Should gun owners have a responsibility to the public?

[tererun]

It is clearly written in the second amendment that militia duties are a part of why we need to have gun owners in society. It is often a part of gun owners arguments that their weapons provide fro some protection and security for our neighborhoods. The reality is that the presence of these weapons also brings negative things to the community like accidental shootings. So we are told that in an offset to the inevitable rise of injury and death that comes from guns, we get more secure communities.

Well, then shouldn't we require people act with their guns? If there happens to be a local shooter should gun owners immediately be responsible for patroles or protection of life and property? That really seems to be what a militia is about, and I don't see many gun owners taking this very seriously. The amendment does say that joe has a right to a gun because he thinks it looks pretty. It talks of a well regulated militia, which is not just some twat who bought a gun, being an important part of the community. A militia does things. It is not just some guy who owns a gun, it does things for a community.

Shouldn't we expect something of our gun owners as per the constitution? Like perhaps they could stand guard against a stalker for a woman instead of a police officer. Or maybe they escort people to their cars in busy parking lots. You know things that would actively deter attackers like a militia is supposed to do.

 

[Oftencold]

No.

I'm far more interested in putting welfare recipients to work growing food for the prisons, and legalizing slavery for illegal aliens. When we've addressed that, we can get back to these sort of angry make-believe issues about gun rights.

 

[SMTA]

Let's require everyone to act, and not wait for someone else to shoulder the burden.

 

[ChuckBerry]

The second amendment preserves the right of the person being stalked to own a gun to protect themselves against the stalker, or the person in a parking lot to own a gun to protect themselves against muggers. Militias are not private security forces, nor are they police in the strictest sense. Militias are called up in emergencies when local law enforcement is overwhelmed, like during Hurricane Katrina, or during times of national emergency.

 

[yobarnacle]

How many Zimmermans do you WANT in your neighborhood.
Now I believe in innocent till proven guilty, and I like Floridas "Stand your ground" law.
But over zealous armed vigilante neighborhood watches is a volatile brew.

But, if you are serious about protection for women, including yourself?
Join the NRA.
Learn to shoot and also make friends with gun owners in your neighborhood.
I'm certain NUMEROUS knights errant would rush to a damsel in distress!

 

[SMTA]

How many Zimmermans do you WANT in your neighborhood.
Now I believe in innocent till proven guilty, and I like Floridas "Stand your ground" law.
But over zealous armed vigilante neighborhood watches is a volatile brew.

But, if you are serious about protection for women, including yourself?
Join the NRA.
Learn to shoot and also make friends with gun owners in your neighborhood.
I'm certain NUMEROUS knights errant would rush to a damsel in distress!

Not if the damsel treats them like crap.....

 

[Krash]

What your state does with its militia is up to your individual state. I suggest you begin the process of amending your Constitution or state laws to include "the militia coming to the aid and protecting the community."

For example, in Ohio the militia is governed by the Ohio Constitution under Article 9 - Militia.

In Virginia, the militia is governed by law, Title 44 - MILITARY AND EMERGENCY LAWS.

If it's the militia of the United States, you'll have to get your Congressman to alter Title 10 of the United States Code, which governs our national militia.

Enjoy your trip, and send us a few postcards along the way!

 

[vendur]

Not if the damsel treats them like crap.....

well, I've seen a few gluttons for punishment, on both sides of the jousting fence.

Anyway, no. you always hope people will be responsible with any/all of their rights. Like i would hope that people wouldn't be dumb enough to elect a racist nazi asshole, just so they can say to themselves " hey, i'm not racist, I voted for a black dude, derp." And than do it AGAIN despite a completely corrupt and/or incompetent governance. But they are free to do it, no strings attached.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The police don't even have an obligation to protect you, yet you'd have that responsibility forced onto citizens who lack the training, communication equipment and authority?

Tererun, most people in the gun community have discussed this issue at length (especially on youtube) and the consensus is:

Unless you're in harms way, run... when the police come looking for a man with a gun don't be one. Which is the advice of Massad Ayoob, the most famous firearms and law enforcement instructor.

 

[TurtleDude]

Its another silly anti gun rant thread. There are thousands of laws that punish irresponsible USE of a gun. That is plenty

How about demanding responsibility from people who spawn like trout and yet refuse to take care of the children they spew out like rabbits?

