The Los Angeles Times reports that the City Council of Spring City, Utah, is likely to pass an ordinance which would encourage the residents of that town to own guns. The City Council voted in favor of advancing the ordinance, Ordinance 2013-04-02, to a public hearing.
With this ordinance, it seems that some of the "pro gun" folks are taking an even more extreme view on guns as they have changed their position from anyone who wants to own a gun should be allowed to (with the government saying out of the decision) to the government taking an active role in encouraging gun ownership.
I wonder about the people in the town who want to exercise their right not to own a gun. According to the article, the only City Council member to vote against the Ordinance, Scott Allred, has indicated that
he has privately heard from about 10 to 20 families who also are skittish, but he wonders whether they will speak up at the public hearing.
I also wonder why the City Council feels that there is a real need to encourage its residents to own guns. You would think that if they are taking this position, Spring City would have a high crime rate. However, according to the Los Angeles Times article, there is very little crime in Spring City, and no one can recall when the last murder occurred.
Apparently, Spring City is not alone in considering these types of measures. Neil Sorensen, the Council Member who introduced the ordinance, indicated
he has heard from dozens of other communities around the country that are considering similar ordinances. There have also been emails from people considering moving to Spring City because of the proposed law. "We have a lot of eyes on us," he said.http://www.latimes.com/...
And in the same article, The Los Angeles Times also reported that the City Council in Kennesaw, Ga., voted in 1982 to actually require each household to own a gun.
It seems to me that the gun rights advocates are getting more and more extreme in their positions.