You are required by law to own a gun

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, look. He's trying to compare health insurance to gun ownership. That's adorable...

Actually, I'm not.

Then what are you doing?

Asking a question and looking for your answer.

 

[saveliberty]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Giving yourself less options is a fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In upholding the ACA's individual mandate as Constitutional, the Supreme Court noted that “Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Would the 'law' proposed by the OP withstand a court challenge – would Congress' use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying firearms be likewise beneficial, given the fact one is more likely to die from a gun in the home than use that gun for self defense.

Moreover, such a 'law' would be difficult to 'justify' in the context of the states' national guards, and the military of the United States, to defend citizens in the event of an attack or invasion by a hostile foreign power; indeed, given a state's national guard alone renders the OP's proposed 'militia' an irrelevant anachronism unwarranted and devoid of merit, making the question in the thread premise moot.

 

[Arianrhod]

Oh, look. He's trying to compare health insurance to gun ownership. That's adorable...

Actually, I'm not.

Then what are you doing?

Asking a question and looking for your answer.

And when you get answers that don't buy into your scenario, you're not going to say "Hah, but you'll bend over for Obamacare!"?

 

[Arianrhod]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Giving yourself less options is a fail.

Whereas not knowing the difference between "less" and "fewer" is a failure...

 

[2aguy]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

The only way you would endanger anyone with a firearm is if you chose to endanger them

I and many people I know own guns and have for decades and none of them have ever endangered anyone with their firearms

That you know of. Which is great.

It hasn't happened at all

That you know of.

Just out of curiosity...the lines you see in the morning outside of Dicks Sporting Goods to buy weaponry...do you think that those 30-50 people are all as responsible as you and your decades long friends?

In a few years (if not months), we're going to have shootouts on the freeways from people cutting each other off in traffic; gunfights over parking spaces and probably some posters on message boards will try to track down others whom they disagree with. I'm hoping that e-commerce eliminates the Black Friday fights because there will likely be a massacre over a Samsung TV next year.

Then someone who is a liberal will suggest that we teach conflict resolution (without guns) in the gun safety courses. And there will be lot of folks who will say that it infringes on their 2nd Amendment.

You know in the 1990s when Florida became the first state to spur the concealed carry permit movement people like you said the same thing...that allowing normal, non violent, non criminal people to own guns would lead to shootouts at every traffic altercation and murder in every gun owning home........

you were wrong on all counts and you were wrong each time you said it about each new state that passed concealed,carry laws.....

we now have every state with some form of fun carrying law...and our gun murder rate, our gun accidental death rate and our gun suicide rate has gone down 50%

We now have over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense and our gun murder rate has gone down, not up...and our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up.....

You are wrong....people like you have been wrong on everything you have claimed....every time you tried to claim it...

 

[saveliberty]

Fewer is used when only a small number of units are available to begin with. Less simply means a smaller number than is possible. Idiot

 

[saveliberty]

Fewer is used when only a small number of units are available to begin with. Less simply means a smaller number than is possible. Idiot

 

[2aguy]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

And with over 357 million guns in private hands now...and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013......gun accidents are not a problem..since American gun owners who are normal, are extremely responsible.

They were to 505 people. And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

It won't inform the callous conservatives who only give a damn about themselves and their rights. These children and their teachers lost the fundamental right to life.

Sadly they are not alone, and they will be joined by other innocents whose life will be taken, a direct result of the cowardice, dispassion and insouciance of the NRA, The Congress and the Five Members of the Supreme Court whose misfeasance on gun control and campaign finance reform is wrong headed and despicable.

You are the people who created fun free zones for our kids....while the politicians who passed those laws for you hide behind heavily armed, gun toting security..........you made it possible for killers to murder because there was no one there to stop them...those deaths are on you............

not one gun control measures you wanted stopped any of the mass shooters who went to gun free zones you created and murdered people because good people were disarmed by the very gun control you passed.

your gun control laws worked like a charm.......not one normal gun owner was armed in your gun free zones when the killers came to murder innocent people.....you won.......gun control worked perfectly.........law abiding people were defenseless in the face of killers you helped.....

congratulations....

 

[2aguy]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

And with over 357 million guns in private hands now...and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013......gun accidents are not a problem..since American gun owners who are normal, are extremely responsible.

They were to 505 people. And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

It won't inform the callous conservatives who only give a damn about themselves and their rights. These children and their teachers lost the fundamental right to life.

Sadly they are not alone, and they will be joined by other innocents whose life will be taken, a direct result of the cowardice, dispassion and insouciance of the NRA, The Congress and the Five Members of the Supreme Court whose misfeasance on gun control and campaign finance reform is wrong headed and despicable.

and you guys support millions of humans being murdere each year......just for your convenience.......they are children too and you don't care....

 

[Arianrhod]

Fewer is used when only a small number of units are available to begin with. Less simply means a smaller number than is possible. Idiot

"Fewer" is used when there is a measurable number. The sign in your supermarket should read "15 items or fewer."

"Less" is for a number than cannot be measured. "There is less sand on this beach than there is on that one."

