To say that ObamaCare is controversial is like saying that Grace Kelly was attractive; it doesn’t begin to to capture the depth and breadth of the point being made. And probably the most controversial aspect of healthcare nationalization is the requirement – under penalty of law – that individuals buy health insurance. The constitutionality of that particular issue is moving inexorably toward resolution by the Supreme Court. Opponents argue that if you can tell people they have to buy insurance, there’s no limit to the requirements with which government can saddle them. James Johnson, in a letter to the editor of syracuse.com, takes the idea of an individual mandate to the next logical level suggesting that Americans also be required to purchase a gun. Full text of the letter after the jump…
To the Editor:
There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to health care. Yet the Obama administration passed a law that contains an individual mandate for citizens to purchase health care. The justification is an extremely warped interpretation of the commerce clause.
In contrast, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirming Second Amendment rights, violent crimes plummeted in Chicago. Murder fell by 14 percent, robberies using guns fell by 25 percent and assaults using guns fell by 37 percent.
Also, an armed citizenry is the first line of defense. Based on this, the Republicans in the House should introduce legislation that all citizens who can pass a background check be mandated to purchase a firearm. There is far more justification for this mandate based on the Second Amendment than for the Obamacare mandate, no matter how you try to stretch the commerce clause.
This may not get through the Democratic Senate or past President Obama. If nothing else though, it may give the liberals on the Supreme Court something to think about. After all, there may come a day when the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the presidency. If the government can make us buy health care insurance against our will, there is nothing to stop them from mandating purchase of a firearm.
James Johnson
Baldwinsville
South Dakota is already on it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030246-503544.html
We had already have had a gun mandate. It was found in the Second Militia Act of 1792. Section 1 reads:
“I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
Your comparing apples and oranges. Health care and national defense are significantly different in importance, and the militia act is limited to white males aged 18-45 years old. This article goes into greater detail as to why its different:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/the-use-and-abuse-of-the-founders-the-individual-mandate-is-still-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional/
You are over thinking my comment. The question on the table was is should the government mandate firearms ownership and all I was pointing out was that we had one 1792. But since you brought up the healthcare mandate I will comment on that as well. The Militia Act of 1792 was rooted in the Bill of rights while the healthcare mandate has no such grounding in the Constitution other than emanating from the penumbras of Commerce Clause.
Right on! In keeping with technological progress, an appropriate kit for a modern militia man/woman would be an AR pattern rifle or equivalent, along with a good sidearm , a good supply of loaded, standard capacity magazines for both firearms, and all of the necessary accoutrement for operating independently in the field on a sustained basis. Go light, go fast, go long; keep it simple, cover all of the necessary bases for your AO. It is each individual’s duty, as free and sovereign citizens, to be prepared for the defense of ourselves, our families and our communities, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It’s pretty simple really. I’m pretty sure that the founders would agree.
I don’t care for the AR pattern, prefering delayed blowback (direct gas pressure) as more reliable (extractor failure and gas tube damage can never cause a problem).
The important thing is that the citizen have a weapon that fires ammunition that can be commonly supplied when they are called up.
That would include
5.56mmx45 (or .223 Remington)
7.62mmx51 (or .308 Winchester)
9mm parabellum
.45 Automatic Colt Pistol
12.7mmx99 (.50 BMG)
OK. You don’t like the AR pattern. Fine. AK, M14/M1A1, FN/FAL, G3…suit yourself. Get a kit and keep it real.
12.7 x 99 mm? Yeah, good luck finding that at the local Wal-Mart, cop shop, armory, wherever. Think 5.56 x 45, 7.62 x 39, 7.62 x51, 7.62 x 63, 30 – 30, .38 SPL, 9 x 19mm, .45 ACP, .270 Win., COMMON CALIBERS, not “exotics”.
I don’t want those hippies occupying the major cities to be armed. Just saying. Even if they already are ( which is questionable) they don’t look like they have enough common sense to handle a firearm.
Not a hippie but a member of the 99%, i’m armed (Kel-Tec RFB, FNH FNP-45 Tactical, Ranger Body Armor) and have enough common sense to handle my arms. But keep up with your ad hominem statements.
Where the hell did you actually find an RFB? I’ve talked to like 2 people ever (even on the interwebs) who actually own one. I had one on order at my local place for almost a year, and I was only the second one in line. About 6 months after I cancelled my order a buddy who works there told me that one came through.
I did not know there were so many of you. Where do you guys meet?
matt,with skin that thin you might need body armor.
If you’re a member of the “99%”, then you’re opposed to people being rewarded based on how hard they work and the choices they make – thinking that they should instead be given things simply for existing….so it holds that you’re a “hippie”.
Hippies owning firearms is not a threat, so long as others that are not hippies also own firearms. We let them drive cars too, and that is much more dangerous than are guns.
When you permit hippies firearms or cars, they can self identify as incompetent via accidental discharge, or accident. Then hold them liable for damages, and if they do not immediately pay, strip them of gun owning rights, driving rights, voting rights, bar them from holding any office of trust. That identification and removal of rights is valuable to the republic, and partially compensates for uncompensated damage they may do.
