Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Let's take the initiative!

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-10
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    793

    Let's take the initiative!

    Why constantly respond reactively against the anti gunners?

    I say we should re-enact the old laws which required each household to

    own a gun for the good of the community.

    In Switzerland, the National Militia has a male member of every family. They keep their uniforms, GUNS, and equipment at home.

    IIRC, they also have a stupendously LOW crime rate...

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    A couple of towns already did that. Kennesaw, GA comes to mind. There is at least one other one I can't think of at the moment.
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-09-10
    Posts
    416
    Zespectre already slapped me for suggesting that every homeowner be required to have a shotgun. He is correct about protecting our free will to choose.
    I was po'ed at the local murder defendants costing us a few million dollars this county can ill afford. My thinking has changed dramatically since then and anyone unarmed should not expect the tax payers to be too concerned about their safety. Except the criminals will become more embolden if we don't fry them.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-29-07
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    238
    I say we should re-enact the old laws which required each household to own a gun for the good of the community.
    This would create a huge amount of ill will toward pro-gun folks by those who are currently neutral on gun control.
    Last edited by DaveBeal; December 30th, 2010 at 06:59 PM.
    America has plenty of problems. Don't be a single-issue voter.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    This would create a huge amount of ill will toward pro-gun folks by those that are currently neutral on gun control.
    As opposed to the ill will that was created by mandating that people buy health insurance? At least the right to arms is recognized in the Constitution, as is the power to raise, equip, and train a militia.

    Either the government can tell people to buy a product (under threat of fines or imprisonment) or not. If the government can tell people they MUST buy something then the implements of national defense seem like the most obvious.

    Why stop at a gun? Any person capable of firing that weapon must also have:
    - helmet
    - ballistic vest
    - boots
    - battle dress uniform
    - canteens
    - spare magazines
    - sufficient amount of ammunition (I'll leave the definition of "sufficient" for the reader)
    - utility belt, complete with pouches for ammunition and canteens and other items
    - first aid kit
    - cold weather gear (parka, gloves, patrol cap at a minimum)
    - wet weather gear, poncho/raincoat
    - field rations for a three day hike
    - compass
    - flashlight

    The First Lady has expressed a concern that our nation's health is a matter of national security. I would agree. I also feel that people unfamiliar with the tools of national defense is also a matter of national security. We should have government sponsored marksmanship matches where all should be encouraged (I'll leave the definition of "encourage" to the reader) to participate.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    Why stop at a gun? Any person capable of firing that weapon must also have:
    - helmet
    - ballistic vest
    - boots
    - battle dress uniform
    - canteens
    - spare magazines
    - sufficient amount of ammunition (I'll leave the definition of "sufficient" for the reader)
    - utility belt, complete with pouches for ammunition and canteens and other items
    - first aid kit
    - cold weather gear (parka, gloves, patrol cap at a minimum)
    - wet weather gear, poncho/raincoat
    - field rations for a three day hike
    - compass
    - flashlight
    That's pretty awesome. Now, how many people you randomly pull off the street would have the ability to so much as put this stuff on, let alone use it?
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Illiana
    Posts
    5,654
    The most positive RKBA vibes I have experienced were in communities that shared the following:

    - Police viewed themselves as part of the community, not a separate elite
    - Strong outdoors (e.g. hunting, fishing) culture among many
    - rural or town, not suburban (not sure why)
    - Shooting sports (e.g. bulleye, trap, bowling pin matches) viewed as a legitimate recreational activity equal to perhaps bowling or golf

    Anybody else share that experience? What can we do to promote the accepting mood?
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    That's pretty awesome. Now, how many people you randomly pull off the street would have the ability to so much as put this stuff on, let alone use it?
    I don't know, quite a few I suspect. I've seen mothers with a large diaper bag on one shoulder, one kid in one arm while the other is holding the hand of another child or pushing one in a stroller. If they can handle a walk through the mall like that for a couple hours then they are fit enough to wear personal armor and carry a pistol.

    Also, I'm not saying they have to carry all that stuff, they just have to own it. If the balloons go up then they will need this gear to either defend their home or pack it all in the minivan (along with little Jenny and Bobby) for what could be a long drive out of Dodge.

    What can we do to promote the accepting mood?
    Constitutional carry laws.

    We need to remove the prejudice from the law against peaceful gun ownership. I think that if that happens then many other good things will likely follow. If the ownership of personal defense tools is no longer demonized then people's views should shift to be more accepting of it and more people will desire the ability to practice it.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    Also, I'm not saying they have to carry all that stuff, they just have to own it.
    Looks like you are trying to use the Swiss model. In Switzerland they don't just pass out rifles. They have pretty stringent training requirements. People spend significant time on it and Swiss employers are obligated by law to let people off work for it. There is quite a bit more to effective militia than a closetful of gear.
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-29-07
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by IA Farmboy
    As opposed to the ill will that was created by mandating that people buy health insurance? At least the right to arms is recognized in the Constitution, as is the power to raise, equip, and train a militia.

