Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Everyone should own a firearm
OU Daily ^ | October 20, 2005 | Matt Hamilton

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; firearm; gun; ou; oudaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: Bob
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.

Yes, the Swiss militiaman (Every male between certain ages) must keep a fully automatic assault rifle, or if an officer, a pistol, along with a sealed tin of ammunition. They can have more ammunition, and are encouraged to practice, but they must have that sealed tin available for emergencies. Subsidized ammunition is available at gun ranges. After they complete their militia service, which is decades after they begin, they may for a nominal fee, purchase their issue weapon and continue to keep it at home.

21 posted on 10/21/2005 3:55:10 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69
Just "1" firearm? Heck, I have 5 handguns, 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 airguns. Do I get extra credit?

No sling shot?

I have a wrist rocket. I'm a pretty good shot with it too.

22 posted on 10/21/2005 3:57:47 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
I want a gun with a plaid stock.

Lol. Well, you live in California, that shouldn't be too difficult.

23 posted on 10/21/2005 3:59:03 PM PDT by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Should we all have the same "government issued" weapon?

Yes, absolutely. With the XM8 getting close to acceptance, it would make much more sense to give all those old M16 rifles to citizens, rather than just scrapping them or dumping them in warehouses somewhere.

24 posted on 10/21/2005 3:59:38 PM PDT by brbethke (Hook up the generator! Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ain Soph Aur

You will never see an anti-gun nut put a "gun free home" sign on their house!

I have a Ruger Mini-14 (first gun I bought in 1985), Taurus 9mm (bought this when I turned 21), Colt 380 Mustang pocketlite, Ruger 10-22 with scope, Sig Sauer P229 40SW (this is such a cool handgun).


25 posted on 10/21/2005 4:00:22 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ain Soph Aur
A liberal looks at America and sees 300 million potential criminals.

A conservatives looks at America and sees 300 million potential deputies.

26 posted on 10/21/2005 4:01:42 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ain Soph Aur
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.

The Congress of the United States disagrees. Just yesterday they officially found (HR 800/S. 397 was passed by the House and sent to to the President)

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects
the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

27 posted on 10/21/2005 4:01:45 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"I have two .44 Desert Eagles (among others). Why? One for each hand."

What?

No third 'Eagle' stowed in the small of your back as a BUG?

Why..that's absolutely un-american !;>)

/jasper

28 posted on 10/21/2005 4:01:53 PM PDT by Jasper (Stand Fast, Craigellachie !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie
Everyone should own an MP-5.Silencer is optional.You'll get good work out of a Remington 700 308 also.
29 posted on 10/21/2005 4:02:29 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (Every time a toilet flushes,another liberal gets his brains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: everyone
The author proposes:

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.

I'd modify this system to include females as well, and make concealed carry universal.






The USA is long overdue in passing such a 'rite of citizenship' amendment.

A short voluntary course in basic defense tactics and the obligations of constitutional citizenship could be offered to all would be voters at 18..
They would graduate with the right to vote and a surplus rifle, after taking this oath:

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, sovereignty or philosophy of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
30 posted on 10/21/2005 4:07:44 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?

The Swiss do, or at least all those of the same "cohort" do, older men have previous standard weapons.

The first Congress passed the first Militia Act, which required just this. Oh they gave some leeway as to the exact weapon, but they did require ownership and specified calibration. They also required a certain amount of powder and shot, as well as other accouterments be owned and in good working condition. I guess that founding generation was just a bunch of Big Government types? No but they recognized that citizens have both right and obligations.

BTW their power to do what they did, and could do again, is found in Art. 1, section 8:

"Congress shall have the power ... To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia ... "

By disciplining they meant specifying the required drill standards, by organizing they meant saying what proportion of infantry, artillery, calvary, dragoons, etc, each state should have.

31 posted on 10/21/2005 4:08:27 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 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?

The Militia Act of 1792 was a federal law, adopted right after ratification of the Constitution, that made it MANDATORY for all male citizens between 18 and 45 to own a military-style rifle of a specified calibre:

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
In modern terms, this would translate into every citizen being required to own a rifle chambered for .223 or 7.62 NATO
32 posted on 10/21/2005 4:09:33 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All

If you want to own a firearm I have no problem with that at all, but I don't want one. What's the difference between guns laws banning guns and gun laws requiring ownership? Where does the second amendment say you must own a gun?

I won't make you give yours up so long as you don't make me own one. 'K?



33 posted on 10/21/2005 4:11:40 PM PDT by Gardener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ain Soph Aur
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.

The Iowa constitution has it's own definition: The militia of this state shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are or may hereafter be exempt by the laws of the United States, or of this state, and shall be armed, equipped, and trained, as the general assembly may provide by law. From http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html

34 posted on 10/21/2005 4:18:00 PM PDT by LearnsFromMistakes (We know the right things to do, why don't we just do them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

My old ROTC manual, printed in the 1960's, defined "well regulated" as "uniform in training and organization" (implying a standard for training level that militia would be expected to satisfy)

The term "regulated" applied to clocks means "accurate in keeping time". It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations. Soldiers had to be drilled to load, aim, and fire as one unit. You do NOT want the rifle next to you to be firing (and emitting a shower of sparks) while you are pouring gunpowder into your musket. Everybody had to do every step together with no screwups

35 posted on 10/21/2005 4:28:43 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

I hope this bill is signed by Bush (or has it been?).

36 posted on 10/21/2005 4:30:53 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gardener
See post #30. -- Under my proposed amendment, you would not be forced to take the oath, or to have a rifle.
You would forfeit your franchise to vote of course, but we can't be too picky, aye?
37 posted on 10/21/2005 4:35:38 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

That one got me too. Nice.

What would 9/11 have been like if most passengers had been armed?


38 posted on 10/21/2005 4:35:43 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

When I first read the article I was in total agreement.

Your mentioning of some who would want not to own firearms (Quakers maight be such a group) show some tinkering is necessary.


39 posted on 10/21/2005 4:38:27 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
Under my proposed amendment, you would not be forced to take the oath, or to have a rifle. You would forfeit your franchise to vote of course, but we can't be too picky, aye?

Why? What does my owning or not a gun have to do with my ability to vote? You don't want the government forcing you to get rid of your guns, I don't want the government forcing me to own one. Sounds like we both want the government out of it, huh? What makes you think that my not wanting to own a gun means I won't defend this country if it came to it?

40 posted on 10/21/2005 4:40:31 PM PDT by Gardener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson