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.
Your points are well taken.
So, if I understand this correctly, anyone with a gun who strolls by while you are being butchered will be requested to mind his own business, you are being killed quite nicely without any help from any nosy-parker thank you very much!
Yours too. It seems obvious from the way the two phrases are joined in the amendment that the framers wanted individual citizens to be familiar with firearms and to have them handy for use on short notice. That is, in their houses or on their persons, not stacked in some centralized armory, to be issued for the duration and then returned.
Granted, that was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, this next example is not: Even more dangerous than those who are too volatile to carry a firearm, are those who are too timid to carry a firearm. Some people by their gentle nature, and may God bless them, simply are not prepared to bring deadly force to bear. Still more will hesitate before committing to the ultimate act of violent defense, and lose the opportunity. In both cases, all such a person would gain by carrying a weapon would be to avail the assailant with a better means to do them arm.
Weapons should only be carried by those who are prepared to use them, and that's a decision that each man or woman has to make for himself or herself. It would simply be insanity to take that decision from the individual.
Considering that every new citizen ~must~ take that oath, -- I'd say yes, you should think long and hard on just why it doesn't feel right to you for some reason.
And consider that our oaths of office, or of military service, say essentially the same things. 50/60 years ago draftees were forced to take that oath, and most all did so proudly.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking her for this. These characteristics are an incredible asset in her field, medicine. Her gentle nature and "do no harm" mentality don't yield positive results from behind the trigger like they do behind a stethoscope.
A compulsory oath is worthless except in the view of tyrants,and I find it repugnant.
An oath of office is different because seeking or taking an office is not compulsory.
I note this nation had no need of Pledges to a symbol until after Mr. Lincoln and the pledge was written by a proponent of centralized gov't control.
The second admendment recognizes the right of a free people to be armed, and further,by recommending to the people the existence of miltias as opposed to creating a standing army, shows the intent of the Founders to keep the central gov't in check.
Every word in the Constitution was much discussed and I think the meanings are pretty clear. But people have been twisting the meanings of the original words for over two hundred years.
You may force someone to publicly affirm something because they are fearful of your power to do them injury .That does not mean they will believe in it.
Didn't the young United States fight the War of 1812 because the King of England's officers were forcing Americans into involuntary naval service?
All others, men and women, should be part of a militia that is sufficiently organized for the President to command it as is required by Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
The Militia Act, posted above, is a good guide.
Militia Duty need not really be onerous. It would bring back the apparently obsolete notion at we have duties towards our nation and fellow citizens. It might eliminate the loner syndrome.
I have a feeling that you're sorely lacking in historical knowledge and have no earthly idea how similar your screed reads to the words uttered by Rudolf Hess on February 25, 1934 when he led millions of Germans in an oath of loyalty. Absolutely repugnant to any American. Washington required no oaths of the citizenry. Jefferson required no oaths. I'll stand with them. Let's reserve oaths for the military where they mean something.
bump for later read...
Well, that's a good start! ;'}
INS History, Genealogy, and Education - Overview of INS History
Address:http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/articles/oview.htm
Hess? - How bizarre
In the good old days of the Greek city-states, no one who lacked his own weapons could be a citizen.
Added it to the banglist, bump for later read.
"I have two .44 Desert Eagles"
A single .50 Desert Eagle is enough for my collection. The Colt Anaconda claims the .44 cal. spot.
You ought to spring for a .50 barrel for your Eagle and see how things come alive.
Additionally,the person swearing the oath to the U.S. and renouncing his earlier oath may be considered a traitor by his former nation.
The Bible tells us not to swear oaths because we have not the power to so much as change the color of one hair on our own head.
Refusal to swear your oaths does not automatically mean the person is intending to do you harm.
I notice you failed to address the impressment question,probably because to do so conflicts with your idea of forced service. Is it that forced service for the causes you support is a good thing but forced service for causes you oppose is a bad thing?
They must post a no gun sign so that visiters know that they may be at risk.
Best explanation of "regulated" I've ever seen. Noted.
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.