Everyone should own a firearm

OU Daily ^ | October 20, 2005 | Matt Hamilton

[Ain Soph Aur]

Everyone should own a firearm Staff column

by Matt Hamilton

October 20, 2005

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, these 27 words spark an enormous debate in America today.

Some believe this applies strictly to the rights of the states to maintain a militia, and that no private ownership of weapons is inherently guaranteed. Though I must ask them what happened to “state” militias.

Others believe the Second Amendment is a guarantee of an individual right to own guns. The standard argument against this is, “But what about the well-regulated militia part?”

I think I’ve found the proper solution to this debate: Every person between the ages of 16 and 50 without a felony record should be required to own and be trained in the use of a firearm. It’s that simple.

This solution addresses all of the arguments. Each individual has a firearm of his/her own, so that side of the argument should be satisfied. Each person is also trained in the use of said firearm by the government, more specifically by a state government just to get rid of that little issue, which I think qualifies as “well-regulated.”

I’d like to use the Swiss system as an example: Each law-abiding male of proper age is issued and trained in the use of a firearm, and must keep it at his home. In many cantons, owners of handguns are allowed to carry them concealed.

Despite this exceptionally high rate of gun possession, Switzerland’s murder rate is almost seven times lower than ours.

I’d modify this system to include females as well, and make concealed carry universal. I’d also throw out the requirements that all gun owners be licensed, because there are too many people in this country trying to get rid of gun ownership, and licenses really do no good. Those who would be restricted from ownership are the ones who don’t care about the legalities anyway.

Another good case is Israel, where licenses are still required, but concealed carry is allowed and even encouraged. Despite what we see on the news or read in the papers almost daily, Israel’s murder rate is only a little higher than Switzerland’s.

Israel offers up some good comparisons with the United States in terms of how open ownership and carry is a good thing. In 1984, at a California McDonald’s, a man walked in and killed 21 people and injured 19 before the police were able to bring him down. None of the people inside the store other than the shooter was armed.

Not long before that, three terrorists opened fire into an Israeli crowd, only killing one before they were themselves gunned down by civilians. The one surviving terrorist later claimed that his group was unaware of the extent of civilian firearm ownership and felt that it was “unfair.”

In neither case did the shooter(s) care for the laws. The only difference was the presence of weapons in the hands of potential victims.

Then, of course, there is the original intent of the Second Amendment: to keep government tyranny at bay. I’ve heard a lot of people as of late who are almost certain that we are progressing toward a police state of sorts.

Many of them, however, are the same ones who will then argue against civilian gun ownership, usually pointing to acts of criminals, who, as I’ve already stated (and as everyone should already know) do not care about the legalities.

Since I have never seen a good argument against a well-armed populace, the only real issue left to cover is the cost of implementing this system. How would we pay for such a program? Simple: raise the taxes of those who either refuse to participate or are barred from ownership. For reasons unfathomable to me, some people seem to have a moral/philosophical/religious objection to owning a weapon. This is fine, but there will be a cost to opting out of it. Government has long used tax incentives to encourage people to act a certain way. This situation would be no different.

There really is no downside to universal firearm ownership. The only people who have anything to fear from an armed citizenry are tyrants and criminals. On the other hand, this system would provide many benefits. It would give us a second line of defense against those who seek to harm others, as in the case of terrorists (Israel) or disgruntled former security guards (California).

It would also serve as a morale booster and barrier against scare tactics for the American people. The only alternative to an independent citizenry is a government powerful enough to the point of near-omnipotence/omniscience, which I don’t consider acceptable.

— Matt Hamilton is a paleontology junior. His column appears every other Thursday, and he can be reached at dailyopinion@ou.edu.

[Redcitizen]

" The one surviving terrorist later claimed that his group was unaware of the extent of civilian firearm ownership and felt that it was “unfair.” "

Heh-heh. :) Obviously not the brightest bulb in the box.

[Fenris6]

"How would we pay for such a program? Simple: raise the taxes of those who either refuse to participate or are barred from ownership."

Liberals who insist sex ed prevents pregnancy will insist that gun safety classes promote shootings.

