don’t understand how the guy got into the school with the guns. Help me out here. Wasn’t there a gun free school zone law there and if there was one why didn’t it stop this guy? I mean aren’t laws supposed to stop the lawless criminals? Oh, wait, lawless criminals……so, these people are lawless and there are people who think more laws will stop them? Ok, I’m going to end now because I caught myself yelling at my laptop.
Report this comment
loriann12
Jan. 9, 2013 at 7:52amThe thing I want to know is this: If the Sandy Hook killer (refuse to use his name) shot out the window at the school, how come we don’t have pictures splashed all over the place of all the glass at the front of the building? If gun laws aren’t strict enough, how come this 20 year old wasn’t able to buy a gun and had to kill his mother to get her guns? And I’m sorry, but I don’t know any parent of an autistic child who would teach them how to fire a gun, especially if they’re addicted to violent video games. Something fishy here.
Report this comment
miller721108
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:25amThis council proposal would infringe on the 2nd Amendment, just in an opposite way that we’re used to seeing out there. We certainly have the Right to bear arms and the government has NO authority to infringe upn it, but that’s different from a mandate to own one. I’m a proud gun owner, but telling a household that they must have a gun crosses a line not terribly dissimilar to telling them that they cannot own a firearm in a specific city (barring felony convictions, mental illness, etc.) if we want to be Constiutionally consistent.
Report this comment
Veteran Patriot
Jan. 9, 2013 at 9:00amI live near this town. The city council is making this a recommendation to citizens not a city ordnance. It is not against the second amendment as you define it to suggest the ownership of a weapon.
Report this comment
savagenatn
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:16amsounds like this town is full of raaaaaaacists, homophobes, islamophobes, anti-gay, war on women radical right wingers (sarc)
Zap (or is it sap? or CRAP?) and (michael) keaton33 are you the same person trolling from your mother’s basement? Or are you really two separate idiots?
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:11amI wonder what the ratio of violent crimes in schools vs violent crimes in Gun shops is.
Report this comment
Chet Hempstead
Jan. 9, 2013 at 3:29amThat’s not how you spell Gandhi.
Report this comment
Fubared
Jan. 9, 2013 at 8:27amThat is exactly how he spells it chetty. Reading comprehension again. Dag.
Report this comment
addie
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:04am“The more guns you have in the school, the more dangerous it is,” said Leslie Keisel, superintendent of the North Sanpete School District.”
LOL, if that was actually a true statement then why are thousands of people surviving guns shows every weekend? Wow people are really REALLY stupid and just think, she is a superintendent responsible for children’s education. It is no wonder this country has the dumbest kids on earth. Stupid teaching stupid.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:05pmIs an increase in injury or death a good indicator of danger?
If so… Statistical FACT: Add a gun to ANY situation and the potential for injury or death increases. Danger increases.
Columbine had an armed guard on duty (and one nearby) when that shooting took place.
Did their presence make it a less dangerous place?
And what happens in such a chaotic situation if the gun’man’ or ‘men’ are not clearly identifiable?
Massive amounts of students running. Large amounts of movie-goers running.
Who is going to get blamed should a prinicple or teacher shoot an innocent person?
Report this comment
Free_Thinker
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:57amIn Utah, gun control is hitting what they aim at.
Zap you are a moron with your continuous banter of a nuclear weapon. If you don’t want to own a gun then don’t, but don’t try and limit someone else from doing so.
Report this comment
spfoam1
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:55amWe know for sure what can happen when no one in the school has a gun, don’t we?
Report this comment
QuincySmith
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:36am““The more guns you have in the school, the more dangerous it is,” said Leslie Keisel, superintendent of the North Sanpete School District.” ~~~ I wish leslie would provide her evidence, yeah, I’d like to see that.
Report this comment
pahrumper
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:30amMy kind of town!!!
Report this comment
Imprimatur
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:42pm“By bringing weapons into school, are we creating more problems than we are solving?” he asked. “It could create a new problem. We don’t want to deal with that problem.” said Principal Mark Thomas. Need to identify what those hypothetical problems and compare them to the facts. Otherwise it’s a perpetual red herring chase of the undefined and unidentified. It’s good however that the Utah school teachers are able to CC and protect themselves when the need arises.
Report this comment
denkat56
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:03pmMore than likely they had guns already, as for the school it’s all voluntary.
Report this comment
1HonestInjun
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:48pmFast and Furious was a government plan to take away the 2nd amendment and our guns. However, is was discovered and the plan failed. The school massacre at Newtown was a gift to the left.
Never let a crisis go to waste. The left feigned horror of the children’s death openly, while giving themselve high fives in private for the opportunity to take away citizens guns by raping the 2nd
amendment. To the left taking away the guns aren’t really about protecting the citizens, it’s about
securing absolute power. Starting with the corrupt news media, don’t think that it’s out of the whelm
for the left to crush all opposition to their marxist agenda. We are living in an insane America right
now. Just look around.
Report this comment
El Pistoffo
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:56pmYou nailed it.
Report this comment
Extremerightwing
Jan. 9, 2013 at 6:32amMedia outlets, absolutely need to be targets when the **** hits the fan
Report this comment
lassiegirldawn
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:47pmWe need a well-armed army against other nations, here at home we need a well armed army against a government that wants to take our rights away and make us a communist nation. People will either have to stand up now or later with much bloodshed. Until all the baby boomers are gone, the right to be a free nation will be fought. The crap they are putting into our kids heads today, they will not even know what hit them.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:22pmAre you really that paranoid?
And you really believe a ‘well armed’ citizen militia can go against the might of the $500 Billion dollar a year funded US Military.
Me thinks you might need to be professionally evaluated.
Report this comment
wzanesdad
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:45pmzapparules,
I’m absolutely sure assad in syria thought the same thing. Besides…..most of the military will not fight against the citizens. Dream all you want to but it’ll never happen.
Report this comment
48Straights
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:32amYes, the military will not turn on the American civilian, it will turn on the government along with the civilians.
In many ways the military is freedoms last hope. An action against the government, a competent general to restore liberty and freedom is the only hope left from a tyrannical overreaching government.
Report this comment
addie
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:10amZappa, you are a poster child for stupid. You must be so proud of yourself.
Report this comment
Capt_Gregg
Jan. 9, 2013 at 8:29am@CRAPPA
The armed citizens of Viet Nam did a pretty good job of taking on the US military.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 10:49amWZANSDAD…
What will never happen?
I just happen to believe our American armed civilian population is NO match against our $500 Billion-a-year armed forces.
But I also happen to believe such an arms race is not needed to assure / overthrow tyranical leadership. Look at Egypt. Their civilians are barely armed – yet they toppled their tyranical ruler.
It all depends upon who the military stands with.
But boy folks… If you are thinking it gets to the point that our civilians are taking up arms against our military… And that the civilians have a chance if the military goes against the ‘militia’….
I have some swamp land to sell you.
Report this comment
sizzlinsexybeckster
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:28pmAt least one city has it’s head on straight.
Report this comment
SciPro
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:44pmAhhh .. You mean State .. right? .. Utah making some sense, seems so little of that commodity these days. I hate to say it, but .. “take note” of what is going to happen to those Eastern states who love to take away the constitution of the land, ( And here it is the people in power) who are given free reign to, it seems, to trash your rights and make misery come upon their subjects… Yup … I see handwriting-on-the-wall, that is not good. I’d move out to the mountains if, I weren’t already there … just a thought
Report this comment
SciPro
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:46pmOk .. I reread .. it is town … hmmm getting old I guess
Report this comment
El Pistoffo
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:49pmThat’s right. If I were a criminal I would steer clear of that town. If everyone’s packing, chances are a criminal wont get a chance.
Report this comment
Swalker
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:23pmIt is not a privilege, it is a right with no regulations that can abridge it.. we should adhere to our rights or we will loose them.
