Posted on 06/10/2021 2:13:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
I was gravely disappointed with Judge Robert Benitez’s California federal court ruling that the Golden State’s ban on “assault weapons” like AR-15s is unconstitutional. It manifestly is unconstitutional, but the judge’s ruling does not go far enough. He should have found that our Constitution requires every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen to have a real assault rifle like an M16 – or, because diversity is important, an M4 – to defend his community and his country from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
That’s my modest proposal du jour – make our peaceful and secure society’s free riders carry their own rucks for once. We need to stop outsourcing the dirty and dangerous work of protecting society to the LEOs and soldiers who make up maybe 5 percent of the population. The other 95 percent need to get with it. It is people with guns who built and maintain a society so peaceful and prosperous that ridiculous twits can babble about “privilege” and engage in similarly frivolous nonsense without a care in the world. You can’t in most places – you’re either too busy trying not to starve, or the local tough guy would squash you like a bug for running your fool mouth. Somebody has to defend the freedom of idiots to explore the outer limits of their own idiocy, and for too long only a small percentage of citizens have picked up a rifle to do it.
I say, “No more.” I say that freedom isn’t free and everyone needs to get out his, her or xir checkbook. Pick up a rifle and get citizening!
This is not a new idea. There was a time when every able-bodied adult male was in a militia. They packed heat to protect hearth n’ home, whether from the French, or the British, or the rampaging relatives of Elizabeth Warren. Today, the threat is criminals and aspiring tyrants – an armed citizenry, including males, females, and people claiming bizarre pseudo-genders, provides a potent deterrent to both crooks and dictators, and a means to defeat them if they get frisky.
What’s a solution to riots? Armed citizens.
What’s a solution to thugs? Armed citizens.
What’s a solution to people who want to use the power of government people with guns to silence you, prevent you from praying, and generally make you a serf? Armed citizens.
We don’t need to get rid of cops or troops. We just need to back them up, 5.56mm style.
Some scoff at the notion of citizens defending themselves, but many of them have the same vibe as the Vietnam “protestors” who stopped chanting “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh” the second the draft ended. They just don’t want to pull their weight.
In fact, an armed citizenry equipped with effective military grade weapons – no AR-15s here; we’re talking real assault weapons – can do a lot of useful things. Some putative male sap who you probably heard of from his leftist mewlings on social media once told me I was nuts for thinking our civilization might ever descend into savagery. I sure appreciate how he assumed that real men would keep his world stable for him as he typed his sissy screeds, but the fact is that society can come to a screeching halt in an instant. I was with the Army in the LA Riots – a real insurrection, as opposed to the mini-surrection the panty wetters are still whining about. And citizens regulated; there was nowhere safer than underneath the eavers of a building guarded by rooftop Koreans.
As for a bunch of citizens not being able to challenge “the military” (or, rather, the treacherous remanants of the military after the majority refuse to follow orders to kill fellow citizens at the order of some hypothetical tyrant), I direct you to Afghanistan. And Vietnam. And here, 250-ish years ago.
It’s wacky to think we might be threatened by a dictator? Us conservatives don’t need convincing, but you libs just spent four years telling us how Trump was practically Hitler. Was that all just bull-Schiff?
There are other salubrious effects of requiring every citizen to take personal responsibility for the protection of his family, his community, his state, and his Constitution. When every citizen owns a weapon, with the expectation that they will join together with other citizens in times of strife and chaos, that focuses their minds wonderfully. They are engaged, and cognizant that American citizenship is not a spectator sport. Because it shouldn’t be.
Outsourcing the tough stuff has made us weak and timid. Adults blubber that mean tweets have them literally shaking. Grown men wear masks while jogging. Grown women read Fifty Shades of Grey on purpose.
This unbefitting a great people, a warrior people.
We must demand of ourselves rigor and risk. We must demand that everyone step up. We must stop being a nation of sheep and one of, well, mostly not sheep. There will still be some sheep, but they should be shamed and scorned. Possessing your automatic weapon would be both a privilege and an obligation. We can exclude people who are physically, mentally, or emotionally unable to do it. We can bar felons. We can have conscientious objectors too, if they actually have a real religious objection as opposed to just not wanting to do their fair share. They can be medics and serve as citizens with honor. But otherwise, do your duty, fellow American.
Now, there’s an argument that the Constitution does not mandate that we all own an automatic rifle. It’s a bad argument. If we have learned nothing over the years we have endured liberal jurisprudence, it’s that the Constitution says whatever we want. No duty to have a M16? Look closer. It’s right there lurking in the penumbras and emanations next to the right to off your baby.
Where would the guns come from? Hey, we pay people not to work so we can pay for their rifles. Would they be trained? Yeah, basic rifle marksmanship should be a high school graduation requirement – it’ll do kids good to get some sun and to get away from commie teachers trying to blame them for slavery. But wouldn’t there be the danger of bad people doing bad things? Yeah. And? Everything has risks, including being an unarmed, passive wimp, which is very risky indeed. Besides, anyone thinking over playing horsey with his gat is going to have to factor in that everyone else has their own piece locked and loaded. As Robert Heinlein observed, an armed society is a polite society.
A lot of people will reject my modest proposal, most of them not because it’s a bad idea – it’s a great idea – but because they don’t want to have to do it. It’s hard when you have a weapon. You have to be responsible. You can’t be a knucklehead. And you might get in a situation where you could get hurt. But those aren’t bugs – they are features. Doing hard things makes for a hard people, a serious people, not a collection of perpetually offended weenies just waiting for the Chi Coms to turn us into a colony – or some leftist caudillo here at home turning us into Venezuela II.
Look, Judge Benitez deserves credit for his thorough and compelling defense of the right to keep and bear arms in the face of the lib-fascists’ determination to disarm and disenfranchise us. We just need to take the next step, and demand that every healthy, adult citizen step up.
I disagree strongly with Kurt here, which is unusual.
>Yeah, basic rifle marksmanship should be a high school graduation requirement
No. Simply no.
Basic rifle marksmanship should be a * MIDDLE SCHOOL * graduation requirement. I learned it in the 6th and 7th grade from a retired sergeant major in an old NRA program. Bolt action .22s on a 50’ range, 10 ring was about the diameter of a .22 round. Looking, I think it’s basically the Smallbore Rifle program, but it was set up with all sorts of patcher, badges and pins you could put on your shooting jacket for achieving various levels of competency.
Waiting until high school wastes years. Middle school.
/patcher/patches/
2A, in mentioning militia, informs people with two brain cells to rub together that is it about arms for war. War guns. Guns used by our men in the military.
Hunting, target shooting, collecting — those are ancillary activities.
Our Founders meant 2A for defense of our lands, against any enemy, foreign or domestic. And we have both today.
Anyone American that calls for gun bans, or calls America a democracy, is a domestic enemy, imo.
Believe there was a town in Georgia in which all persons were required to own a firearm at one time.
Yes. Here we are:
https://www.rt.com/usa/gun-control-us-nelson-obama-nra-207/
A small southern American town makes the Second Amendment right of US citizens to bear arms an obligatory duty.
Welcome to Nelson, Georgia, a rural town about 50 miles (80 km) north of Atlanta that passed on Monday the ‘Family Protection Ordinance’, which requires the head of each household to own a gun and ammunition.
“We’re making a statement,” City Council member Jackie Jarrett told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “If you plan on doing us harm, we’ll be armed.”
Jarrett emphasized that the law grants liberal loopholes for those who do not wish to follow the new legal code.
In addition to people who are mentally or physically handicapped, an exception to the law is given to “paupers or [those] who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,” he noted.
Jarrett said he supported the legislation because he is concerned about the future of his community.
“Crime is moving on up the road,” he warned. “Subdivisions are opening up, and we don’t know who those people are.”
Admitting that the legislation is largely symbolic, Councilman Duane Cronic, who introduced the measure last month, said the law will serve as an effective deterrent to crime, comparing it to homes that warn of a security system on the premise, even when there may be none.
“This is like a big security sign for our city,” Cronic said.
Nelson City Council says the measure - which closely mirrors one adopted in the 1980s in Kennesaw, Georgia, that supporters say has tamped down crime rates - has been warmly endorsed by this community of 1,300 people.
The unanimous vote places Nelson front and center in a heated debate that has polarized the nation between gun rights advocates and those who believe it is time to lock up the country’s estimated 250 million privately-owned firearms.
US President Barack Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting on December 14 that left 26 people dead, the majority of them young children, has pledged to fight for gun control legislation, including universal background checks on gun purchases, an assault weapons ban, and limiting magazine capacity.
The influential National Rifle Association (NRA), however, is passionately opposed to government background checks like the one put forward by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, arguing that a national registry on gun owners would set the stage for gun confiscation.
Reuters / Jim Urquhart
In fact, the NRA says more guns – not fewer – will make American communities safer.
The powerful gun lobby - which has seen its membership numbers soar at the same time as cases of tragic shootings have increased - has called on US Congress to provide funds for the hiring of armed police officers in every US school to protect students.
Justin Dupuy, president of the Armed Citizen Project, said people have a right to protect themselves with guns because law enforcement agencies are usually arrive on the scene only after a crime has been committed.
“You have a much better chance of defending yourself with a firearm than without one,” Dupuy, told RT. “Law enforcement officials can only do their jobs to a certain extent…In a home-invasion situation, they’re only there to roll out the crime scene tape.”
If guns are taken from people, the only ones going to relinquish them are the ones who are following the rules in the first place, he added.
Not every US community, however, believes that more guns in the hands of more people will solve America’s gun violence issue.
