mandatory gun ownership?


PDA






mek42
April 20, 2008, 10:44 AM
Would it help 2A by having a grassroots call for mandatory gun ownership? After all, that's how it is in Switzerland and they count years per gun homicide not gun homicides per year. Therefore, forcing everyone to own a gun must reduce gun violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "mandatory gun ownership?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
glocker82
April 20, 2008, 10:47 AM
It would also make a readily available army if the need ever arose also.

Robert J McElwain
April 20, 2008, 11:06 AM
I totally agree with the sentiment, however, there are some idiots, and we all know a few, that just should never be near a gun.:eek:

Bob

jdc1244
April 20, 2008, 11:10 AM
Needless to say there are significant differences between Swiss and American society/culture/history/law which contributes to low Swiss homicide rates and the success of their citizen army. Mandatory gun ownership may be somewhat more problematic here in the US.

Donít get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful, along with legal OC in all 50 states. Iíd love for the Government to go to each house in the US, make sure the home has at least one rifle and one handgun, and if none are present give the household a citizensí rifle.

Sadly, however, some components of our society may not be ready for that. But I would settle for all 50 states and the Federal government to abide by the correct intent of the 2A, repeal all restrictions and regulations as unconstitutional, and uniformly support and encourage gun ownership for self-defense and possible defense of the nation.

packnrat
April 20, 2008, 11:15 AM
near a gun.......

.i know some that should not even be close to a dull butter knife at the dinner table.:eek::what:



:uhoh:

.

MarshallDodge
April 20, 2008, 11:20 AM
I don't think it's a good idea unless you put a training program along with it. As already stated, there are quite a few that should not own a gun and if you made them, the results would not be good.

El Tejon
April 20, 2008, 11:40 AM
Yes gun ownership should be mandatory.

As well, firearms education should take place in schools. As well, there should be a firearms qualification before one is allowed to vote.

SpiderJohn
April 20, 2008, 12:20 PM
I for one, don't want the government to tell me much of anything. I don't want them to tell me I have to, or can't own a gun. I don't want them knowing how much I earn with my job, or how much I spend on healthcare. I don't want them to tell me anything.

Anyone trying to force me to do anything against my will, using force of intimidation, or law, is just wrong. I don't impose my will upon anyone, and don't want anyone to impose their will upon me. :barf:

dalepres
April 20, 2008, 12:26 PM
Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful, along with legal OC in all 50 states. I’d love for the Government to go to each house in the US, make sure the home has at least one rifle and one handgun, and if none are present give the household a citizens’ rifle.


I'm storing my guns at a friend's house when they come to check at my house.

TheArchDuke
April 20, 2008, 12:30 PM
Absolutely not! The government shouldn't be forcing us to do anything! They should stay the hell out of it and let individuals decide.

EDITED TO ADD: By the way "stay the hell out" also means repeal all gun laws.

scrat
April 20, 2008, 12:35 PM
there should be firearms classes in schools. just like in the past the was guns smithing in schools.

jpsimms
April 20, 2008, 12:46 PM
El Tejon

I agree entirely with your belief that gun training shuld be part of our school system. I have said this for years, that if the kids were all taught early enough about gun safety and responsibly ownership there would be far fewer injuries and fatalities related to firearms. either from ad/nd or criminal activity.

I think there should be a grassroots movement to require this long before the nation would be ready for mandatory gun ownership, but I believe it is a good idea, but I don't think we are ready for it yet. We would have to take a few small steps first to ensure an easier transition.

An armed society is a polite society, but I do also believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they would like to own one or not.

Maybe not mandatory, but the Gov. could encourage gun ownership by giving a tax break to legal gun owners or something like that. Call it the Ammunition Cost Relief Act or some such.

sorry to ramble, it's just a pipe dream, but it would be cool

gbran
April 20, 2008, 12:51 PM
I agree entirely with your belief that gun training shuld be part of our school system. I have said this for years, that if the kids were all taught early enough about gun safety and responsibly ownership there would be far fewer injuries and fatalities related to firearms. either from ad/nd or criminal activity.


