Heck, Give Everybody a Gun!

John Lott (buy his book), Richard Poe (buy his), and all manner of libertarians have been making the case that widespread gun ownership decreases crime; and that personal gun ownership is consistent with, even guaranteed by, the 2nd amendment. Even the government, following the war between the states, saw it that way as freed black slaves were guaranteed gun-ownership rights because, as several courts decided, gun ownership was the most important test of whether a man is truly free.

Thomas Sowell and John Lott have shown that multiple-shooting incidents, where a single nut goes on a killing spree, happen mainly in gun-free zones (such as government schools), and that multiple shootings are usually terminated only when someone else shows up with a gun to stop the shooter. An exception would be the Columbine massacre, where the shooters killed themselves when they ran out of nearby victims; in that one, the armed sheriff’s deputies stayed outside, away from the shooting, until the shooting stopped. They performed this heroic act on orders from the sheriff.

It should be clear why the government and your local police don’t want you to have guns: If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police, or indeed, the military. More ominously, you can defend your person, property, and family from the government itself: An armed and educated America would not only need to be less afraid of such government crimes as Ruby Ridge and Waco; that sort of America might clamor for the reduction of the size of government, or even the institution of a different one (a natural right our founders understood and held dear). That our government doesn’t like the prospect of individual gun ownership is not unique to the US – governments all over the world have gun-control laws. Naturally, such laws are no more effective elsewhere than they are in the US.

But for the time being, it remains possible for us to purchase and own guns. My recommendation: One pistol per family member, at least one short-barreled shotgun per family, and a deer rifle with a scope per family. Pistols offer mobile, concealed personal protection. Shotguns offer effective home defense. A pump shotgun is even better than a semi-automatic, since the sound of you chambering the first round is usually enough to send an intruder running for his life, so everybody wins – he learns a lesson that might prevent him from entering the next house and you don’t have nightmares about the mess his guts made in your house. The high-powered rifle, for its part, provides a threat even the government must take seriously. Few flak jackets do a very effective job of stopping a heavy, pointed bullet traveling at 2800 feet per second (the most powerful pistols manage at best 1500 fps with a lighter bullet). Additionally, you can be a threat from hundreds of yards with a deer rifle. A large city – heck, even a neighborhood – full of people owning such weapons would be a formidable problem for the ATF.

So there are bunches of reasons for me to want everybody to have guns – crime goes down, and I would venture to place a wager that government would slowly begin shrinking as well.

And I can’t think of a reason for everybody not to have guns. I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do. Just as no criminals walk into a gun show to start a shooting rampage, we can be confident that few, or no, criminals would go on shooting rampages in offices, post offices, schools, or shopping malls.

Of course, our political left wing warns us ad infinitum that our society would deteriorate into daily shootouts if everybody walked around carrying a gun. Not so. Think about the current situation: We are allowed to drive cars and to carry baseball bats. You can kill lots of people with either. Nobody ever does it. The 99% of us who aren’t criminal kooks simply don’t go around hurting other people. Think about all the people you work with, see at the grocery store, meet at church and social occasions: How many of those people would you fear? Some of the stronger ones among them already are able to kill you with their fists. How often do they do that?

So: It has been established empirically that we would have less ordinary crime if everybody walked around armed. It has been established empirically that we would have less fear of foreign invasion, and less fear of terrorist attacks, under the same conditions (remember the statement by WWII Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."; and see how often Switzerland has been invaded). It was established logically by our government itself in the early days that the government would be better kept at bay with gun ownership. And those towns that have high levels of gun ownership prove what common sense suggests: Widespread gun ownership doesn’t make criminals out of ordinary people – only criminals are made to feel unsafe when everybody’s armed. Indeed, data in the US show that you and I are more trustworthy gun owners than the cops themselves.

Go out and buy yourself some guns today, and give some as gifts. You’ll love yourself for it, and make me feel safer at the same time.

My state constitution says that all able-bodied men aged 18-45 unless exempted are the "militia," and the public rifles are to be stored in armories. I do not know of such public arms and armories, though I ought to speak with Travis' Luke Tanner, who knows people there.

So I guess we all have to buy "Springfield Armory" manufactured goods, for the security of a free state.

According to the 1792 Militia Act, all able-bodied male citizens of military age (about 17 or 18 to 45) were automatically enrolled in the citizens' militia. This does not mean the National Guard, which did not exist in 1792. The National Guard is the organized militia, versus the unorganized militia consisting of the citizenry. Even at the outbreak of the Civil War, a number of states still had laws on the books mandating that male citizens, accompanied by their firearms, muster once a month for drill. At that point, though, it seems that the typical militia outfit was simply a private social club, giving the members an excuse to get together every so often, dress up in smart uniforms, parade around and impress the girls and then go for drinks. They sure made pretty targets at First Bull Run.

Here in New Jersey, use of the M-1 carbine is banned. I assume that I may own one (I'd like to), but I can't fire it in New Jersey. Imagine: A man could use one to fight with in WWII but nowadays can't use it for target practice in New Jersey.

Is it not true that many semi-automatic firearms are restricted by law in your state, and that you are limited to revolving-, pump-, and single-action arms?

As far as I know, only the M-1 carbine is banned -- but I'm no legal expert. Semi-autos are still legal. A month after 9-11, I bought a Bushmaster XM-15 "Shorty" semi-automatic rifle at the Allentown gun show. It came with a .223 magazine and I bought a couple more, but according to New Jersey law, a magazine cannot hold more than 10 rounds and these held 15. So a friend put a small piece of wood inside of each magazine to partially block them. Someone told me that it is illegal to even possess a 15-round magazine in NJ, but another person said that's not true.

It doesn't bode well that the Democrats swept both houses of the legislature last week and have the governorship, as well. There is a legitimate fear of tough new gun control laws. The libs here are big on "smart guns."

Does this categorization under the cognizance of New Jersey law not seem arbitrary, abusive, or otherwise contrary to the U.S. Constitution?

Who cares about the US Constitution any more? You, me and the man behind the tree, perhaps.

Heads up, Siamese Princess. From the NRA Website:

"New Jersey law restricts the ownership of certain semi-automatic and other firearms based upon their military appearance. The list includes:

Algimec AGM1 type
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
Armalite AR-180 type
Australian Automatic Arms SAR
Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
Bushmaster Assault rifle
Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
CETME G3
Chartered Industries of Singapore
SR88 type
Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2,
AR 100 types
Demro TAC-1 carbine type
Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
FAMAS MAS 223 types
FN-FAL, FN- AR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 Shotguns
G3SA type
Galil type
Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
Intratec TEC-9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
M1 carbine type
M1 4S type, MAC10, MAC11, MAC11 9mm carbine type firearms
PJK M-68 carbine type
Plainfield Machine Co. Carbine
Ruger K-Mini-14/5F and Mini-1 4/5RF
SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG-PE-57 types
SKS with detachable magazine type
Spectre Auto carbine type
Springfield Armory BM59 and
SAR-48 type
Sterling MK-6, MK-7, and SAR types
Steyr AUG semi-automatic firearms
USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
Weaver Arms Nighthawk

Any firearms which are substantially identical to any of the above firearms; any semiautomatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a conspicuous pistol grip, or a folding stock; a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 15 rounds. Any magazine with a capacity greater than fifteen rounds is prohibited, even if there is no semi-automatic firearm to accompany the magazine."

Bear in mind that I am not licensed to practice law in the Garden State, and this does not constitute a legal opinion.

No, you didn't. If you knew anything about law enforcement you would know that killing someone isn't like it is on T.V. From the investigations to the potential civil lawsuits that can take everything from you and drive you into bankruptcy you would know that no pro takes it lightly. Not to mention the taking of a human life which is a lot to deal with on it's own.
There was more than one agency at the raid and more than one at the seige. None of those agencies would have been willing to put up with murderers in their midst. Cops and feds are concerned with the law and keeping people safe.
Go back to the militia club house and watch Dukes of Hazard reruns. You have nothing to contribute.

But I see the need for an agency to regulate and control firearms, alcohol and tobacco.

Why?

I don't agree. I think there is a strong burden of proof that needs to be met before regulating activities that are not in themselves harmful to others. Punish those who move over the line into abusing others (for example, causing an accident when driving while intoxicated) but don't make non-harmful use a crime in itself.

And even if there is a need to control something within the current scope of ATF, I absolutely believe that there is no need for ATF agents to be armed. If alcohol and tobacco must be regulated, do it as the FDA regulates other drugs. When enforcement is needed, call in the FBI or US Marshals. (And the 2nd Amendment says that there is no legitimate reason for 'regulating' - in the current sense of the word, not the original sense - firearms at all.)

That way, you don't have the irreconcilable issue of those who make the rules also charted to enforce the rules with violence if they think it's necessary. That's combining legislature, judge, jury, and executioner into one agency, and it's impossible to keep that under control.

No, you didn't.

YES I DID! I was there in the same room with 5 of them and YOU were NOT there!!!So don't You tell Me what I did or did not hear and see.

If you knew anything about law enforcement you would know that killing someone isn't like it is on T.V.

I do know about law enforcment. I DO NOT watch that crap on T.V. never have and never will.

Not to mention the taking of a human life which is a lot to deal with on it's own.

I will agree on that issue.

There was more than one agency at the raid and more than one at the seige.

And they ALL botched the whole situation FROM THE START.

None of those agencies would have been willing to put up with murderers in their midst.

BULL! those guy covered each others screw-ups!

Cops and feds are concerned with the law and keeping people safe.

SOME of them are others are NOT.

Go back to the militia club house and watch Dukes of Hazard reruns.

I am not a "member of a militia" that has a "club house" I am however a member of the Militia that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to exist. (and I am not talking about the National Guard) I don't watch that type of T.V. either.

I do have plenty to contribute and will do so when I have the time and inclination to do so and YOU won't stop Me from doing it!

I think we will just disagree about their role. A visit to their web site shows that the scope of their duties extend beyond revenue collection. As for the regulatory part, there is a need. Just a year or two ago the McCormick Distillery got caught exporting alcohol out of the country labeled as chemicals. Bootlegging and illegal profits are still around. I am unfamiliar with their role in tobacco, and so cannot contribute there. Like all law enforcement agencies, they need to be armed. Detectives in every police department in the country are armed, yet they are usually never the ones at an in-progress call. They respond to the call and the follow up investigations after. You wouldn't disarm them, because you realize they might need their firearm, even if it is only once.
As for the FDA or USDA enforcing regulations, they can't even keep up with the food supply and drugs much less take on new responsibilities. I think the FBI and the Marshals call on the ATF more than the other way around.
I am unfamiliar with their making the roles that they enforce. Laws are passed by Congress and the ATF, now part of the Homeland Defense Department, enforces and directs it's energies where directed.
I hope the election of conservative politicians will stem the trend of gun laws and the selection of conservative judges will strike down unconstitutional laws. That is the way to address the situation here. But thank you for a reasoned discussion.

So, you were in a room where 5 people boasted of murder, and you did what? Did you report them to their superiors? Did you report them to the Justice Department? Did you tell the story to the news? How many reporters would have fought tooth and nail for this info. Did you write down the times and dates? Do you have names? Do you not feel at least a little responsible if one of these 5 people murder again? After all you said they boasted of the Waco 'murders'. If they murder again, aren't you just a little bit responsible for them being in a position to do so? Will there be blood on your hands? It shouldn't be too hard to talk to the individuals from the other agencies. After all, if there was a cover up then it was a conspiracy. The only thing you need to wreck a conspiracy is to break one and turn him on the others. JUST LIKE ON T.V. (Try JAG it's after the Dukes of Hazard)
Contribute all you like I don't care. So far what you have put on the table isn't true.

I think we will just disagree about their role.

Stridently. No single agency should be charged with both making laws (in the case of the ATF, via 'regulations' which were never approved by Congress) and enforcing them at the point of a gun. That's ultimately unworkable.

Two other points, and then have a nice day. If the FDA does not have the resources to monitor (not enforce) compliance with drug regulations, then transfer all those ATF agents to the FDA (after taking away their Federal license to carry guns - though of course like any other citizen they should have the right to personal protection). Second point: I don't care if someone wants to export alcohol as a drug. Why not? After all, it is a drug. But more importantly, I see a much more restricted role for government than you do. I don't want to see Federal agents (with or without guns, but with guns is worse) meddling in the lives of citizens nearly as much as you seem to think is okay.

But you're welcome to your opinion. That's why we vote instead of having the Hillarys of the world dictate to us. I think one of the most important truisms ever said is: Freedom means you have the right to be wrong.

O.K. We have different views of government. I believe in smaller government but starting with the immense agencies devoted to social welfare programs that were never in the intent of the framers. But regulatory agencies, those agencies dealing with the public health, and the military are the proper roles of a federal government. As the exporting of alcohol disguised as chemicals it is a criminal matter, not a labeling matter.
As for the FDA. Last year there were 88 million pounds of recalled food in the US. This year it is over 55 million pounds so far. No telling what is getting through as most major recalls happen when people die.
Through WTO and NAFTA we are required to recognize 45 countries food safety inspection systems as equivelent to our own. This year only 1.6% of imported food is estimated to be inspected. The FDA and the USDA have enough on their plate. No pun intended... well maybe a little bit.
As for the ATF, I am unaware of what laws they make up. I also see where their arson, explosive and lab work has not been mentioned. So it is still my opinion.
As for Hillary. I don't understand why she isn't in prison. It makes for great distress when trying to believe the system works.

My we do have a temper don't we?

No I did not get names/dates or even pics.

Why you ask

BECAUSE THE CLINTON/RENO CROWD WAS STILL IN CONTROL AND COVERING THE WHOLE THING UP!Plus I did not want to be the next person added to Alamo-Girl's Arkincide list.

Let's do a little skit here:

a guy walks up to 5 FedScums at a bar and askes for all their names,they want to know why, he says because I overheard what you were talking about and I want to report it to the news and the DOJ, they all pull guns and toss him on the floor hand cuff him and drag him out the door and that is the last anybody sees of the guy...

Do you have some T.V. problems and are missing all your shows and want Me to watch them so I can tell you what you missed?

A few points, if you're still interested.

Your contention that the FDA and USDA do not have enough personnel might be true, but it's irrelvant. If they need more staff to fill an appropriate role, then get them more staff. That is an entirely separate question from which agency or agencies should be handling any particular task. Transferring agents along with the task, if the task is transferred should not be a problem.

Next: If the reason an action is criminal is simply because it violates a regulation, then it is valid to consider whether the regulation itself is appropriate. In other words, if the underlying truth is that alcohol is a drug, and someone correctly labels it as a drug, but runs afoul of a regulation that it should be labeled as alcohol, then which is wrong, the label or the regulation? I would contend that truth should be the primary goal, and that regulations that make truth illegal are the real problem.

Ultimately, the issue is the proper role of government in 'regulating' the activities of citizens and businesses. Here is my contention: Regulations should only apply to activities of the government itself (including its agents). Therefore it is fine to have regulations to control the military, or to control how the government buys things. But every single law that controls private citizens should be required to pass the full Constitutional process and be voted on (as a vote of record) by duly elected representatives.

Instead, we have regulations passed by hordes of nameless, faceless bureaucrats, and regulations have the force of law. The ATF has a ton of regulations that control private citizens, not just their own agents.

And finally, I think it is a bad idea to have those who define the laws (including those called 'regulations') be given the authority to enforce their own laws at the point of a gun. It should be a rule of good government that if you are a regulating agency you are NOT an enforcement agency.

If you think this is splitting hairs, consider this: The DEA can declare a drug to be illegal, and then profit from enforcing the prohibition on that drug (by asset forfeiture). Suppose the ATF decided (like the DEA does) that alcohol or tobacco were illegal, and then came to your house or someone else's and seized their house, their car, their bank accounts - at the point of a gun - and then used those assets as their own, even for their personal use. That's what the DEA does all the time. And it's wrong for them, it's wrong for the ATF.

Obviously, you see a need for some controls on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Whether we agree on that or not, I think we should be able to agree that the method of controlling them should not have a high risk of abuse. The reports of abuse by both ATF and DEA are legendary, but all too true. The system needs to be fixed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.