Failure to pay a liability claim should result in removal of rights. That means you, Al Sharpton.
Common sense (or anything else) is not a prerequisite to exercising an enumerated right. That’s just how it goes.
Please don’t remind us of that.
It really scratches my taint when someone makes a statement and then follows with “just saying”…no shit you’re “just saying”, you just said it. What the hell is that point of writing “just saying”?
Did you really just refer to your taint? Say it taint so!
Whats a taint?
No wait, dont answer that!
I would love to see a law that would force these whiney ass gun grabbers to own a gun.
Or you could move to Kennesaw, Georgia where there’s a city ordinance that states every household has to have a gun, unless otherwise prohibited by law (i.e., convicted felons, mentally incompetent, etc.).
Kennesaw, GA
Sorry, I’ll take the other position. I’m not in favor of the government “mandating” anything…….even when it’s something I’m in favor of in general. We’ve got too much government involvement in everything already.
Nothing would move the general population away from our cause faster than requiring them to buy a gun, especially in these economic times.
What have we turned into when we’re not given a choice related to our own lives? We’re getting might close to being an entire country run like a private school.
Free will is inadmissible to the government apparently.
We’re getting might close to being an entire country run like a private school.
It’s more like Germany under Bismarck. But it’s okay. Our leaders care about us. Right?
Yes.
I have about as much faith in my government and politicians in doing the right thing, as I do in a tree magically growing from my ear.
So, 100%
Another reason to move somewhere else. Crap, nowhere else allows firearms like we do, damnit.
Wait, Ralph, you’re losing me. Are you saying there’s a difference?
Hippies owning firearms is not a threat, so long as others that are not hippies also own firearms. We let them drive cars too, and that is much more dangerous than are guns.
When you permit hippies firearms or cars, they can self identify as incompetent via accidental discharge, or accident. Then hold them liable for damages, and if they do not immediately pay, strip them of gun owning rights, driving rights, voting rights, bar them from holding any office of trust. That identification and removal of rights is valuable to the republic, and partially compensates for uncompensated damage they may do.
Failure to pay a liability claim should result in removal of rights. That means you Al Sharpton.
They should use that $30 billion that Biden wants to spend on police to prevent rapes funding Guns for Girls instead – phase one of the guns for citizens mandate. That would be enough 60 million $500 handguns.
How many rapists would think twice about rape then – 1 in 5 women will blow my brains out . . . hmmm
That reminds me – I need to go Christmas shopping.
And in so arming ourselves, it appears our weapons, ammo, and associated gear (accoutrements) would be tax/lien free to boot:
“and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
Wow. Where’s my tax rebate on that 1911 I just bought? And my AR? and, and, and…
I don’t see the Dems rushing out to enforce this law. Heh.
Do you know what this would do to the price of guns? Of ammunition? Of range time?
Every airplane flight would involve five-hour TSA lines as we would continually hear, from the front of the line, “dang, I forgot that was in there.”
Public restrooms would be dangerous places, what with every other belt release being followed by the sound of iron bouncing on tile.
“Mandatory ownership” wouldn’t be passed, of course, until some ranking congressite’s main donor had started up his own manufacturing facility churning out stamped-metal cheapie “gunz” that tended to explode after six shots, with a state-guaranteed market for every single item produced.
In the same bill mandating ownership, I’m sure they would include a hugely expensive insurance requirement (fought for by insurance lobbyists), a lengthy training requirement (fought for by trainers’ lobbyists), weekly intensive weapons cleaning requirements (fought for by solvent company lobbyists), cleaning-solvent disposal procedures (fought for by waste reclamation company lobbyists), safety equipment requirements (fought for by ear plug makers’ lobbyists), noise control requirements (fought for by lobbyists working for silencer manufacturers), “secure holster” requirements (fought for by the plastics industry lobbyists), requirements that a certain percentage of all guns produced be made by minority-or-women-owned companies (fought for by professional whiners), “union content” requirements, handicapped-usability requirements, propellant-pollution limiters, ammunition-tracing requirements, automatic video recording of barrel-eye view with each trigger pull, requirements for non-lethal ammunition only, eye protection rules, prohibitions on one-hand shooting, monthly documented eyesight testing . . .
I mean, please, let’s not even JOKE about getting government involved in this. A weapons requirement would be a Brady dream. Every pistol would weigh thirty pounds, shoot little plastic beads, and cost us thousands per year in new license fees, use-reporting fees, inspection fees, training certificates, ammunition registrations, and affixable union-made-content stickers.
No! Do not mandate proper arms and periodic (1 weekend a year?) call up for re-qualification and group tactical practice.—– Just require it in order to vote.
The cross-eyed, uncoordinated, or otherwise physically, mentally, or ethically unable or unwilling to qualify with individual or squad weapons can substitute 2 weekends practice in support roles (food, fuel, medical, etc.).
Mandate this! The only mandate I want to hear about is mandatory voter ID, mandatory classes on the constitution and mandatory border enforcement.
Not only mandatory firearms purchases, but mandatory cigarette and beer purchases as well.
Think of all the jobs Obama can create by expanding the ATF’s responsibilities.