Pshaw. If you want a REAL .308 get one of each of these.
Springfield SOCOMII
Springfield M25 "White Feather"
Or the really badass H&K PSG1
Posted on 10/21/2005 3:21:50 PM PDT by 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.
Exactly, and this is such common sense that I'm flabbergasted that more freepers didn't get it off the bat.
I haven't reloaded any .50's yet but I've saved all the brass. At a buck a round it could be cost effective.
I do have a .44 barrel but have had problems with improper cycling and stove piping of the spent case. Have you had ay problems? What ammo do you use?
Thanks
I grant your point about not diminishing our freedoms, but I'm also concerned about protecing them.
I guess the best thing would be to somehow change the social norms without imposing one size fits all requirements.
It's been over thirty years since I sat in a Latin class, but I seem to recall that this sentence structure was quite common in Latin. I believe that it was called an "ablative absolute". I don't believe that our Founders had any doubt about its meaning nor were they in any way careless.
A closer reading than yours might be:
"Because, among other reasons, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If anything, this reading still too strongly connects the two clauses.
Here's another example:
"The sun having risen above the horizon, the captain ordered a ten minute rest break."
The sun having risen did not CAUSE the captain to order a break. It was more of an indicator that he should. It doesn't mean that there aren't many other reasons why he might have called a break. If anything, it is closer to a grammatical structure consisting of two independent thoughts connected by an unstated relationship. The weakness of the relationship is because it is not critical to the meaning being conveyed. This sentence structure should have been a cue to the Supreme Court that it was intended for them NOT to find the connection essential.
Unfortunately, I believe that the Supreme Court did exactly what the Founder's choice of sentence structure was designed to avoid. If our Founders had omitted the Militia clause, then the Supreme Court would have concluded that our Founders could not possibly have meant that the populace be armed so as to be able to overthrow the government. The writings of our Founders show quite clearly that that is exactly what they intended.
The second amendment is not the entire Constitution.
This from Art. 1,
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Given this power, the first Congress passed the 1792 militia act, abstracted above, BEFORE, the second amendment was even ratified. About 7 months before as a matter of fact.
Not yet. But understand that what I quoted is only part of the findings, it does not carry the force of law. But, whether the President signs it or not, but especially if he does (and he's not exactly worn out his veto pen you know), this language would probably have some weight when and if the Supreme Court ever gets around to making a ruling on some gun control law.
The second amendment prohibits the former, the "militia powers" of Article 1 section 8 allow the latter.
AR-10s are chambered for 9mm Kurtz (short)? :)
I do believe you meant .308. :)
Ha! I caught that too. Sounds like a gun rationioning scheme to me. Better not let them see my vault.
Yeah, I think you're right. There are some parts of the country where people assume that gun-ownerss and horrible criminals are basically the same group of people. You find this attitude in a few big cities. Like you, I'd like to see a more reality-based attitude toward honest gun owners.
If you are not willing to share in the common defense, be it against foreign enemies or domestic criminals, why should you have a say in how things are run? Heck you make one dumb decision, you are very likely to make more, at our expense
The Swiss used to require men to show up at the voting place with their rifle, or they couldn't vote. Being a nation of riflemen helped persuade Hitler not to invade Switzerland.
I guess my point is large masses of PO'd folks with auto weapons would make for a mess at best - the USA IS NOT Switzerland or Sweden etc.
Different cultures, different people entirely.
I don't know if you got the point of the article.
Pshaw. If you want a REAL .308 get one of each of these.
Springfield SOCOMII
Springfield M25 "White Feather"
Or the really badass H&K PSG1
That's true, but he never said the Second Amendment imposes the obligation to be armed. The first passage of such a law, under the powers granted Congress by the Constitution, was passed seven months before the second amendment was ratified. Of course that wasn't the first such law in either the United States or the North American Colonies of Great Britain.
the difference being the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing the RKBA, while the "militia powers" of art 1 sec. 8, only allow the Congress to require everyone to be armed, they do not compel them to do so. However the existence of those powers indicate that the Founders recognized no right NOT to be armed.
*shudder* What would President Johnson, President Carter, President Gore, or President Kerry's idea of "work of national importance" have been? We don't need a national servitude amendment.
Not owning a gun is going to make that sort of difficult, unless you want to throw spitballs at the enemy. Not being prepared, when you could be, shows a lack of commitment.
Historically, the army doesn't have a enough weapons even for it's full and part time soldiers at the beginning of a war. Also historically, folks were expected to bring their own. American gun owners even sent their privately owned weapons to England at the beginning of WW-II, to arm the home guard, only to have those same guns confiscated by the British government after the war, and destroyed rather than be returned them to those that had lent them.
BTW, Welcome to Free Republic. (Gardener Since May 12, 2005)
Some of whom were using them to force other people to build it for them.
It is not portable, but it is very effective (S&W 20 guage pump... Texas dove hate it).
My kids are smart as whips. They are grown now, and one has made me a grandfather. But I had guns in the house the entire time they were around, and before. I never locked them up, nor the ammunition either. But if I'd has one that rambunctious, I probably would have. My girls were taught how to shoot them at a fairly early age, as soon as I got the first .22 handgun in fact in the case of the older one. (I was a shotgun only type, until "corrupted" by my wife's grandfather (which got me the 10/22 Ruger) and her father (first the .22 S&W handgun and then the flood gates opened, starting with the 1911A1) :)
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.