Why not? We teach them sex-ed, drivers-ed, the dangers of drugs. We should teach firearms safety also.

pdowg881
April 20, 2008, 12:51 PM
Just as I don't think antis should force their beliefs on me, I don't think anybody (especially the government) should be forcing anybody else to own firearms.

mgregg85
April 20, 2008, 12:51 PM
Good luck with the mandatory gun ownership idea, I feel that it is highly unlikely to succeed, even if it does sound like a good idea.

What I would really like to see is the military sell it's surplus M-16s converted to semiautomatic. If they would sell them to civilians like they do to police agencies(I think they charge a whole $15) it would be a great program.

revjen45
April 20, 2008, 12:52 PM
Not mandatory, but encouraged. Militia muster should occur on a county level twice a year or so. Fyrdthegn is one of the duties/honorifics of the Sheriff predating the Magna Carta, and the county seems to be an appropriate level at which to organize the militia (fyrd). In addition to skill at arms, training in emergency medical attention and whatever service one's individual life skills could do for the common good should be considered.

The Lone Haranguer
April 20, 2008, 12:56 PM
The sentiment does have a certain appeal, but dig deeper and you will find problems. Even Kennesaw, GA's "mandatory gun ownership" ordinance is symbolic. No one should be literally forced to keep guns if they don't want them.

As an aside, we have no laws forcing people to vote, either, and voting is arguably more important than gun ownership. (Don't lynch me. ;)) You usually find those in countries like Iraq (under Saddam Hussein, who always got 99% of the "vote") or Cuba.

no_problem
April 20, 2008, 01:01 PM
There are some people whom I do not want to be armed.

I would like to encourage more firearms ownership amongst those who are reliable, honest citizens. I would discourage gun ownership amongst criminals, and the mentally ill.

frogomatic
April 20, 2008, 01:04 PM
absolutely not! Forcing gun ownership is just as much a violation of rights as prohibiting gun ownership. The people have the right to choose. I personally like the idea of every citizen being armed, but I detest the idea of not allowing them to choose for themselves.

The Lone Haranguer
April 20, 2008, 01:14 PM
I would like to encourage more firearms ownership amongst those who are reliable, honest citizens.
We all would, but encouraging is a long way from mandating.

mek42
April 20, 2008, 01:18 PM
How about just getting the idea of mandatory gun ownership out there to get equal play with the "ban all guns" talks? Not so much to actually implement mandatory gun ownership, but to drive the public toward the middle ground of actually being closer to 2A?

brighamr
April 20, 2008, 01:21 PM
The word mandatory is a little harsh.

In my dream world, the gov (state) would have an organized militia of the populace that trains for 6 weeks at the beginning, 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks every summer. This would be all volunteer, but government funded (arms, training, ammunition, first aid kits, etc). Every single member of the militia should have a new government issued select fire M16, and at least 1000 rounds in their home.

Since we're dreaming here, we could also say the militia is required to stay stateside (meaning they can NEVER, for ANY REASON, be called to go to a war in another country. their ENTIRE purpose would be to defend the USA from their home state.)

Firearm safety and training should be mandatory in all schools. (This at least would mitigate NDs and give some exposure to the general populace).


And no, the National Guard does not fill this dream as evident by the current number of them forced overseas.

csmkersh
April 20, 2008, 01:42 PM
What Brighamr has described is basically the Swiss model. And it's a good one as far as it goes. I'd add that in order to be franchised, a minimum of 2 years government service be required. This might be military service or some non-military government service. Those of you who've read the book, not the abomination of a movie, Starship Troopers (http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Troopers-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441783589/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208713072&sr=1-1) know this isn't an original idea of mine. Barring that, then to be franchised, you must qualify annually with a minimum score of Marksman with either a bolt or semi-auto rifle.