In the state of Connecticut, for example, where the Sandy Hook tragedy occurred in the town of Newtown, a series of new gun regulations have just been passed. Following weeks of heated debate, the state will enact a new registry for high-capacity magazines, as well as background checks for gun purchases.
According to state Senator Donald Williams, Jr., Connecticut now has the “strongest and most comprehensive bill in the US” on gun control.
Meanwhile, the citizens of Nelson, Georgia, like many other communities across the country, seem determined to protect the message of the Second Amendment at any cost, guaranteeing many more passionate debates on the issue in the future.
12
Follow RT onRT
social
Here is the original one:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html
As the debate over guns continues in Washington and in communities across the country, there’s at least one place where owning a gun is technically required by law.
In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.”
“If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal – are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling.
Wayne Arnold is one of those citizens. Among the weapons he keeps at home are an AR-15-style .223 caliber rifle, a variety of handguns and more.
“It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren’t allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon,” said Arnold.
“More or less a political statement”
It may be the law in Kennesaw to own a gun, but the police department says it isn’t actually enforced.
Many locals CNN spoke to assumed that the law dated back to the town’s founding, but it was actually only enacted in 1982. “It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent,” said Lt. Craig Graydon, who’s been with the Kennesaw Police Department for over 30 years. “It was also more or less a political statement because the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a city ordinance banning handguns from their city limits.”
Back then, the town had a population of just a few thousand. Over three decades later, the law is still on the books.
Today, Kennesaw, a town of about 33,000 people, has had one murder in the last six years and a violent crime rate of below 2%.
But it’s unclear whether that has anything to do with the gun law.
City officials say their relationship with the community is a key factor in maintaining public safety. “We can’t say that just that gun law contributes x number of percent to why we have a low crime rate. It may be part of it, but it needs to be looked at from a whole picture,” said Graydon. “Don’t just look at the ordinance.”
A small town that gets questions from around the country
As communities across the country re-examine their own relationship with guns in the wake of recent mass shootings, officials say they have been getting calls from all over the country – and even as far away as Norway – inquiring about the town’s gun law.
“We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law,” said Lt. Graydon. “So that’s been somewhat of a benefit to us.”
“The first thing that most people say when they meet us, you know as a community is ‘oh, it’s not what I expected,’” said Mayor Easterling. “I don’t know what they expect of people who arm themselves with guns at home, or what they’re looking for, but really we’re not that.”
“People kind of get the image that it’s the Wild West, where everybody walks around with a firearm strapped to their side, and it’s not like that,” Arnold said. “It’s strictly a home defense system type of deal. There’s no shootouts down the street. . . .”
i have been waiting for my govt issue firearm
I found an article that said five towns around the country mandated gun ownership. It also said they didn’t fine people if they didn’t!
I know that the town of Republic, WA declared itself a “sanctuary city” - with regard to gun laws! Nobody would be prosecuted for violations of any state or Federal gun laws.
“...an exception to the law is given to “paupers”...”
Before the Revolutionary War, the folks in Concord provided arms, powder and bullets to those that did not have them or could not afford them.
In Washintonistan.
Fascinating. Assume there is there a sheriff enforcing Posse Comitatus. (sp)
Article or link?
Hm. Exists a definition of “pauper” in said law?
FWIW, the .22’s have now been replaced with pellet rifles.
My ex-FIL, a former Army sergeant that did 3 combat tours in VN, and was a high school ROTC instructor (now retired) thought it was the silliest chit he’d ever seen...
excerpt:
Chief Culp turned heads when he announced he wouldn’t enforce recently passed Initiative 1639, saying it violated the constitutional rights of citizens between the ages of 18-21 years old.
“I will stand up for citizens rights and I will not back down,” Culp said as he spoke before council and a crowd of more than 200. “I never dreamed that a police officer, stating that he will not violate anyones constitutional rights, would be such a big deal.”
The law he speaks of is a referendum (mob rule) that was passed that made the legal age to own certain firearms 21 - but that only “youth” (under 18) can use their parent’s guns. With the parent there.
Culp ran for Governor and was beaten (probably cheated) by Inslee. I don’t think he is still the police chief, and from the various article headlines I just saw it isn’t clear if the small town of Republic became a “sanctuary city” from gun laws.
An aside - Sarah Palin gave the commencement speech for the small graduating class back when she was still popular - the seniors did some sort of mail-in campaign. She had some minor connection with the small town.
Perhaps turn gym class into a biathlon training program. We could then kick some Norwegian ass in the sport - just a thought.
FWIW about the only thing I watch on TV is IBU women’s competitions.
Hmmm . . .
With fit Scandinavians dominating the sport? Sounds promising!
What I agree with is the opposite proposition. If the left demands no guns for anyone, we must propose legislation for everyone must own a gun. We keep sliding, inch by inch to the left, time to either go center by counterweighting the left’s proposals with an equal and opposite political counterweight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.