And the subject/verb agreement in your first sentence is incorrect. You also forgot the punctuation on the third.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In upholding the ACA's....

Irrelevant.
Which do you choose?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, look. He's trying to compare health insurance to gun ownership. That's adorable...

Actually, I'm not.

Then what are you doing?

Asking a question and looking for your answer.

And when you get answers that don't buy into your scenario, you're not going to say "Hah, but you'll bend over for Obamacare!"?

Still looking for your answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The notion of compelling firearm ownership pursuant to 'militia service' is likewise Constitutionally in doubt.

As the Heller Court observed:

'Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.
[...]
An 1829 decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan said: “The constitution of the United States also grants to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms. But the grant of this privilege cannot be construed into the right in him who keeps a gun to destroy his neighbor. No rights are intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose.” United States v. Sheldon, in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan 337, 346 (W. Blume ed. 1940) (hereinafter Blume). It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an individual right unconnected to militia service. If it did have to do with militia service, the limitation upon it would not be any “unlawful or unjustifiable purpose,” but any nonmilitary purpose whatsoever.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Citizens who possess or own firearms of their own free will might voluntarily join a 'militia,' as the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess a firearm; but requiring firearm ownership with 'militia service' as 'justification' finds no grounds for support per current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to possess a firearm immune from unwarranted attack by the state, it does not 'license' government to compel ownership of firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The notion of compelling firearm ownership pursuant to 'militia service' is likewise Constitutionally in doubt.

Irrelevant.
Which do you choose?

 

[2aguy]

The notion of compelling firearm ownership pursuant to 'militia service' is likewise Constitutionally in doubt.

As the Heller Court observed:

'Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.
[...]
An 1829 decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan said: “The constitution of the United States also grants to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms. But the grant of this privilege cannot be construed into the right in him who keeps a gun to destroy his neighbor. No rights are intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose.” United States v. Sheldon, in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan 337, 346 (W. Blume ed. 1940) (hereinafter Blume). It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an individual right unconnected to militia service. If it did have to do with militia service, the limitation upon it would not be any “unlawful or unjustifiable purpose,” but any nonmilitary purpose whatsoever.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Citizens who possess or own firearms of their own free will might voluntarily join a 'militia,' as the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess a firearm; but requiring firearm ownership with 'militia service' as 'justification' finds no grounds for support per current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to possess a firearm immune from unwarranted attack by the state, it does not 'license' government to compel ownership of firearms.

Nor did the Constitution give the government the power to force people to buy things they did not want...like healthcare....yet 5 lawyers said so........and now we have to buy healthcare......

 

[Arianrhod]

Oh, look. He's trying to compare health insurance to gun ownership. That's adorable...

Actually, I'm not.

Then what are you doing?

Asking a question and looking for your answer.

And when you get answers that don't buy into your scenario, you're not going to say "Hah, but you'll bend over for Obamacare!"?

Still looking for your answer.

Still waiting for you to state that your scenario isn't intended to be a "Gotcha."

 

[candycorn]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Giving yourself less options is a fail.

Plenty of options exist.

 

[candycorn]

That you know of. Which is great.

It hasn't happened at all

That you know of.

Just out of curiosity...the lines you see in the morning outside of Dicks Sporting Goods to buy weaponry...do you think that those 30-50 people are all as responsible as you and your decades long friends?

In a few years (if not months), we're going to have shootouts on the freeways from people cutting each other off in traffic; gunfights over parking spaces and probably some posters on message boards will try to track down others whom they disagree with. I'm hoping that e-commerce eliminates the Black Friday fights because there will likely be a massacre over a Samsung TV next year.

Then someone who is a liberal will suggest that we teach conflict resolution (without guns) in the gun safety courses. And there will be lot of folks who will say that it infringes on their 2nd Amendment.

Couldn't say and gun ownership has been on the rise while violent crime has been on the decline

So if you can predict all these highway shootouts then you must know the winning numbers for the next power ball so why don't you win the lottery and then you can hire all the armed guards you need to protect you from the other people with guns that scare you so mich

Well, that's nothing new...Carson did a monologue about freeway shootouts in LA once. When we have this many new gun owners, this many people who have no social skills, and are buying into this much hatred...it's going to manifest itself in various ways.

I just predicted 3 of them. There will be many more manifestations.

Get back to me when you're a millionaire

Shouldn't be long.... I hope I'm wrong that all of these people are level headed and aren't going to carry it around in their glove compartment or beneath their car seat. I think we both know better.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, I'm not.

Then what are you doing?

Asking a question and looking for your answer.

And when you get answers that don't buy into your scenario, you're not going to say "Hah, but you'll bend over for Obamacare!"?

Still looking for your answer.

Still waiting for you to state that your scenario isn't intended to be a "Gotcha."

Its all a "gotcha" or at least designed to be. Its the only time gun ownership makes sense if you're living in a society where there are laws and people who abide by them. It has to be a "what if" that eliminates the safety of experienced, professional law enforcement and makes you scared.