    Either the government can tell people to buy a product (under threat of fines or imprisonment) or not. If the government can tell people they MUST buy something then the implements of national defense seem like the most obvious.
    My comment had nothing to do with what the government can and cannot do. My point was just that forcing people who are anti or neutral on guns to buy them would certainly not improve their opinion of pro-gun folk. Your example of health insurance is an excellent example of the backlash it would cause.
    America has plenty of problems. Don't be a single-issue voter.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Illiana
    Posts
    5,654
    Coercion is not the best way to win friends and influence people.

    Some long dead person named Dale Carnegie wrote a book about it. He was right and its still true.
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    My point was just that forcing people who are anti or neutral on guns to buy them would certainly not improve their opinion of pro-gun folk.
    Agreed. My point (though I admit I was not very upfront about it) was that if the government is empowered to tell us what to buy then we must take the good with the bad. It appears that we have already established (with the new "health care" law) that the government does have the power to tell us what to buy. Also it appears that it is everyone's responsibility to assure national security (with DHS "see something, say something" PSAs, and the First Lady's fitness programs) so therefore I must conclude that the government will soon mandate that we buy the gear to be minutemen.

    I believe that granting the government the power to compel us to buy something (whether we want it or not) is very dangerous. Unlike the health care law at least a mandate to purchase our own gear to become soldiers has some mention in the Constitution. The arming of the militia has one important prerequisite, the militia must be called to service. That would imply either a draft or one must volunteer.

    Whether or not a state can impose a requirement that one must purchase a firearm would vary on the state constitution. A free society cannot exist if any governing body imposes the requirement that one buy a product and so I suspect such a requirement would be struck down under constitutional challenge or public outrage.

    Getting off topic here but finishing my thought....
    This is why I feel that the mandate to purchase health insurance will fail. It will fall under constitutional challenge (and there are many avenues for this to happen) or it will fall from public outrage.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-10
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    793
    This is great input, thank you all.

    Does anyone else have any ideas of laws which we could back, which would

    seize the initiative from the gun control crowd?

    We're NEVER going to bury the Brady Bunch if we always respond defensively.

    Bear in mind the enforcement of this "must own" law need not be draconian. It

    would merely defeat "confiscation and control" laws by being a legal supercession.

    IA farmboy may have a good point, also. The next national military emergency may need a strong militia

    far more than we know. It never hurts to be prepared, given the disastrous cost of being

    unready when the chips are down...

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    Once again, do a little research into what the Swiss system actually entails. Requiring equipment ownership does not make for a strong militia.

    Now, if there were laws requiring employers to let people off work for militia drill, that might make a useful difference.
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  15. #15
    Member  
    Join Date
    01-25-08
    Posts
    303

    @ : White Horseradish

    Quote:Why stop at a gun? Any person capable of firing that weapon must also have:end quote. Make those items a tax write off and it will work, maybe. But, living near Lake Michigan, can I buy, arm, and man a yacht and take it off my taxes? I'd use it to take Lake tours with those fellows who have not yet had "The Unfortunate Boating Incident" on said Lake. Tour is free (BYOB) but I also do salvage work, part-time. Also, as to paid time off for drills, don't WE make the laws? Make them to suit us. Oh, that's right: we are a representative democracy, so that won't work. OOoops. Dao.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    Can we maybe take a couple of steps back and define what end goal are we taking about here? Is it just a discount on toys for everyone? Is it sticking it to the political opposition? Is it just to get more guns out there as an end unto itself? Or do we want to have an actual effective militia?
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-16-07
    Location
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    Posts
    1,362
    Actually it would be interesting to see how they would attack such a law. If we had a law and they came out saying that the federal government has no right to force people to buy anything, can we turn around and say, "you mean like health insurance?"
    It's 2 AM....do you know where your rights are?

    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

    megaboraphobia n. The fear of large calibers

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    Once again, do a little research into what the Swiss system actually entails. Requiring equipment ownership does not make for a strong militia.
    You are correct. Proper equipment is required but not sufficient for an effective militia. Along with the equipment a militia member needs a strong body and mind. Since this is a discussion about the equipment I left out the details on physical and mental fitness. If you want to discuss that I'm okay with it.

    Since we are talking about the unorganized militia here I would expect the bar to be set relatively low for physical fitness. There is also a matter of what "penalty" one would get for not meeting the physical fitness standards. If the "penalty" is to not be required to purchase the equipment (as in if the person can not be expected to use the equipment effectively then there is little use in having the person get the equipment) then that is not much of a "penalty" since that equipment could be quite expensive.

    I supposed a person could be expected to prove physical fitness and get a stipend for the purchase of the equipment. Perhaps a note from a physician along with one's tax return would result in a stipend with the expectation that the funds will be used to purchase and maintain the equipment.

    The mental capability will be more difficult to test. To be an effective part of the militia one must demonstrate the ability to both follow and give orders, understand the chain of command, stay focused, along with other attributes. Again, what is the "penalty" for not demonstrating these attributes? How will these attributes be tested?

