tbtrout
Member
Forcing someone to own a firearm is the same backwards thinking as banning ownership of firearms. They both infringe on the personal liberties of the individual.
Given the amount of time most of the population spends watching TV and surfing the net, a minor intrusion would be... well, minor.
A Maverick 88 shotgun costs $200 new. That's about 40 packs of cigarettes or 34 six-packs of beer. It's not much. No, everyone is not making six figures, but most people, even those considered low income, can scrape together for it.
Perhaps the rule should be you must own a gun before you can get cable TV.
Probably the hardest to refute, but, as they say: Freedom isn't free.
So do many other activities that don't involve lethal force.1. Builds character and responsibility , (especially in youth).
It may have been the case a long time ago for the Japanese in WWII, but it sure isn't helping stop illegal immigration or suicide bombers.2. Strong deterent against invasion (if you don't believe it, read up on the quotes from the Imprerial Japanese Naval Admiralty and why they didn't op for a ground amphibious invasion of San Diego harbor in WWII).
Deters crime? Not necessarily. This isn't supported by FBI crime stats.3. Deters domestic crime, home invasion, (the old adage from Heinlein, an armed society is a polite society, it is true).
Many non-lethal pursuits encourage recreational activities, social bonding, etc. and problems other pursuits.4. Encourages recreational activity and grows the shooting sports, a great coomraidare and social bond).
How is that really a compromise? You'd still be forcing people to own things they would rather not own. What is the goal you're trying to reach? It seems like a great way to wind up with a bunch of neglected (in the sense of safe secure storage and maintenance) guns that ultimately we'll all pay for with higher taxes.How about this for a compromise---required ownership for all voting eligible property owners, and the local municipality reduces their first year's property taxes by (or amortizes over, say, three years' taxes) the cost of a given 12- or 16-gauge shotgun and a hundred rounds?
Well, if you look back at the history of the early Republic, the whole "well regulated militia" thing (as we all know, *not* the National Guard) referred to all able-bodied males; said militia men in most (all?) districts were expected to turn out for regular muster, and they were expected to have their muskets with them. The men could be fined for not presenting their weapons at muster. And, of course, these were not government hand-outs or subsidies. They were the able-bodied men's own personally owned, military-grade assault weapons.
"military grade assault weapons"? LOL In the 1700s, it wasn't like military rifles were rolling off assembly lines, all with interchangeable parts. Most were still hand made, all parts unique.
Plus, there was no police. There was no 911.
In the 1700s, it wasn't like military rifles were rolling off assembly lines, all with interchangeable parts. Most were still hand made, all parts unique. There wasn't a lot of technological difference between "military" rifles and personal rifles.
If you want a source on the militia obligations, look up any of the recent scholarly entries on the topic at Clayton Cramer's blog. He's been talking about it a lot lately.
Nope, it was in the early 1700s in France.(As an aside, wasn't it during the Revolution that some Colonial came up with interchangeable gun parts, thus enhancing the Colonists rather poor logistical capability versus that of the Big Bad Red-Coats?
You just made his point for him. Militia arms were expected to be of quality with military issue. I'll take an air-cooled Browning, thank you.
Crimoney. For people who do so much squealing about freedom, when it's something you think is a good idea, forcing something on other people is something you find easy to excuse.
The right to arms started as a duty. There is no reason it should not remain a duty.
Unless you were a Pennslyvanian Quaker or a Dutch/German Amish/Mennonite, i.e., religious C.O. (Read Mason/Madison's first attempt at the 2nd that they sent to the House for discussion and voting. Later edited by the Senate into a more abbreviate format, then crystal clear, now muddied by the befuddled, ignorant and willful disarmament segment of society).The right to arms started as a duty. There is no reason it should not remain a duty.
And whereas in the infant state of the country defense and protection are absolutely essential, all male inhabitants of the age of fifteen and upwards shall be armed, equipped and accounted in the following manner;
With a musket and bayonet, or rifle, cartridge box and pouch, or, powder horn and bullet pouch, with forty rounds of cartridges or one pound of powder and four pounds of lead, priming wire and brush and fix flints.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Forcing someone to own a firearm is the same backwards thinking as banning ownership of firearms. They both infringe on the personal liberties of the individual.
But what if I prefer a more useful arm, like a Garand or M14?El Tejon said:I would start by making competence with an M16 a requirement for voting.