Robert J McElwain
April 20, 2008, 01:56 PM
.i know some that should not even be close to a dull butter knife at the dinner table.

Now, I think we're talking about some of my kin.:D

Prince Yamato
April 20, 2008, 01:59 PM
No, it should not be mandatory. There are religious groups (such as the Amish) that may be in opposition to ownership of weapons on a personal level. If they choose not to own guns, well, good for them. I'll carry an extra clip for the one they don't carry.

Robert J McElwain
April 20, 2008, 01:59 PM
An armed society is a polite society..................

I'm reminded of this every time I go to the firing range. Politest people on earth.:)

Robert J McElwain
April 20, 2008, 02:04 PM
Our schools offer a full semester of driver training before a student can get a license to drive a car. A semester of instruction in the Second Amendment and the implementation thereof would seem to be at least as important.

Bob

csmkersh
April 20, 2008, 02:04 PM
The Amish do use firearms for hunting, but not for self defense.

TEDDY
April 20, 2008, 02:26 PM
Kennesaw ga is not truely manditory.you must have arms but not if you dont believe in it.the aclu brought suit and the judge dismissed it because the wording gives an out.
and then some dont believe some people should not have guns.I dont believe you should have a gun.:uhoh::rolleyes::neener::D:D:D

MASTEROFMALICE
April 20, 2008, 02:36 PM
Mandatory? Absolutely not!

Just as you should not remove a right from someone, you should also not force them to exercise a right if they don't want to because, guess what, that removes their rights?

jcjacobvt
April 20, 2008, 03:49 PM
>
>What I would really like to see is the military sell it's surplus M-16s
>converted to semiautomatic. If they would sell them to civilians like
>they do to police agencies(I think they charge a whole $15) it would be a great
>program.
>

Not to sound like an old bitter fart; but they (the Government) chose to destroy the finest firearm in the world by the hundreds of thousands that were semi-auto rather then have the citizens have them. I talk of the M1 Garrand battle rifle that won WW2 and Korean Conflict. Sad but true.

By law the M-16 receivers would need to be replaced because of the Sear hole drilled in the sides of it, hammer, and disconnect; before being issued to citizens. That would cost at lest fifty dollars each in bulk.

Once a machinegun receiver always a machinegun per National Firearm Act Laws passed in 1934.

tntwatt
April 20, 2008, 04:00 PM
Remeber, the population of Switzerland is only 7.5million. Ga alone has 4.6million. The USA has 304 million.

Like the difference between teaching 8 people to safely handle firearms and teaching 304 people.

jackdanson
April 20, 2008, 04:04 PM
Donít get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful, along with legal OC in all 50 states. Iíd love for the Government to go to each house in the US, make sure the home has at least one rifle and one handgun, and if none are present give the household a citizensí rifle.

Yes, that would be awesome to have the government come into my home to make sure I'm compliant, that would be great. Nothing says freedom like random home searches:banghead::)

Let those that want them have them, let those that don't, not. Freedom in a nutshell.

conw
April 20, 2008, 04:08 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Watch the whole thing, or go to 2:10 to hear about a town that passed a city ordinance requiring guns in households.

:)

conw
April 20, 2008, 04:11 PM
BTW, I think some of you guys don't get this: the federal gov't should not have the power to legislate mandatory gun ownership in the US, but it's totally legit to have a local or even statewide law that says so. The states are supposed to be more powerful than the federal government.

Samuel Adams
April 20, 2008, 04:32 PM
We shouldn't be forced to do anything. On the other hand take a look at the "mandatory" gun ownership law in Kennesaw, Georgia. It isn't enforced for a variety of reasons but their crime rate is next to nothing because the bad guys don't want a chance encounter with an armed home owner.

yokel
April 20, 2008, 04:44 PM
If we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary--something that is very difficult to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

General Geoff
April 20, 2008, 05:18 PM
Gun ownership should be encouraged, but not mandated.




