1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Responsibilty to own guns

Discussion in 'Activism' started by nicki, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. nicki

    nicki Well-Known Member

    Guys, most of us know that the founding fathers feared standing armies.

    Relatively new to this forum, but something hit me and I would like your input.

    After the revolution, each state had it's own stae militia and I guess it stayed that way up until the war between the states.

    I sm sure things drastically changed after the civil war, especially in the southern states.

    Prior to that it appears that we had a "swiss style" or "Israeli style" militia.

    Of course the national guard was formed in 1903 and that is the so called militia our opponents talk about.

    From what I have read in the past gun ownership was mandatory up unitl the beginning of the 20th century when it become voluntary.

    The constitution allows for a Navy, but says an army can only be funded for 2years and that would make sense if we had a trained militia.

    One could argue that by putting the declaration of Independence and the constitution together that the mindset of the founders was that they recognized the need for a national defense, but didn't want to create a homegrown tyranical government, so they made the whole population the army and gavie it a charge to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic.

    Fast forward to now.

    Many of our opponents hate guns because guns do kill and they are in the mindset that if we ban guns we can save lives.

    They see the government as the solution and they want everyone just to get along, they think with their hearts, sadly their heads are MIA.

    Many of our opponents are also "peace activists". They yammer about the Military Industrial Complex, they cry about police abuse, they decry our foreign policy of intervention in other countries.

    Many have roots back to the vietnam anti war movement.

    Where am I going with this.

    One could make an arguement that because we did not protect the natural right of not just American's. but people all around the world to maintain arms so that they could control their guvernments, millions of people have died.

    We have Wars because nations have standing armies to fight them with and when evil people get into power, they use those armies.

    The leaders of the peace movement will never go for what I propose because their goal is a one world government.

    It is not the leaders we want, rather it is the pawns in the peace movement that we can siphon off to our side.

    Who knows, we may be able to create an "alternative peace movement".

    This could be a potential a way to fuel of "left of center" gun rights movement.

    Ron Paul stated his platform of peace, prosperity and freedom that he would like to pull our trioops home, not meddle in other countries affairs, take the savings and reduce federal spending, first priority, eliminate the Income Tax.

    Restoring the citizen based militia that the constitution calls for and scaling back our military will stregthen our country and our freedoms in many ways.

    Anyone who is trully a "Peace Activists" and not a "Borg" should recognize that.

    Now if we came up with a modern working model of what a citizen militia would look like, that would be even better.

    Imagine if New Orleans had a standing citizen based militia established prior to Katrina. After Katrina hit, we woujld have had civll order reestablished and maintained quickly.

    When the ground rocks here in California, the police will not be able to maintain order. Because the politicians have ignored their responsiblities under the 2nd amendment, the state is in for a major diaster anytime.

    Businesses have a vested interest since they suffer the most after a natural disaster. Insurance companies also since they get to pay out.

    Long post, but I hope you guys get the drift on the "responsiblity part of guns".

    The esponsiblity to own guns is something which I believe may help shift the political balance more to our favor.
  2. Big45

    Big45 member

    How is this Activism?
  3. nicki

    nicki Well-Known Member

    How is it activism

    Right now gun rights are predominately a conservative/libertarian issue.

    Many liberals are concerned with civil rights, yet they support gun control.

    If we are to keep not only our guns, but the rest of our freedoms, we have to expand our base.

    We need to politically hedge our bets.

    What I am proposing is we lay the seeds to promote gun rights on the left side of the political spectrum.

    I know that most liberals will not change on guns, but we don't need many, just a few.

    For every liberal who changes on guns, we probably will pick up at least 1 or 2 people in the political center also may be undecided on gun issues.

    Most elections have been close. As long as we can keep gun control a political loser, we should be able to maintain what we have,
  4. nicki

    nicki Well-Known Member

    Bette answer

    Most of us are promoting gun rights.

    Original post is designed to get us in mindset of civic gun responsiblities.

    Gun rights relate to individuals, gun reponsiblities relate to society and restoring gun responsiblities can bring back the concept that private gun ownership is a major public benefit.

    When the big earthquake hits California, we will have chaos on the streets, that is a given.

    If the sheriff of LA supported the 2nd amendment, he would already have recruited citizen volunteers so that when the ground shakes, the militia would get activiated.

    With responsible gun owners helping out the sheriff in areas they we trained to do, getting a area hit by natural disaster would be faster than the current disaster plans.

  5. MaterDei

    MaterDei Well-Known Member

    This is a nice, obviously well thought out post, Nicki. While I agree with many of your points I disagree with your premise. The Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment included, does not confer any responsibilities upon the people. Rather, it recognizes that the people have certain unalienable rights that the government must honor.

    While some might feel a responsibility to own guns, it is not something that the 2nd Amendment or the Declaration of Independence requires.
  6. Big45

    Big45 member

    Some people just cannot figure out the purpose of this forum.


    grand speech but Activism is for action, not words.
  7. ants

    ants Well-Known Member

    Perhaps administrators will relocate this thread, perhaps not.

    All rights come with the responsiblities we bear in exercising those rights. One cannot exercise rights irresponsibly.

    Nicki, it is clear that are trying to educate yourself on civil rights. Keep going. You're only half way there, and will thrive on polishing your knowledge as you learn more.

    Point of information: Since the 1960's, approximately 25% of the Democrats serving in Congress have consistently voted in favor of individual gun rights (they voted against restrictions, regulation, and control). And, approximately 33% of Republicans have voted in favor of gun control. This is a gross generalization, but it's interesting to recognize that gun rights are NOT exclusive to either party. It would also suprise us to find that Wisconsin, a largely Democratic state with very liberal tendencies, has the 12th highest rate of gun ownership in America. Things are not always as they seem. Keep up the education. It's good for you.
  8. jimbob86

    jimbob86 Well-Known Member


    If you are a male (can't be sure by the name) citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the Regular Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, then you ARE in the (unorganized) Militia. Look it up. Title 10,Subtitle A, PartI,Chapter 13, sec. 311 of the United States Code.
  9. hobgob

    hobgob Well-Known Member

    I actually just read an article in the april issue of handgun magazine written by Don B Kates that was pretty interesting. It stated that
    This was ofcourse colonial times tho, and indian attacks and other dangers were still prevelant.

Share This Page