And I quote:

"In order to provide for the emergency management of the town, and to provide for the civil defense for the Town of Virgin, and further, in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the town and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the Virgin Town limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor."

A gun nut's wet dream? Maybe if it weren't true, but fortunately this is a real world ordinance.

Although technically it is not really very enforceable, as one can not be punished for not exercising one's right (in this case, to keep and bear arms), it is the thought that really counts on this one, trite as that may sound.

The ordinance does not have any provision for punishment should one choose not to comply due to philosophical, personal, or religious reasons but the point is the good government of Virgin Utah recognizes the immense value of having an armed populace, they recognize this and makes it known through this ordinance.

If you think this is extreme, which it's not (note that the law doesn't say anything about being coerced to own firearms if you really don't want to as that is not a very nice thing to do), wait til you hear what some people have proposed to enact in Vermont. Representative Fred Maslack, a state legislator from the said state has actually proposed imposing a $500 fine on its citizens who choose to be unarmed. This $500 is to be paid for the privilege of not being armed. Although you will probably never see me oppose something like this, I would admit it does sound a bit extreme until the motivations for this is explained to one.*

Nothing close to this from where I am from but if you look around, you'd think there was.

*Vermont already has a very high gun ownership rate and even if this law is passed, it is very unlikely anybody will actually have to pay this fine, those who for one reason or another do not have a gun will probably just go to the nearest hardware store and buy a 12 gauge shotgun for $200 rather than pay a $500 fine. To understand the objectives of this we must inspect further. It is not local crime control, with a populace that well armed one can not even begin to imagine the perils of trying to rob, hurt, or kill them. The law was written with the thought of having a well armed populace that can also act as militia should any form of terrorist (yeah I know, ugh that word again) or invasionist attack be launched upon them. You have to understand this was written in the wake of 9/11 (sorry, for another ugh that word again moment).

Alarmist? Über Survivalist? Perhaps, but believe me when I tell you that it is things like these that restore my faith in humanity.

I am not a USian, never have been, never will be, but I do truly support the concept of keeping armed bears, errr keeping and bearing arms.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.