Everyone should own a firearm

[FWiedner]

Everyone should own a firearm

by Matt Hamilton


    “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.

http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/20/435708cf7a84e


*FW Note:

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.

Yet he wants to hand the state the authority to mandate training to fulfill regulation requirements and then tax those citizens who refuse to cooperate...

This is a fellow with some sort of love-hate thing going on.

I"ll buy into every able-bodied person owning a firearm if they wish to do so.

But I'll draw the line at the state having anything to say about it.

 :-)