Firearm safety and marksmanship should, however, be a mandatory course in public school at some point.

Coyote Blue
April 20, 2008, 08:51 PM
Remeber, the population of Switzerland is only 7.5million. Ga alone has 4.6million. The USA has 304 million.

Like the difference between teaching 8 people to safely handle firearms and teaching 304 people.

It's not the total population thats the primary factor.
Its the demographic make up
of that population.
Honalulu ,Hawaii population is 372,000, Murder rate per 100,000 residents ,1.7.
Camden,N.J population is 72,000 ,Murder rate per 100,000 residents,31.4.

That's the difference.A big difference.

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 05:46 PM
I am all right with that idea. Look at Kennesaw, Georgia, where a law required all citizens to keep firearms and trained how to use them if need be. Their crime rate is nonexistent. Kennesaw is also one of the best towns to live in:)

However, on a national scale, we must be sure that those few who misuse guns will not be able to have any access to them, and no parole either. Crime with guns means stiff sentence.

berrieberrie
April 21, 2008, 05:59 PM
Just a minor correction: Switzerland does NOT have "mandatory gun ownership" (however great that sounds). It does have obligatory military service, and during your service (and membership of the reserve capacity, totalling about 10 years), you have to keep your issued gun at home, in the true spirit of the "militia" - but that's about as far as it goes.

GEM
April 21, 2008, 06:08 PM
The Swiss are having some doubts about it also. Search on it.

Having to qualify each year to vote. Give me a break. When the Bugs attack Earth, we can put that idea forward.

A free society doesn't mandate what such things, anymore than it mandates you go to church.

ctdonath
April 22, 2008, 04:32 PM
No.

This is an issue that was addressed in various ways by the Founding Fathers when writing the 2ndA and similar declarations. Then, like now, they recognized there are some people who, for personally significant reasons, wish not to do so. In a society allegedly priding itself on personal liberty, one should have the liberty to or not to own arms. Enough will choose to do so (at least 1/3rd under our current level of restrictions) to assure there is enough firepower at hand for a general and formidible militia to rise up, even without compulsary arms & training.

My favorite example:
Annually, some 18,000,000 snipers engage in live-fire live-target war games. Each is fully equipped & provided with scoped high-power rifle, ammo, cammo, comms, transport, interpersonal networking/coordination, maps/orienteering, logistics, etc. Each has tacitly registered their activities with the local government, and has undergone basic training satisfactory to those gov't officials authorized to coordinate that training. A majority have been declared & registered as members of the US militia as prescribed by Congress; most of those not members are either former members continuing their service voluntarily, or are in voluntary training to become members. Their total numbers far overwhelm the "trigger-pullers" of any military on this planet by orders of magnitude, making the Swiss officer's famous comment "shoot twice and go home" comment pale in comparison.
And that's just operation "Deer Season".

conw
April 22, 2008, 10:15 PM
ctdonath, with all due respect, I have heard multiple times that many great deer hunters who join the armed forces do not make great snipers.

Oana
April 22, 2008, 10:25 PM
Mandatory? The less the government attempts to regulate what we should/should not have, the better, methinks. Plus, as someone pointed out, some religious groups consider themselves pacifists and wouldn't take too kindly to that.

archigos
April 22, 2008, 10:40 PM
some religious groups consider themselves pacifists and wouldn't take too kindly to that
Then they can shoot cans and bottles!
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on the fact that the government shouldn't be regulating -anything- that isn't harmful to another person.

Oana
April 23, 2008, 01:47 AM
I knew someone was gonna say that. :D

archigos
April 23, 2008, 02:09 AM
Eliminate 2 positions from every local police department (of any substantial size, at least... this wouldn't work for towns with 5-man departments).
Use the money to buy something like a Kel-Tec or Ruger LCP in bulk. In my town, eliminating 2 positions at their starting salary would provide $100,000 per year. Assuming these self-defense pistols could be purchased in bulk at a lower price - probably $250 or so each (at a high estimate), this would enable that locality to purchase 400 pistols per year to distribute for self defense.
Add training classes - which wouldn't be a huge expense, just some of the time of the resources that these police forces currently retain - and give the weapons to law-abiding citizens on a first come, first serve basis. You could even give these weapons out on a "loan" - where they don't actually belong to the people - they're just borrowed free of charge as long as the citizen is not convicted of any crime other than motor vehicle infractions. If any convictions occur, the guns are not "held", they are inspected and redistributed. Within 10 years, 4000 citizens in good standing in each of these localities could be armed. These numbers, could of course, be adjusted to fit the population of the area.
I'm almost certain that this would act as much more of a deterrent to crime than 2 police officers. The aforementioned "loan" would deter even non-violent crime, as people participating in the program would lose their government-sponsored means of self defense should they commit any crime.

I kindof like this idea... that being said, I'd still prefer to just see tax cuts and let people buy their own weapons with their savings, but it wouldn't act as much as a deterrent. And yes, I know that the communitarian NY government would never allow either to happen.

shield20
April 23, 2008, 10:26 AM
Way back when it was mandatory that all "militia members" (+/- all able bodied males 17-45 with some exceptions) own guns. It was decided - constitutionally - that a very small army, and the people so armed along with some discipline, represented the best security of a free state.

Since that time the people have decided that they really don't want the aggravation of being part of a well-organized militia, they really don't want the responsibility of providing the security for the nation; and that a well-funded professsional (typically volunteer) military & a (typically vounteer) select militia are the best security.

I will always want the choice to be armed. I enjoy some of the intended individual protection of the 2nd amendment in securing that right, and rightly do so though I am not REALLY part of a "well-regulated militia of the several states". (I would serve in the militia though if it was still reguired.)

I think it would be foolish to deny others that same choice. Making people do anything they don't want to do, especially without offering proven benefits or something substantial in return (say - improved freedom from tyranny as the founders sought) is not a good idea. I know I don't like it when the govt says I can't have a certain gun, for instance - for no good reason. Making gun haters have to own a gun would be the same.


Mandatory safety classes would be a good idea though - they would tend to offer positive results.

newbie4help
April 23, 2008, 10:41 AM
It's not a reasonable inference to claim that our homicide rate would be comparable to Switzerland's if we did what they did. First of all, it's not quite accurate to say they have mandatory gun ownership. If I recall correctly every male is compulsorily in the army and between *certain ages* will have an M-4. This weeds out people you do not want owning guns. After he retires he has the option of retaining the gun. Secondly, there are *huge* demographic differences between the U.S. and Switzerland. Most Swiss are of european descent and can speak 3 languages (German, French, Italian). They don't have the big inner cities and the massive drug trade like we do. But it is true that they have liberal gun laws and a huge gun culture with widespread ownership. You just need to be clear that this is not due to the *mandatory* part.

With that said mandatory gun ownership would probably *reduce* crime, like it has done in some cities in America. Look up Kennesaw Georgia. Their burglary rate plummeted when gun ownership became mandatory for every head of household. Several other cities have done the same across America.

There has also been suggestions that the low crime rate in the "old" American West (contrary to the Hollywood image) was due to almost universal handgun possession, including by women.

We need to be realistic about why we have so much gun violence. The gun violence is not coming from middle class Americans owning firearms - the majority comes from inner cities and crime-related violence. If we could disarm those people it would in fact be a good thing. The problem is that sweeping gun laws just tend to disarm law-abiding citizens while there remains an illicit trade in guns and ammo since there is such a high demand among them. We need to solve these root demographic problems. Liberalizing our drug laws would be a huge positive step because it would curtail organized crime - and they have not been effective at all anyway; also eliminating the minimum wage would be a step in the right direction because like any other price floor it simply causes a shortage of the good (labor) which results in higher unemployment among the very poor and minorities especially.

If you enjoyed reading about "mandatory gun ownership?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!