Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, August 31, 2014

The town of Nucla, Colorado, population under 700, passed an ordinance in 2013 requiring every head of household to own a gun. The law exempts felons, people with a disability that would prohibit them from using a firearm, those who cannot afford a gun and conscientious objectors. "This is a hunting, ranching community and everybody already has guns," said board trustee Richard Craig, who proposed the ordinance. Trustee Bill Long was the only no vote. "There's no difference between the government telling us you can't own guns or you must own guns," he said.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I bet this law will keep anyone who has any sense not to come with criminal intent. I have actually been through the town, I think. In that part of the country, it is easier to count the houses that don't have guns than those who do. Out of a total of about 200 households in rural CO, I doubt 10 are unarmed.

#1 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-08-31 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This is a hunting, ranching community and everybody already has guns," said board trustee Richard Craig, who proposed the ordinance.

So trustee Craig is just wasting people's time, then?

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-31 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Sometimes the gun nuts just get a little carried away with their obsession. Turns them into cartoon characters.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-31 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think this law will achieve nothing. Yet this type of micro-management will hilariously enjoy support of "small government conservatives" with no sense of irony whatsoever.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I remember Goatman telling us on here how Kennesaw, Georgia required everyone in town to own a gun. I wonder how that's worked out.

#5 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-08-31 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I wonder how that's worked out."

It got them in the news for a short bit, just like this place.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-31 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hell, this isn't anything new. Oakland Park, Florida passed a similar law many years ago.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-31 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hell, this isn't anything new."

It also doesn't mean anything.

The law basically says you have to have a gun in your house unless you are either not qualified to own one, or you don't want to.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-31 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is the same town that ran a prairie dog shoot many years ago that had the tree huggers up in arms.

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-31 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The racial makeup of the city is 95% white, The median income for a household in the town was $28,466,The per capita income for the town was $12,982. About 17.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 23.4% of those under age 18
Wikepedia
With 25% of children living in POVERTY, the conservative gun-nut trustees have more important issues to address than guns ...And this stupid law sends a message to SANE businesses NOT to invest in Nucla, CO

#10 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-08-31 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" 'This is a hunting, ranching community and everybody already has guns', said board trustee Richard Craig, who proposed the ordinance."

So trustee Craig is just wasting people's time, then?
#2 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2014-08-31 12:57 PM"

Pretty much, although I'm confident we'll hear little (if any) criticism regarding the time (AND $$$) wasted and/or 'government over-reach' from the folks here who seem so concerned about such issues.

Meanwhile, in "unintended land": this will send up a flag that the poor, disabled and felons are likely unarmed.

All in all, this legislative initiative doesn't seem very productive.

#11 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-31 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...doesn't seem very productive."

Unless you see it for what it is, a cheap publicity stunt.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-31 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"law exempts felons, people with a disability that would prohibit them from using a firearm, those who cannot afford a gun and conscientious objectors"

Population is under 700 and a rural community.

Chances are it's a redundant requirement anyhow.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-31 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the ass end of paper sacks going to hold up or is it going to separate like they usually do??? They don't make paper sacks like they used to.

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-31 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have a feeling Redial is right.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-31 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Say Hello To My Little Friend!

#16 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-31 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

With 25% of children living in POVERTY, the conservative gun-nut trustees have more important issues to address than guns ...And this stupid law sends a message to SANE businesses NOT to invest in Nucla, CO

#10 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI

What would thoes issues be for the city? Tell us what the city should do samie.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

FTA:

The law exempts felons, people with a disability that would prohibit them from using a firearm, those who cannot afford a gun and conscientious objectors.

In other words, the law is for show and actually does nothing since a person that doesn't want a gun per the law can simply claim a conscientious objection.

FTA:

Trustee Bill Long was the only no vote. "There's no difference between the government telling us you can't own guns or you must own guns," he said.

Some peoples ignorance is astounding. There is a big difference between the two. Would you, by the same token, try to claim that saying you MUST have health insurance is the same as saying you cannot have health insurance? This line of logic is preposterous.

Congress in 1792 passed a law that read as follows:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

This is significant for two reasons:

1) It was intended from the earliest days of this country that EVERYONE of fighting age be a member of the militia. The militia was The People.

2) The federal government, just one year after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, considered it perfectly acceptable to require people to own a gun. So obviously this precedent is about as old as the United States is itself.

#19 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-01 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what happened to that law? Obviously people are not required to have guns today.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-01 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what happened to that law? Obviously people are not required to have guns today.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-01 10:29 PM

It was eventually amended out in 1903 by the establishment of The National Guard. So... for 111 years starting with the Continental Congress people were required to own guns by the government. The idea that somehow this is extraordinary and horrifying now in Colorado only speaks to the ignorance of the complainers.

#21 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-01 10:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, should have read "starting with the Second Continental Congress".

The fact is, there is ample precedent for requiring guns of the citizens. It is established from the earliest days of this country that the government has the ability to do so. With the establishment of the National Guard in 1903 they simply stopped exercising that ability. Unless someone has further evidence that says the right of the government to do this was revoked, there is no issue here.

#22 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-01 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The idea that somehow this is extraordinary and horrifying now in Colorado only speaks to the ignorance of the complainers."

Who's complaining? The law is meaningless.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-01 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who's complaining? The law is meaningless.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-01 11:14 PM

Apparently one guy in that Colorado town that laughably thinks that being told to own a gun is the same in some way as being told you can't own a gun.

And maybe TRUEBLUE who, while it wasn't a loud complaint, was certainly critical of the right of government to do this when he called it "government over-reach".

For a better list of complainers I would have to research the older threads from when Kennessaw, GA did the same thing. I would imagine that most of the arguments got played out there.

#24 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-01 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...when Kennessaw, GA did the same thing."

Same meaningless law. Just a publicity stunt after some other place banned home gun ownership.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-01 11:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree that it is generally meaningless and the only thing remarkable about it is that it is being remarked on. In fact, I consider the fact that it IS being remarked on at all to be evidence for the fact of complaint for this law.

If it were truly meaningless that a town that nobody has heard of with 700 low income residents that nobody knows passed a law that nobody objects to and nobody cared that they did this, it just simply wouldn't be national news.

Do you hear national news when Quartzite, AZ changes their easement ordinance?

#26 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 12:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

It isn't national news. Any story involving guns gets circulation but this thing will be forgotten by tomorrow.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-02 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

It isn't national news. Any story involving guns gets circulation but this thing will be forgotten by tomorrow.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-02 12:10 AM

I'm sorry to inform you but you are, in fact, mistaken on this. This article is from the Washington Post, which is a major national publication, and if I remember correctly from my days trucking, is in the order of a couple thousand miles from Nucla, CO.

While it may indeed be forgotten by tomorrow, or at least next week, for one brief inglorious moment some poor bastard somewhere soiled their longjohns when they heard that the Nucla City Council passed this ordinance and said the rest of the nation needs to know. The Washington Post obviously agreed.

#28 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

From the article:

This report is part of the project titled "Gun Wars: The Struggle Over Rights and Regulation in America," produced by the Carnegie-Knight News21 initiative, a national investigative reporting project involving top college journalism students across the country and headquartered at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

It's not news, it's filler.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-02 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not news, it's filler.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-02 12:39 AM

Tell me when they post filler about an easement ordinance change in Quartzite in the Washington Post.

The print it because it is interesting. It is interesting because it is divisive. It is divisive because someone craps their drawers over stories like this.

#30 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 03:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

This happened almost a year an a half ago. It's filler, not news.

#31 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-02 07:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort