search
top

Why Not Force Guns on People?

Jennifer makes a really good point that if health care is a right, so the government can force you to buy it, why can’t they force you to buy a gun? I’ll take it a step further and argue that at least forcing people to buy a gun and keep it would likely be a legitimate exercise of Congress’ military powers, and power to arm, train and discipline the militia. Such a law certainly would not be without precedence in this country, and the practice certainly wasn’t unknown to our founders.

It is at least an enumerated power of Congress to force everyone to buy a gun. It’s a bit of a stretch to say forcing me to buy health insurance is a necessary and proper component of Congress’ regulation of the national health insurance market. If forcing me to engage in commerce is necessary and proper, what isn’t? Congress’ power is effectively limitless because they can force me to subject myself to its jurisdiction.

11 Responses to “Why Not Force Guns on People?”

  1. Andrew says:

    Yay! The first in with this: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

    25 years murder-free
    in ‘Gun Town USA’
    Crime rate plummeted after law
    required firearms for residents

  2. Guav says:

    They can. The government can and did force people to buy guns before :)

  3. sam adams says:

    Where is this enumerated power to force people to purchase firearms? The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right. The Ninth Amendment says that there are rights that are not enumerated but are still retained by the people. These rights are inalienable. If health care is not a right then the Government can legally prevent you from obtaining health care, even health care provided by your self. Rights are things that can’t be infringed by anyone. Health care falls under this category. Rights are not provided for by the Government. Rights really are that simple, its strange that so many people say that health care is not a right. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Andrew Wilkow and others are under the same false assumption. If the GOP would have done a better job of explaining what rights are and that Government does not provide for rights, we might not be in this situation. At the first suggestion that if Government provides for rights, firearms must also be provided, the left might have stopped the push for Government provided health care.

  4. koveras225 says:

    @sam adams
    Keeping this simple and brief…

    Congress has the power to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the militia, which legally consists of every adult male between the ages of 17 and 45 in the country. Historically the members of the militia have been expected to provide their own arms and equipment.

    This is where Congress could constitutionally require every member of the militia, therefore every adult male within the specified age range, to purchase a suitable firearm and ammunition…

  5. Mike From Philly says:

    Kennesaw GA has a law that says the head of each household must own a gun and ammunition.

    Kennesaw is 2 to 15 times safer than its surrounding cities.

  6. guy says:

    Government provided guns – Lorcins for everyone!

    Oh and you’ll need to fill out these 10 stacks of paperwork to get the ammo for it – 7.62×25. What? that’s ammo, just shove it in there.

  7. I’ve said that in response to people losing their shit over the Stupak amendment: if having a Constitutional right ot a commodity means other people are obligated to buy it for you, where the hell is my M1A?

  8. markofafreeman says:

    I have often said that having a right and a codified limit on or prohibition of the power of government to infringe on that right does not in any way guarantee that you will be able to exercise that right. The power to exercise your rights may have other limiting factors, and in many cases that is financial.

    I will even concede that, though not codified, health care is as important a right as any other. But a prohibition against government from restricting exercise of that right is a far cry from demanding that the government provide for the exercise of that right or force others to provide for it.

  9. sam adams says:

    The militia act does expect those serving to provide their own weapons. It does not say that those weapons must be purchased by the user. In those days and in these days, those that would serve in the militia have their own weapons by their choice, not by mandate of Government. Not all able bodied men served in the militia at the time and nothing ill was thought of them nor did any Government agency fine or jail them for failure to serve or purchase. It’s still a far cry from mandating that people purchase a product as a requirement for being a citizen. On the Kennesaw, GA law, that is a State issue. I would have to read their Constitution before I could comment on their mandate. Even so, there are exceptions allowed to that law without penalty of fine or prison. That law does appear to be the only reasonable firearms law that has positively affected the citizens of Kennesaw. If the Federal Government had the authority to mandate the purchase of a product as a condition of citizenship, they could mandate anything they wanted.

  10. koveras225 says:

    @sam adams
    Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution explicitly says that Congress has the power organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the militia. This has precedence over any of the Militia Acts.

    Also, the original Militia Act of 1792 basically said that every male between the ages of 18 (or soon to be 18) to 45 is conscripted into the Militia (involuntarily). It also provided that:
    “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;”

    I don’t see any other way of reading that other than “If you’re in the militia, go purchase the required equipment.”

    Since the original Militia Act has since been replaced and modified several times, that requirement is no longer in effect. The organized Militia was basically replaced by the National Guard in 1903 and there are currently no real requirements pertaining the the Unorganized Militia. But that could change, as unlikely as it is.

top