GREENLEAF, Idaho (Oct. 12) - Say an earthquake snaps a dam and the full force of the Boise River floods the Treasure Valley, driving untold thousands toward high ground.
Or maybe the subdivisions spreading west from Boise finally push big-box, subwoofer, exit-ramp America right up to this plateau of mint and alfalfa fields, where rural lives have passed in peace since Quakers settled a century ago.
However humanity’s rush may arrive, a town must prepare. Greenleaf, population 862, is not taking the task lightly. Thus the proposed language for Section 2, Chapter 6, Subsection 2 of the Greenleaf City Code.
“Heads of households to maintain firearms,” the heading announces.
“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants,” the proposal says, “it is recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of firearms.”
2006-10-12 10:56:43 · 2 answers · asked by marnefirstinfantry 5 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
In my opinion, firearms would (for the most part) cause more chaos.
In an emergency where people need food and water, you'd be giving everyone the ability to go to extreme measures to get those things. Since everyone would have guns (in the city), people would fight each other to get emergency supplies. Then what would become of those who live outside the city limits? Would they starve because people from the city held guns to their heads? I think guns are a very BAD idea.
2006-10-12 11:12:08 · answer #1 · answered by ☼Grace☼ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ignore the PC.
protect the home and family
2006-10-12 18:07:16 · answer #2 · answered by robert p 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