[Billthedrill]

Not everyone will want to do this, of course. Let's compromise - if someone doesn't want to own a firearm, I think that they should be allowed not to do so once they undergo psychiatric evaluation by the government and after the payment of an annual fee to cover the protection they're receiving from others but not contributing to themselves. Is a license-not-to-have-to-carry such an outrageous imposition on the non-gun-owning public?

[Argus]

I think in the 18th century, the term "well-regulated" meant "properly equipped", not the modern meaning of regulation. It was also understood that the militia comprised all free male citizens capable of bearing arms. That would now be extended to all adults of either sex not convicted of a felony.

[rdb3]

"A" firearm, as in one? Ha!

I have two .44 Desert Eagles (among others). Why? One for each hand.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)

[Disambiguator]

Rush Limbaugh says that (and I paraphrase), "if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the same way they do the rest of the Bill of Rights, gun ownership would be mandatory."

I agree with him.

[doorgunner69]

Just "1" firearm? Heck, I have 5 handguns, 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 airguns. Do I get extra credit?

And yes, I was well trained, got the USMC "Expert" rifle badge to prove it!

[GSlob]

"the Swiss system as an example: Each law-abiding male of proper age is issued and trained in the use of a firearm, and must keep it at his home. In many cantons, owners of handguns are allowed to carry them concealed."
A former Swiss co-worker of mine once mentioned to me that while they have assault rifles in almost every house, the ammo for these is much tighter controlled, and far from widespread. Maybe other FReepers with more direct experience could clarify.

[onyx]

FOTFLOL!

[Non-Sequitur]

Someone please explain the difference between 'right' and 'obligation' to this jackass.

[groanup]

As much as I like seeing a student realize the importance of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, I see a little bit of big goverment conformity here. Should we all have the same "government issued" weapon? Should we all wear little plaid uniforms too?

[labette]

I'll be traveling to Oklahoma tomorrow, and celebrating the Second Amendment at the Tulsa Gun Show.
The BIG one.

[El Gato]

I think in the 18th century, the term "well-regulated" meant "properly equipped", not the modern meaning of regulation.

Not quite, it meant "properly functioning". Even today, or at least a decade or three ago, clocks that kept good time were said to be "regulated". Shotguns and rifles that shoot where they are pointed are still said to be regulated as well.

That would now be extended to all adults of either sex not convicted of a felony.

Why limit it to those not convicted of a felony? Lots of things that were misdemeanors in the 18th century are felonies now. Plus lots of misdemeanors are in theory punishable by more than 1 year in prison or jail, but such sentences are rarely given. Nonetheless, those misdemeanors are felonies for purposes of denying one's RKBA. In days of yore, even real felons had their rights restored, once they had "paid their debt to society". Today I would do that after they had successfully served all their probationary time as well as their time actually incarcerated. After all, if you can't trust someone with a gun, why are you letting them out on the street. Those inclined to commit crimes with firearms will not be bothered by laws denying them the legal ability to obtain them.

[Bob]

A former Swiss co-worker of mine once mentioned to me that while they have assault rifles in almost every house, the ammo for these is much tighter controlled, and far from widespread. Maybe other FReepers with more direct experience could clarify.

While I can't claim direct knowledge, I do understand that a specified amount of ammunition must be present along with the rifle. It's not as if they can only have an unloaded weapon without any ammunition readily available. I'll try to find a link to the site where I read that.

[Ranald S. MacKenzie]

Everyone should own a firearm Walther P99. There... that's more like it.

[El Gato]

Rush Limbaugh says that (and I paraphrase), "if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the same way they do the rest of the Bill of Rights, gun ownership would be mandatory."

Shortly after the second amendment was ratified, it was. Not only was ownership of a firearm mandatory, they told you, with fairly broad limits, what kind and of what caliber, you had to have. You could of course have others if you wished.

[68skylark]

Every person between the ages of 16 and 50 without a felony record should be required to own and be trained in the use of a firearm.

Terrible idea. I can think of dozens of reasons why this kind of blanket rule is undesirable.

[Osage Orange]

Just "1" firearm? Heck, I have 5 handguns, 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 airguns. Do I get extra credit?

If you know exactly how many firearms you have....you don't have enough.

[Disambiguator]

I want a gun with a plaid stock.