No regulation can take away the right and we must not allow them to teach us that it is not a right but some gift from the Government and oh by the way your IRS has 223 ammo and swat teams to make you pay your bills or die….
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:38pmSo I get to keep and bear whatever ‘arms’ I want – right?
Report this comment
Swalker
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:22amI don’t know about you but I do, If they can build an army of the FDA and IRS and Berkley can have a fully armed Swat team then we should be able to defend ourselves when they go rogue if they do. fully armed swat teams attacked Gibson guitar for using wood that was legal but the gov wanted the process done in India and not in the US, Why do they need such force to regulate a Guitar company?
We had an advantage of longer range fire arms in 1776, that is what kept us from being overrun by the better trained Brits, there needs to be a balance. Why do every police force need full tactical teams with all the armament of an army. What is the force they face that requires such a need.
If they require it why not the civilian who is protecting his Family and property and neighborhood from these types of threat. The police get there after the fact right.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 11:01amSo your argument is we as civilians should have access to the same firepower as the govt – correct?
So NO resaonable judgements are to be made here?
They (the govt / police forces / other ) have massive firepower… Then the civilian population must balance that with the same level of firepower.
Where does that arms race stop?
When am I able to get my nuke?
Society has the responsibility to reasonalbly ‘control’ the freedoms afforded us (by the Bill of Rights – etc.) – But now Freedom (Amendment) is absolute.
We can not yell “Fire” in a movie theater.
We should not be able to own any level of firepower we wish.
Again… Where would such unabridged freedom lead us? Anyone then is able to own as much military-grade arms as possible?
What does that accomplish is a supposed peaceful, responsible, advanced society?
Frankly… I’m all for owning pretty much whatever you want. Just keep such restricted to YOUR property. Remove the guns from the public domain.
Do you support random DUI check points? They are allowed.
So why not random gun check points? If found with an ‘unsecured’, illegal gun… Instant jail time, Major fine, confiscation of all weapons.
We CAN get guns removed from the public arena – yet still allow folks to protect themselves in their homes (to whatever degree they wish).
Either we seek sensible, responsable solutions (limits) to these issues or… We go to the other extreme, absurd direction.
Which direction do you s
Report this comment
Swalker
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:46pm“Society has the responsibility to reasonalbly ‘control’ the freedoms afforded us (by the Bill of Rights – etc.) – But now Freedom (Amendment) is absolute.
We can not yell “Fire” in a movie theater.”
This is the danger of the Progressive education system over the past 60 years. Listen to the most important words in this statement —”"Reasonably Control”" and “”"Freedoms Afforded us”"” we have a military force for the defense of our freedoms from invasion, We have a police force to seek out and capture criminals, ( not to prevent but as a deterrent — they arrive after the fact and then seek to capture) Laws do not prevent, they provide us with a consequence for your actions.
Who decides what is “”Reasonable Control”" Who “”afforded us our freedoms”" The freedoms in the bill of rights were mine from my creator, not given by any government. the reason they are stated there to to declare to the Government that they can not take these from me. The legal system is what provides us with a system of recourse when you overstep my rights or I over step on yours. Nothing prevents you from yelling fire, it is the price you pay if you do that keeps a normal person from doing it.
Were laws to be preventative we would pass laws against Cancer or Aids and all live longer..
Why should a police force need to be armed like the military? I do not fear the military, I do fear a police force out of control.. Think ruby Ridge or Waco ..
Report this comment
Swalker
Jan. 9, 2013 at 2:08pmIf you want to pass a law that says “use a gun in committing a crime and automatic life in prison” I am all in.. If you want to offer training for young people in the safe and proper use of fire arms I am all in. If you want to post no guns on your business or land I am all in and have the choice not to go there..
If you want to tell me I can not own or carry a firearm, you step on my rights. I will not stop you so please do not stop me.
