Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Retired George

(332 posts)
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 02:28 AM Oct 2016

If we have a "right" to have guns, then why do we have to BUY them?

Shouldn't we all have been issued at least one gun---free of charge---on our 18th birthday?

The NRA isn't a "rights" org, it's a business lobby: they should be called the Nutbar Revenue Association!

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If we have a "right" to have guns, then why do we have to BUY them? (Original Post) Retired George Oct 2016 OP
We have a right to live a happy life, but that doesn't mean we get drugs for free. DetlefK Oct 2016 #1
Happiness is a personal decision. JonathanRackham Oct 2016 #2
Ummm, beer... freebrew Oct 2016 #13
Welcome to DU George! GreydeeThos Oct 2016 #3
Religion is a right but Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2016 #4
What we have is the freedom to exercise that right if so chosen, but I'm sure you know this. Marengo Oct 2016 #5
Congressional founders debated just that thing - providing guns to the people for fulfilling their jmg257 Oct 2016 #6
Interesting you said "even mandatory" packman Oct 2016 #7
Milita act of 1792 davepc Oct 2016 #8
Thanks for the research - interesting things in that packman Oct 2016 #9
A few mods made in 1903 discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #10
The Constitutional "militia" was definitely something different than today. jmg257 Oct 2016 #11
"...the basis of the 2nd" was indeed the basis of the whole Constitution at that time... Eleanors38 Oct 2016 #14
If such a thing were practical, I'd be all for replacing the majority of our standing forces... Marengo Oct 2016 #16
Kind of like Switzerland? gejohnston Oct 2016 #17
A lack of interest in the militias kept them from being very effective. jmg257 Oct 2016 #12
The Civil War killed the miita system more then anything. davepc Oct 2016 #18
Imagine what junk the government would provide....Hi points and ravens. ileus Oct 2016 #15
I've actually heard this arguement made in all seriousness. stone space Oct 2016 #19
So ... Straw Man Oct 2016 #20
Are they actually arguing for the govt to give them arms for free?!? jmg257 Oct 2016 #21
There has been a tax on guns since 1919 gejohnston Oct 2016 #22

GreydeeThos

(958 posts)
3. Welcome to DU George!
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 05:19 AM
Oct 2016

In this group there is the free exchange of ideas about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I don't know why I am not issued a military battle rifle with ammunition. It seems like a deficiency in the operation of our Government.

What is your solution to this problem?



 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
5. What we have is the freedom to exercise that right if so chosen, but I'm sure you know this.
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 07:08 AM
Oct 2016

Why is the word right bracketed by parentheses in your post?

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
6. Congressional founders debated just that thing - providing guns to the people for fulfilling their
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 07:16 AM
Oct 2016

rights to arm.

But they knew that if the govt was responsible for arming the people, they could just as easily DISarm them (by NOT providing the guns).

They figured it was better, & even mandatory, for the people to provide their own arms (and accoutrements).
Which of course worked well with the Constitutional articulations which secured the right for the people to keep (& bear) them.

Constitutionally, the people should have no issues providing themselves with militia-capable arms (and accoutrements) at reasonable cost. Unfortunately that s not always the case these days.

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
7. Interesting you said "even mandatory"
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 09:02 AM
Oct 2016

As I recall reading somewhere (too lazy to research this) that it was a law - a law - in our early history for each man to have a gun, certain amount of powder and balls (No, not that type). However, it was generally ignored and the law just passed into history.

davepc

(3,936 posts)
8. Milita act of 1792
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 09:13 AM
Oct 2016
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

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.
 

packman

(16,296 posts)
9. Thanks for the research - interesting things in that
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 09:28 AM
Oct 2016

"every free able-bodied white male" and "severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"- if this is the basis for the 2nd, it does seem to strongly suggest that "militia" meant something different than today's loose interpretation of the word. Would like to see some of our gun bearers today "when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only".
Also interesting that they would be exempted from suits, distresses, and even the payment of taxes.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,593 posts)
10. A few mods made in 1903
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 09:33 AM
Oct 2016
CHAP. 196
.-An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes.

(January 21,1903.)
(public, No. 33.)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
11. The Constitutional "militia" was definitely something different than today.
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 09:58 AM
Oct 2016

Those State entities were well-understood, and pre-existed the Constitution for decades. They were required by the Articles of Confederation, and "inherited" into the new govt organization.

AoC
"; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered,"


The militia were of the state (today there'd be 50), and they HAD TO BE maintained - well-armed and well trained (well-regulated militias were "necessary&quot . And rightly so - OUR freedoms as outlined in the new Constitution depended on them, made from the body of the people, the militia had very vital roles to fill when called into federal service.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

"Congress shall have power...
...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."



These days just about all of us would be subject to 'exercise and service', not just select "gun bearers". "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen..." would of course be much expanded.

The arms we'd need to supply ourselves would be the very ones many want to ban (ARs and hi-cap mags, M-9 pistols etc).
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
14. "...the basis of the 2nd" was indeed the basis of the whole Constitution at that time...
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 01:22 PM
Oct 2016

Not until LBJ, et al, was the Constitution de jure extended to all people. One of the better summations of both Ante Bellum and Jim Crow era laws which prohibited RKBA for blacks was the friend of the court brief in the Heller decision, submitted by Georgia Carry. It surveyed the many laws, state constitutional amendments, and ordinances designed to restrict blacks from owning guns. It seems white Southen state governments well remembered the slave revolts, esp. the Stono Rebellion (1739) when slaves escaped a South Carolina plantation. First stop: A general store for guns.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
16. If such a thing were practical, I'd be all for replacing the majority of our standing forces...
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 02:42 PM
Oct 2016

With a citizen's militia, well armed and trained, for the purpose of national defense. It would be an opt out, not opt in arrangement. Of course, such a thing would entail disentangling from all our imperial adventures.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
12. A lack of interest in the militias kept them from being very effective.
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 10:07 AM
Oct 2016

Hence the creation of the National Guard, a federal entity more like the select militia envisioned by Hamilton, instead of the ones articulated by the early congress and militia acts.

davepc

(3,936 posts)
18. The Civil War killed the miita system more then anything.
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 05:03 PM
Oct 2016

The need for a large federal army with the ability to conduct a sustained invasion into hostile territory did a lot of the chipping away. By the early 20th century the modern national guard system we have today was put in place.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
15. Imagine what junk the government would provide....Hi points and ravens.
Tue Oct 4, 2016, 02:32 PM
Oct 2016

No thanks, I'll buy top quality personal safety devices.


Now on to the real question.....Why the 18th birthday?

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
19. I've actually heard this arguement made in all seriousness.
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 10:56 AM
Oct 2016

And you can hear echoes of this argument whenever anybody proposes a tax on weapons from Trump folks who object to paying taxes, and who feel that having to pay taxes is a violation of their constitutional rights.



Straw Man

(6,782 posts)
20. So ...
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 12:58 PM
Oct 2016
And you can hear echoes of this argument whenever anybody proposes a tax on weapons from Trump folks who object to paying taxes, and who feel that having to pay taxes is a violation of their constitutional rights.

... shall we put you down as "in favor of poll taxes" then?

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
21. Are they actually arguing for the govt to give them arms for free?!?
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 01:56 PM
Oct 2016

Goofy, that is.

As for taxes, we already pay them on weapons and ammo etc., just like any most other goods. As long as they're not anything crazy like some suggest.


Not sure why trump folk feel guns should be exempt, as well as free...is it part of the whole "its my right" thing??

They want to be part of a traditional Organized Militia, they'd have a bit more of an argument...maybe.

Is it they don't want to pay ANY taxes?? Yet they want free stuff? Weird.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»If we have a "right" to h...