That's a very good idea. I think that I can get a six-inch component package to handle that.
Thank you, sir.
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)
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.
Like those who are routinely depressed or suicidal. They go from being protection by the bed, to a 'promise to end the pain'.
Geez, there are a few relatives who I don't think should use pop-gun much less something that could hurt someone.
Arm those who are healthy and can shoot straight. And be very grateful that the rest of us aren't armed! ;)
Similar to the requirements that millions of modestly paid workers must repeatedly prove drug-free while Congressmen are apparently exempt from such mundane rules.
Are we to force everyone to publish a newspaper or otherwise make public their opinion on every issue? What happened to privacy and mind your own business? If someone doesn't want to have a gun(newspaper)(car)(eat meat)(vote)(----) as long as it doesn't involve their actual attack on another person then it is their right. They do not have a right to demand I conform to their way.
The warning sign is to protect the children.
That's a very good idea. I think that I can get a six-inch component package to handle that.
Thank you, sir.
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)
Yeah, it should take at least an hour to try and estimate. {;o)
It's okay. I know most of the FR crowd uses a Windows OS.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf
Well, as long as it's for the children it must be good.
I understood over the years that each Swiss "soldier" had 200 rounds in his possession. Accounting for them was strict - as with any thing Swiss
I used to spend lots of time at the house of a neighbor with lots of children and even more guns and ammunition. All were easily accesible and all the kids knew better than to touch any of the guns without permission.Those were for huntin' squirrels,'coons, and not for play. It's the kids that were never exposed to guns that are most dangerous due to ignorance.
Hmmm, -- you find our naturalization oath repugnant.
I repeat, -- I think it should be mandatory for all citizens, prior to them first exercising their right to vote.
No oath, no vote.
Again,these people had a choice to come here or not;a person born here has no such choice.
They would have a choice. Swear the oath above, or no vote. They would retain all other rights of citizenship.
But a person born here is assumed to be loyal because of his birth,neither has a person born here a natural allegiance to any foriegn entity which would need to be foresworn. 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.
I gave no proposal for "forced service". Try reading my first posts here on the issue.
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?
Dream on that I've proposed "forced service". I fully support the principle of a volunteer military.
It seems the members of Congress and the federal gov't place little value on their own oaths of office based on a half century of viewing them weaken the Constitution, U.S. economy and defense.
Similar to the requirements that millions of modestly paid workers must repeatedly prove drug-free while Congressmen are apparently exempt from such mundane rules.
Do you have some point to make in the last two comments?
190 in the box,8 in the magazine,2 in the home invader.All bullets accounted for ,sir.
As far as Wounded Knee goes it is my opinion that the whole damn US Army was spoiling for a fight. They had had enough after 50 years of Indian Wars.
Massacres over the years were mostly caused by turf wars or religious wars. My home, the State of Nevada has the slogan "Battle Born" I am proud of that. This country was built be white men with guns. Just a fact no opinion.
If there were no guns then it would have been done with spears and knives - plain and simple. Roman style, manifest destiny is a powerful thing.
A Firearm? My thoughts too.
Not giving up a dozen of my guns just so I can own A Firearm.
The foreign born do have a previous allegiance to renounce,the native born should have none to renounce.
Ultimately,I believe people who truly believe in a cause have no need to swear oaths except to calm the fears of those of weak or suspicious minds. It is far more important that the persons actions help the cause.
IF the oaths really meant anything to Congressmen and the rest then those who work so diligently to deny our Constitutional rights would find themselves censured and their bills voted down in short order. And more Congressional scandals would result in censures and declarations of vacancy.Congressmen may be under the influence of various drugs especially alcohol while passing laws that affect everyone yet they have no requirement to prove themselves "clean" as do ordinary citizens who can scarcely affect anything.
It is not the oath,but the character ,that is important. I am unconvinced the mere act of swearing oaths improves character.
Hey do I know you? You were in my house!
lol
Each is issued with an assault rifle and a box of ammunition.
That box is sealed, and it is against the law ro open it.
The box is to be returned unopened at the end of a year, and a fresh box issued. The returned box becomes "military-surplus" and available for purchase.
It's a military readiness thing.
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.