90% of the mass killings in the past 30 years involved Psychotropic drugs. over 70% of those involved never were violent before committing of the act. People who knew them said they were quiet and reserve and never got angry.. The cause is what we need to look at..The 80billion dollar mental health drug industry needs to be restricted.. Prescriptions are trial and error applied, there are no test to determinant what drug works on what person, diagnoses is subjective at best but we keep using these dangerous drugs and we have more young people committing suicide and killing others. We are not looking at the cause but just the tool.
Report this comment
dcgirl
Jan. 9, 2013 at 5:45pmZapparules – I am trying to type as slowly as I can so that you can read what I say. YES, the citizens should have access to the same firepower as THEIR government because the government will become tyrannical if left unchecked. Random gun checks for “illegal” guns? The fact that you think that ANY guns are “illegal” means you are okay with the constitution being violated. What other constitutional rights do you also believe are okay to do away with…Abolition of slavery perhaps or maybe the right for women to vote? Or do you think you can just pick and choose which constitutional RIGHTS you (since you are soooo much smarter) think others should be able to have?
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:22pmI’m pretty sure I know where I’m moving to next…
Report this comment
226crimsontrace
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:20pmI predict an extremely low crime rate.
They can change the slogan on the sign to “Safest town in the country”
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:19pmSpring city would be the safest town in America when they pass the ordinance.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:28pm“Thompson, who owns 78 guns he keeps locked in a safe”
LOL.
There are a hundred million people across this nation just like Timm Thompson.
Are you Progs really sure you want to try this????
Report this comment
Joe_The_Patriot
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:57pmThey’re going to be easy pickins since none of them are armed….
Report this comment
nzkiwi
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:58pm@ Bodybag
I think that it’s 80 million. If these people were an organised civilian militia, they would be larger than all the world’s standing armies combined – by several times.
One can see why the UN doesn’t like it…
Report this comment
Flag-Man
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:14amThere are 300m people in the USA
There are 900m guns in the USA
Who do you think will win
Semper Fi- Oath Keeper
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Jan. 9, 2013 at 11:24amMr or Ms BODY BAG,
This is what you must know:
78 guns: 1 found under his body, the other 77 in his safe.
It is so.
Report this comment
johnpaulkuchtajr
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:17pmHey Keatonc33,
Wow!
Somebody in Utah can read!
They must have read that the Swiss require the same gun proficiency in ALL OF THEIR CITIZENS!
But, what do the Swiss know? That might explain why all those silly rich people keep their wealth there.
Sick people will always have access to tools that allow them to kill others; but, here’s a nasty stat for you: 55% of gun deaths in this country are suicides. Ain’t that a bit _ _?
Report this comment
48Straights
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:36am100% of suicides are done by the mentally ill. 100% of school shootings and mass murders are mentally ill. Perhaps we should concentrate our efforts there dont you think.
Blaming guns for these crimes is like blaming forks for making people fat.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:13pmAhhhh… So ‘forcing’ companies to make certain they offer employees the right to buy healthcare that includes coverage for contraception is wrong but… Forcing every home to own a gun is OK?
So it is wrong for Obama to force folks to buy health insurance – but it’s OK to force folks to buy a weapon???
Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:17pmSounds like you understand.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:25pm@ZAPPARULES
Posted on January 8, 2013 at 10:13pm
So it is wrong for Obama to force folks to buy health insurance – but it’s OK to force folks to buy a weapon???
——————————–
Very good Skippy
A+ on today’s pop quiz
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:37pmOK.
When you buy health insurance you get to buy a gun.
When your company offers healthcare (including contraceptive coverage) – then your business can allow employees to have their weapons at work.
brother_ed
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:12pmI missed the part about “forcing” people to have guns, I read it as “recommending” people to own guns.
Just in case you missed it:
“Spring City Councilman Neil Sorensen first proposed an ordinance requiring a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. The rest of the council scoffed at making it a requirement, but they unanimously agreed to move forward with an ordinance “recommending” the idea.”
Now, if the Unmentionable One had ‘recommended’ we all get health care, I’m sure the wise ones would heed his advice, as it is a smart thing to do. Just as the wise ones will heed the advice to arm themselves, because it is the smart thing to do.
The problem we have is the whole ‘forcing’ thing…
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:46pmOK – Let’s just RECOMMEND that our laws and regulations are enforced.
I recommend we start with speed limits. Then lets move on to recommending that our drug laws be enforced. How about just some recommendations on what I can take from others?
Yea – that works real well.
—
And just what kind of gun or weapon are they recommending?
The 2nd says… No abridging of the right.
SO… I guess NO restrictions are to be made on what type and how many ‘arms’ I am able to keep and bear – right?
Either you accept that we have the societal responsibility to place reasonable limits on the weapons our citizen militia is allowed to keep and bear – or you believe NO limits / abridging is allowed.
If NO abridging allowed then… Then I get to own absolutely ANY type and amount of weapons – right?
Arms race?
That means I have a right to arm myself with a nuke?
Again – either there are reasonable restrictions (to be considered and discussed and imposed) – or none at all.
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:09pmThe reason they don’t want gun’s in school’s is that they’ve already been issued their weapon’s..http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/08/more-blatant-leftist-indoctrination-in-our-schools/
Report this comment
oldguy49
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:20pmi do believe that kennesaw georgia has the same rule……buy a house and a gun………very low crime rate in kennesaw
Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:08pmSounds like a good place to live.
Report this comment
MIBUGNU2
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:56pmWhat’s that stuff on the ground…brrrrrr !!! to cold for me..
EVERYONE I know has weapons, don’t see the problem !!
If properly trained, every responsible American should be
armed.. most of us have been trained in the Military anyway..
My MOS is 0331, so I am totally qualified with 3 weapons..
OORAH. Bad guy can come by anytime, NO PROBLEM !!!!
Oh, and all my Kids shoot as well as I do..
Report this comment
MIBUGNU2
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:10pmDamn, forgot about the Wife !!! she’ll get a pinwheel now and then too !!
Report this comment
banjarmon
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:08pmI would encourage every conservative American to adhere to the Second Amendment!!
The Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.
This is MY RIGHT to OWN and to BEAR ARMS PERIOD!!!!
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:15pmSo I get to bear any ‘arms’ I like – right?
I want a nuke!
(You’re OK with that – right? Great!)
MisterSarcastic
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:18pmYes, Zap. We’re OK with you having a nuke.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:27pmSomeone didn’t listen and ate the yellow snow….. way too much yellow snow. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLIppgE45wM
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:44pmEXCELLENT!
(By the way… I’m moving in next door to you and your family. And I don’t really know how to safely handle such arms but… That’s OK. You don’t get to tell me what arms I can or can’t have – or force me to have any real understanding of their operation. And at least for now… I have never been convicted of a crime and have never had my mental capabilites questioned – at least not by anyone of professional ability.)
Is this a great country or what?!?!
Yeah Baby!
BODYBAG
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:52pm@ZAPPARULES
Posted on January 8, 2013 at 10:15pm
So I get to bear any ‘arms’ I like – right?
I want a nuke!
(You’re OK with that – right? Great!)
—————————————————
You’ve made this comment about a dozen times on all the gun threads.
Here’s some prerequisite reading materials:
http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2012-07-30/golden-mistake
IF you can afford it AND if you can keep from killing yourself with radiation exposure.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:53pmI like to play my ‘yellow snow’ music very loud and late into the night. (Freedom baby – right?)
You folks won’t get upset at me playing my music loud and late into the night – now will you?
I don’t like people getting upset with me.
Remember, I have a nuke. You might not want to upset me.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:52pmWell gee BODYBAG…
Maybe someone will actually engage in a discussin of what I offer.
Do we either have a societal responsibility to enact reasonable limits on our freedoms – or are our amendment rights absolute?
So what was the point of that link?
It’s going to cost me a little to get nuke-capable?
So what what it costs? My freedom is worth it.
Report this comment
48Straights
Jan. 9, 2013 at 12:58amIf armed guards are required to protect Obama and the government leaders, than competent armed guards should be required to protect my kids.
What makes Obama, Reid and Pelosi think they deserve this type of protection, yet want to leave or children sitting ducks to criminals and terrorists looking for soft targets? Sandy Hill is a progressive caused problem, not the NRA. If we had our way the killer would have been killed before he was able to get to the first classroom.
As soon as Obama gives up his protectors with guns, then we can talk about not protecting our children in the same manor.
Otherwise progressives are all hypocrites endangering our children and freedoms in exchange for their dreams of a socialist state.
Report this comment
Chancellor
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:12amZapparules I wish you would move in next to me……….I like kicking liberal arse for exercise.
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Jan. 9, 2013 at 2:08am@Zappa
Stop being absurd. Obviously we as a society did place limits. Did I miss the part in the article where they were teaching people to use artillery or shoulder fired missiles? Do you know anyone in your neighborhood with fully automatic weapons or grenades? Do you know anything about firearms and weapons? It is perfectly reasonable for this community to support responsible firearm ownership and training. This cry to ban guns is based on irrational fear and complete ignorance of firearms.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 11:39amStop being absurd. Really?
I am told all the time that Rush Limbaugh is absurd because it is used to prove a point.
I was told Ann Coulter was being absurd when her proposed response to releasing gun owner info (which was wrong – but legally allowed) was to release the information of those who had abortions.
So why not be absurd?
You have just offered that there ARE REASONABLE restrictions on the weapons one is allowed to keep and bear.
So why not have a discussion on what many consider reasonable?
The vast – VAST majority do NOT seek or want to take our guns away.
Besides… That will be impossible in this country!
But lets have a reasonable discussion then.
Why are high capacity magazines needed?
What level of ‘firepower’ is reasonable for a citizen to own?
We have to register our vehicles and that we have an ability to drive a vehicle? Why should not such a reasonable requirment be applied to weapon ownership? (There are also other responsibilities that go w/ vehicle priviliges. So… Other responsibilites should come with weapon ownership – yes?)
So lets INVEST $$$ more in our mental-support systems. Who is going to pay for such though?
Folks want armed guards at schools. Who pays for such?
Is how violence portrayed in society causing problems? How so? How control? Who funds such reseach?
Are you going to decide what I allow my kids to watch, play?
Absurd vs Reasonable.
Tell me how the majority of the Left is being absurd about this
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 9, 2013 at 2:42pmOh poor CHANCELLOR.
Besides this post / threat against me… I have read some of your other posts… You sound like such an angry, bitter person.
You a family man?
What’s the matter? Did mommy and daddy raise you to believe you can have anything and everything you want – but reality has proven otherwise?
Were you a bully in grade school too?
Do you happen to have a history of violence? Or do you just pretend to be so tough so as to make yourself feel macho?
Please – keep up the threatening talk. You are revealing so much and are exactly the type of person we are trying to identify in society (as a possible) threat to others. …The kind of person who seemingly likes to threaten others… and who has guns.
What’s the matter? Are my words going to push you over the edge?
Talk it out. You might feel better,
But I doubt it. You seem like a man of ACTION! (Violent action)
Have a Nice Day Buddy!
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Jan. 9, 2013 at 10:44pm“Why are high capacity magazines needed?”
Why do you need an electric toothbrush? It makes it easier. It makes it easier to hold more ammunition. If you have multiple attackers attacking you and your family, having ten rounds is much better than five. The enemy, and yes someone trying to kill you is your enemy, is not going to stop and wait for you to reload.
“What level of ‘firepower’ is reasonable for a citizen to own?”
Really what you are asking is how much force should be used against the threat. In law enforcement there is a use of force continuum or an escalation of force model. There are a number of variables that have to be taken into consideration. However, you really don’t know what the threat level might be until it happens. For example, if you are a 250 lb man being attacked by a 100 lb woman with her fists, does this mean you should use lethal force? No! What if it is the opposite? What if you are being attacked by two men with guns? Is it reasonable to assume you could fight the attackers with your fists? How much is your life worth?
“We have to register our vehicles and that we have an ability to drive a vehicle? Why should not such a reasonable requirment be applied to weapon ownership?”
First of all, driving is a privilege and NOT a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The “ability” to drive and the “right” to own firearms are completely different.
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Jan. 9, 2013 at 10:45pm“Folks want armed guards at schools. Who pays for such?”
Who pays for the school “resource officers” (police officers) already stationed in our schools?
“So lets INVEST $$$ more in our mental-support systems. Who is going to pay for such though?”
I agree, and as far as who is going to pay that is a discussion worth having.
“Is how violence portrayed in society causing problems? How so? How control?”
Perhaps it is and this is something communities will need to address. Every society in history has decided on certain values their culture must live by, otherwise they would not have been considered civilized.
The majority of the left is being absurd because they are being complete hypocrites as usual. They also, as I stated, are failing to use any sort of logic or reason when it comes to firearms and basing their assumptions on irrational fear and ignorance of firearms.
Report this comment
zapparules
Jan. 10, 2013 at 12:02am“irrational fear and ignorance of firearms”
Sorry but millions in this country do happen to have a warranted fear of the very serious gun-related problem we have in our country. No other civilized, advanced country in the world has our rate of gun-related injuries and deaths.
Ignorance of firearms? So I suppose someone like Gen. McChrystal is ignorant of firearms???
So you don’t care to compare the responsibilities of driving a car with that of gun ownership – simply because one is a right and the other a privilige yet… You want to compare high capacity magazines to an electric toothbrush – ???
So you think an arms race is in order – that such is the best approach to keeping all of society safe(er). Interesting.
So if criminals have access to extreme weapons (and just how are they getting such access) – that means law-abiding citizens must have such access in order to properly protect themselves.
Well how about a responsible effort to limit access to all such extreme weapons (except for military)?
No? An arms race is the more responsible approach for an advanced, civilized society.
Fine. Have as much firepower in your home. Go for it.
So are you going to carry around multiple high capacity magazines for your protection?
“Every society in history has decided on certain values their culture must live by,”
Well I for one and happy to see the majority of our society realizing we need to act on the gun culture ‘value’ of our society.
Report this comment
Wisdom7
Jan. 10, 2013 at 1:27amYes. It is based on irrational fear and ignorance of firearms and their fear is indeed unwarranted. There are millions of women who fear being raped. Does that mean all men are rapists? There are millions of people who fear being stolen from. Does that make everyone a thief? Yet you seem to think all gun owners could be murderers. What people really fear is the fact there are bad people in this world intent on doing harm to others.
You ask “So you think an arms race is in order – that such is the best approach to keeping all of society safe(er).” Now you are being absurd again. Is anyone talking about an arms race? Only you. You are making a childish argument.
You state “Well I for one and happy to see the majority of our society realizing we need to act on the gun culture ‘value’ of our society.” The majority according to who? You? People do the act of killing not the tool, and if you are so worried about culture, perhaps you should look at the real reasons behind the violence. As this culture continues to break down, thanks to the narcissistic anti-American and anti-family left, more and more violence will take place.
Also my comparision of the toothbrush was simply trying to get you to understand why magazines exist. I could have used something else as an example. It’s the same reason semi-automatic weapons exist.
As far as McChrystal, he is simply playing politics, just like Clinton giving a speech on technology and turning it into a anti-gun ran
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:03pmMake sure every household has a gun…. is that not the whole problem? sick people with access to guns!
Report this comment
Small World
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:09pmYou are the sick one. Finally someone with common sense.
Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:10pmYes, sick people with guns are part of the problem. That’s why I hope you never have one.
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:11pmIf you don’t like it your more than welcome to GTFO!
Report this comment
TheTwitchyGuy
Jan. 9, 2013 at 1:27amDo yourself a favor and Google Kennesaw Ga gun law. They did this here in the mid ’80s and I think they have only had three murders since.
Report this comment