    Perhaps an incentive to get this equipment is not necessary, at least not a monetary one, but just allowing people to have the equipment is enough. Allow people to own the same tools as the military and the people might just go out to equip themselves because it is the right thing to do.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    I think concentrating strictly on equipment will basically get us to a "fun toy discount", which really would be a form of free government cheese. I would really rather not go that route.

    Now, if you were to come up with some mechanisms for a regular Joe not part of NG to get some training and not lose his job in the process, I would say the toy discount would be warranted.

    With the equipment that is widely available now we could put forth a pretty formidable force. Without training we get this:



    Maybe a beefing up of the existing programs would be useful. Appleseed and CMP go a long way, but they are concentrated strictly on long distance rifle skills.

    Also, I am finding that one of the things that keep me from shooting more is ammo cost. .308 and .223 ain't cheap these days, and surplus isn't there like it used to be. Maybe supplying ammo would be more useful than supplying equipment.
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    Maybe supplying ammo would be more useful than supplying equipment.
    I don't like the idea of government subsidies no matter what its form. Subsidizing the cost of ammunition cannot reduce the total cost one pays for the ammunition, only increase it. One might see a lower cost on the box but the difference was paid through taxes and then some because of all the overhead in pushing the paper around to make it happen.

    I feel the same pain but the government can do little to lower the cost of copper and lead. Only the free market and competition can lower costs and so I can only assume that with the large market in ammunition today that the prices are about as low as they can reasonably get right now.

    I think concentrating strictly on equipment will basically get us to a "fun toy discount", which really would be a form of free government cheese. I would really rather not go that route.
    I disagree. It would not be a "fun toy discount" because under my proposal the government would not be providing the equipment, but instead providing a monetary incentive to purchase the equipment in the free market. The government would set the standards for the equipment, much like how they do now with screw threads, electrical outlets, gasoline content, and so on. Once the standards are set the free market will do what it does best to fulfill those requirements at the lowest cost and highest quality.

    Suppose the government imposed a (pulling a number out of the blue) $600 tax/fee/fine on anyone that did not own a government approved firearm every year. With that high of a tax it would be cheaper for a person to go out and purchase, for example, a M9 pistol than pay the fine every year. There would be manufacturers tripping over themselves trying to make an M9 cheaper than the other guy while still meeting DOD standards for a government issued weapon.

    Then the issue comes up of what to do with the people that cannot afford to purchase the government required weapon, or the person that cannot (because of some physical attribute) or will not (because of some religious or moral objection) hold a weapon. The simple solution for those that will not purchase a weapon is to tell them to suck it up and pay the fee. The simple answer to the person that cannot hold the weapon is to tell them to suck it up and either purchase the weapon anyway (and presumably offer it to anyone that will act in their stead should the need arise) or pay the fee.

    If a person is in such poverty that they cannot afford either the weapon or the fee for failure to purchase the weapon then that should be evident while filing income taxes. Income below a certain level should be sufficient to waiver the fee and the requirement to purchase the weapon.

    An aside on income taxes:
    I feel that federal income taxes is a violation of the federated system established by the founders of this nation and should be abolished as it is a threat to the balance of powers required to prevent a runaway central government. I have no issue with state income taxes excepting the double taxation that occurs in states that have both income taxes and a sales tax. I mention income taxes as a potential means to administer and enforce the policy that everyone be armed but not to endorse income taxes as an inevitability.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-10
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    793
    Maybe we can get an award for militia-ready households of GOVERMENT CHEESE!

    The point would be to establish RKBA law FIRST, IMO. A stronger militia or local emergency force reserve would only be a side benefit.

    "Don't worry sir. I'm from the internet!" YAK,YAK, YAK! Good one.

    How about any other laws we could introduce which would assist gun owners?

    How about FEDERALLY mandated Castle Doctrine?

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-04
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,518
    I'm still a little fuzzy on what we are trying to achieve if an effective militia is merely a side effect.

    How about FEDERALLY mandated Castle Doctrine?
    How would you fit that under interstate commerce?
    ...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed;
    and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience
    willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be
    secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain
    and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together.

    Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XIV

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-10
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    793
    Ah, boy. Double post, sorry.
    Last edited by therewolf; January 2nd, 2011 at 01:52 AM. Reason: DP-oopsies!

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-10
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    793
    The point of the thread is to consider sponsoring more gun user law than gun control law.

    It would be beneficial, IMO, if Federal mandates were more supportive of the
    Second Amendment.

    The point is not to specifically START a militia, I would be leaning more towards establishing laws in which a large national citizen's militia
    would again be feasible.

    Neither do we want to rush out to each household and punish EVERY person
    who doesn't have an anti-aircraft gun sticking out their bedroom window.
    The point is to establish laws which would make gun ownership by the public more mainstream and acceptable, ESPECIALLY in states like NJ.

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-25-02
    Location
    Southern Ohio
    Posts
    3,840
    How would you fit that under interstate commerce?
    It cannot and should not be done.

    Neither should the 'forced' laws suggested here.

    More laws equal less freedom.

    Nothing to see here........
    Jamie

    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •