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.
Can you list some?
I completely agree with the author. It is important that language has precise meaning if thoughts and ideas are to be passed down through generations. I believe the founders meant to convey, "Because 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." They might have been careless in their language, but I don't see how any objective person could interpret it any other way.
BTW, cite all the references you want. The BOR was quoted as being among rights endowed by the Creator. The rights were enumerated as an amendment to the Constitution. There may have been subsequent or prior regulations requiring men to possess arms and even certain kinds of arms. The 2A simply addresses the inherent right.
Just as quiet as September 10,2001.
If some people are simply uncomfortable around firearms, it's fine with me if they choose not to own one. It's even more fine if they have a real phobia about firearms, like some people do (unfortunately).
There are dozens of other factors, also, that make this a personal decision. (What if there's someone in the house who seems to be not quite fully mentally stable? In that case, if a parent or guardian chooses not to have a gun in the house, that's fine with me. I know a family in this exact situation, and I'm kinda glad they don't want a gun in their house, frankly -- I'd probably do the same thing in their situation.)
The one idea that makes this country great is freedom; it's liberty. Anything that chips away at personal freedoms is not something we should be happy about. Even if we think people aren't using their freedoms in exactly the right way, it should still be their choice.
I recommend a AR-10 for everyone. 7.62 (.380) will do the job.
One is not nearly enough but I guess it's a start. Everyone should own a bunch of guns. As far as 16 - 50. Get serious. Have to make it 16 - death.
A firearm is simply too dangerous a thing to force on anyone. Especially most of the liberals I know.
Except, of course for our friend gardener. You WILL own a gun und you WILL LIKE IT!!!
Wow. One sane person, at least.
I would love to own several guns, but my son would be likely to cause some kind of incident, as he is seriously impulsive and Houdini, to boot. I won't take the chance that he might endanger my other children. A large dog will have to suffice for a few more years until he is out of the house.
I have some neighbors like that but I am certain, if there is any trouble, I'm the first they come running to.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. That's a price that some Americans have always paid to help others. If it happens, take it as an honor.
Pbbbbbhhhhhhttttt!!
At the time of the attack there was a mill, black smith shop, and perhaps half a dozen houses. About twenty families were living there, either in cabins, tents or wagons, some having recently arrived being in transit to Far West, a large Mormon town about thirty miles further to the west. Governor Boggs had given the order for all Mormons to be driven from the state.
After having camped about three miles to the north of Breckenridge, the Livingston County Militia led by Col. Wm. O Jennings attacked the Mormons at Hauns Mill on the afternoon of October 30, 1838. The Mormons having thought that they had reached a truce with the local militia were taken completely by surprise. In the ensuing attack all able-bodied men were either killed or driven off, as were the women and children.
Seventeen men and boys were killed and twelve were wounded. The following morning the survivors returned and placed the dead in a partially finished well located near the mill and then departed for Far West."
And then Wounded Knee "The problem was exacerbated by the presence of military troops on the reservation for the first time in ten years (including Custer’s old unit, the 7th Cavalry, which was predictably spoiling for a fight), and the irresponsible raiding onto the reservation by the civilian "Home Guard", hastily organized on the orders of Governor Mellette.
Led by another hot-head, M.H. Day of Rapid City, the militia provoked several skirmishes, adding fuel to the fire.
Kings River, California; Ludlow, Colorado; and so on. People by themselves may be perfectly reasonable, but get group of hotheads together, add rumors or bad blood, thingas can go from bad to worse. Adding automatic weapons is just not the thing to cure the underlying problems.
If you think I am out of line, flame away - just remember to go back and look at the most recent footage from Ohio..... and ask yourself, what would have happend if these gangbangers brought the family AK to the picnic?
out here.
I have no problem with the things in your oath. I'm not sure how I feel about taking a fealty oath though. I am completely loyal to this country but having to take a loyalty oath just doesn't feel right to me for some reason. I think I would have to sit down and think about it and sort out how I feel about it before I can say I'd take it.
No problem. Always happy to help.
Thank you, good post.
Since you choose not to protect yourself and your family, why should anyone else volunteer for the task?
Egad, you even spelled that right... ;-)
Who have I asked to volunteer to protect me or my family?
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.