If we cut down on the number of children who come from irresponsible people and strongly discourage single parent "homes" we will eliminate far more violent crime than any of the anti gun proposals hoplophobes propose

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You're still struggling with the concept of rights, aren't you? If you have a right to do something, such as to keep and bear arms-- which means both to own them and to carry them, while we are once again belaboring the absolutely mind-numbingly ****ing obvious-- then you can not be compelled to perform any kind of public service in order to be allowed to exercise that right. You do not incur any additional obligations to society for exercising your right, your Constitutional and human right, to keep and bear arms than you incur for exercising your right to free speech or your right to vote.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're still struggling with the concept of rights, aren't you? If you have a right to do something, such as to keep and bear arms-- which means both to own them and to carry them, while we are once again belaboring the absolutely mind-numbingly ****ing obvious-- then you can not be compelled to perform any kind of public service in order to be allowed to exercise that right. You do not incur any additional obligations to society for exercising your right, your Constitutional and human right, to keep and bear arms than you incur for exercising your right to free speech or your right to vote.

that sort of sums it all up.

 

[Texmex]

In me being able to protect my own by being armed, I actually free up the police to do other things. They might even save your life tererun, since you require help in being secure. It must be scary to always need other to make you safe.

 

[SMTA]

Its another silly anti gun rant thread. There are thousands of laws that punish irresponsible USE of a gun. That is plenty

How about demanding responsibility from people who spawn like trout and yet refuse to take care of the children they spew out like rabbits?

If we cut down on the number of children who come from irresponsible people and strongly discourage single parent "homes" we will eliminate far more violent crime than any of the anti gun proposals hoplophobes propose

I would call it a 'tererun set-up thread'.

 

[Jerry]

It is clearly written in the second amendment that militia duties are a part of why we need to have gun owners in society. It is often a part of gun owners arguments that their weapons provide fro some protection and security for our neighborhoods. The reality is that the presence of these weapons also brings negative things to the community like accidental shootings. So we are told that in an offset to the inevitable rise of injury and death that comes from guns, we get more secure communities.

Well, then shouldn't we require people act with their guns? If there happens to be a local shooter should gun owners immediately be responsible for patroles or protection of life and property? That really seems to be what a militia is about, and I don't see many gun owners taking this very seriously. The amendment does say that joe has a right to a gun because he thinks it looks pretty. It talks of a well regulated militia, which is not just some twat who bought a gun, being an important part of the community. A militia does things. It is not just some guy who owns a gun, it does things for a community.

Shouldn't we expect something of our gun owners as per the constitution? Like perhaps they could stand guard against a stalker for a woman instead of a police officer. Or maybe they escort people to their cars in busy parking lots. You know things that would actively deter attackers like a militia is supposed to do.

The militia cannot self-organize. It has to be called to muster by the Governor.

If you want an armed neighborhood watch, start one.

Otherwise, owning a gun no more obligates you to action then owning a car obligates you to be a taxi service.

 

[Jerry]

How many Zimmermans do you WANT in your neighborhood.

As many as it takes to rid the world of all the Martins.

 

[Surtr]

Are we really supposed to take this rant seriously? All you did was demonstrate that you have no idea what the function of the US Militia is, and talk **** about gun owners as though we give a damn about your opinion of us.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

It is clearly written in the second amendment that militia duties are a part of why we need to have gun owners in society. It is often a part of gun owners arguments that their weapons provide fro some protection and security for our neighborhoods. The reality is that the presence of these weapons also brings negative things to the community like accidental shootings. So we are told that in an offset to the inevitable rise of injury and death that comes from guns, we get more secure communities.

Well, then shouldn't we require people act with their guns? If there happens to be a local shooter should gun owners immediately be responsible for patroles or protection of life and property? That really seems to be what a militia is about, and I don't see many gun owners taking this very seriously. The amendment does say that joe has a right to a gun because he thinks it looks pretty. It talks of a well regulated militia, which is not just some twat who bought a gun, being an important part of the community. A militia does things. It is not just some guy who owns a gun, it does things for a community.

Shouldn't we expect something of our gun owners as per the constitution? Like perhaps they could stand guard against a stalker for a woman instead of a police officer. Or maybe they escort people to their cars in busy parking lots. You know things that would actively deter attackers like a militia is supposed to do.

Your premise is completely wrong. You should read the recent Heller decision. Here's a summary....

Constitutional Construction

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms

Holding and Rule (Scalia)
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Now you know.