America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

GreetingsCompliments:So far, I like your debating style because it is short and sweet and you are very clever. So, let me first thank you for the challenges, tactics and for being concise. Your Question:You asked, "We are already required to carry vehicle insurance( not knocking it ok..I like auto ins) we are required to have health insurance now...we are required a lot of things. Why not add to our lengthy list of state and federal requirements house security...aka firearms and training to go with it.(?)"Implicit in your question is an idea like, "What is the difference?" Well, I will tell you the difference: PUBLIC SAFETY!The government at all levels makes this distinction when it is decided that public well-being and safety is at stake. After-all, what else is a government good for if not the well-being and safety of the public?Un-American Sentiment (Freedom):The idea is simple: how can we say that we are truly free when we are forced to do something?Anything - policy or law - in which we find government forcing anything infringes on freedom. So we find, in almost all areas where people are required or forced to do anything, resistance and protest (even in cases of public safety and well-being, e.g. required drivers license, auto insurance, ObamaCare, etc.). I'm glad you brought up insurance, health care and licensing because these are perfect examples which can be distinguished from a mandate like required firearm ownership and training. Health insurance and drivers license requirements are clear cases of government regulation which benefit public safety and well-being - as where required gun ownership would not.The Gun Issue: There is much data which suggests to the contrary; when more firearms are introduced, the instances of gun violence and firearm accidents increase [1][2][3]. So this is the crux of the Gun debate and exactly why the public and the government are polarized on the gun issue in America. On one hand, if NO firearms are present then there are no firearms to contribute to these kinds of occurrences. On the other hand, if firearms are completely removed, our 2nd Amend. rights are violated and we lose the ability as a people to protect ourselves and revolt if we deem necessary. But the trade-off might be more Sandy Hook(s) and Columbine(s) and accidental shootings - regardless of how much training is infused and required - simply by virtue of inserting more firearms in the public arena.Facts about Guns & Mass Shootings: Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states - from Massachusetts to Hawaii. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally [3].More guns tend to mean more homicide [2]. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states [2]. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence [3]. Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive [3]. Fat America:Americans are in fact FAT. You will get no argument from me here. BUT it's not illegal to be fat in America (yet).The Military, Duty & Patriotism:You said, "..most join the military for 1) to get a job. 2) to be able to afford college. 3)to get away from where they live. There are remarkably few that join for the sole reason of defending their country or due to patriotism."No offense but if you didn't serve, and suggested what you have just suggested, I would shame you - or at the very least accuse you of being naive if these are the reasons why you joined! You may have joined for those reasons but not everyone does; I wouldn't even suggest most. Though these are motivating factors and perks for sure, these aren't the only or even the primary reasons why folks volunteer for military service (If they are, I would still suggest naivety).It is a fact that military enlistment increased exponentially immediately after the 9/11 attacks. We saw the same patriotism after the Pearl Harbor attacks. When these patriots were asked about their voluntary service they would use words like: DUTY, FREEDOM, SERVICE, SACRAFICE, COUNTRY, HONOR, etc., according to a Pew Foundation study, most veterans who served say they are proud of their service [4][5][6][7]. This is probably true of every major announcement of war/crisis (maybe with the exception of the Vietnam War in later years). Also, if what you are suggesting is true, we would expect to see a disproportionate number of minorities in the military. We don't. In fact, ""the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently published a study detailing the demographics of the US military. The study was undertaken in response to a request by Representative Charles Ran­gel (D-NY), who in December 2002 claimed that "[a] disproportionate number of the poor and mem­bers of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." The GAO study surveys a num­ber of Department of Defense (DOD) personnel issues and does not support Representative Ran­gel's claims that poor minorities are disproportionately represented. A similar study by The Heritage Foundation, which will be published this month, is more definitive in answering the question of new enlistees and their "privileged" status. The Heritage Foundation study analyzes DOD data on all non- prior-service enlistees for the years 1999 and 2003 by income, education, and race. Studying the home-of-record ZIP codes of enlistees, we also identify the states and regions providing the most enlistees, and changes since September 11, 2001. In 2003, blacks made up a higher percent­age of Army recruits (15 percent) than the adult population (11.3 percent) for a recruit-to-popula­tion ratio of 1.44. However, the recruit-to-popula­tion ratio of white recruits was 1.01, meaning that blacks did not displace whites. Rather, the racial groups with disproportionately low recruit-to-pop­ulation ratios in 2003 were Asians, Hispanics, and individuals who declined to identify a race. Regard­ing the issue of disproportionate recruiting from black neighborhoods, we found that the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks had 14.63 percent of the adult population but provided 16.58 percent of 1999 recruits and only 14.09 percent of 2003 recruits"" [8].Cited Source References:[1] http://www.vpc.org...[2] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.nj.com...[5] http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net...[6] http://www.tauntongazette.com...[7] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...[8] http://www.heritage.org...