Robert J McElwain
Member
I'm reminded of this every time I go to the firing range. Politest people on earth.
mandatory gun ownership?
- Thread starter mek42
- Start date
- Status
I'm reminded of this every time I go to the firing range. Politest people on earth.
Robert J McElwain
Member
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
Bob
csmkersh
Member
The Amish do use firearms for hunting, but not for self defense.
TEDDY
Member
arms ownership
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.
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.
MASTEROFMALICE
member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 711
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?
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?
>
>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.
>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.
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
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.
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.
Watch the whole thing, or go to 2:10 to hear about a town that passed a city ordinance requiring guns in households.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
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
Member
Gun ownership should be encouraged, but not mandated.
Firearm safety and marksmanship should, however, be a mandatory course in public school at some point.
Firearm safety and marksmanship should, however, be a mandatory course in public school at some point.
Coyote Blue
member
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 59
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.
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.
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
Member
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".
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".
archigos
Member
Then they can shoot cans and bottles!Oana said:
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.
archigos
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 229
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.
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.
- Status
