Gun Responsibilities

[LaEscopeta]

When I was a school boy (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) we had to take a civics class, where there was much discussion of rights and responsibilities. Citizens have the right to vote and the responsibility to become informed enough about the candidates and issues to cast a meaningful vote. Citizens have freedom of speech and need to avoid speaking un-responsibly. The main point was most of the people around the world throughout history did not have anything near the rights we have as citizens of the U.S. Why? Our forefathers took the responsibility of fighting for rights. And also rights are preserved and passed on by the responsible excise of those rights. Lots of counties have gained rights only to lose them in the turmoil and anarchy that comes from citizens being only interested in their own rights and self interests and not their responsibilities. Examples of this include just about every county in Latin America after fighting to gain independence from Spain.

THR has a lot of discussion of gun rights, but not much on gun responsibilities.

Do you believe you have gun responsibilities and if so what are they?

[ Edited to add: I'm not saying the U.S. is the only county where citzens have rights and act responsibly. It just the county I had to take a civics class about. ]

 

[Manco]

Do you believe you have gun responsibilities and if so what are they?

Well, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution claims that a well "regulated" militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Even though our views on and implementation of an organized defensive force have changed dramatically over time, I still think the relevant implication is that each citizen is at minimum responsible for arming themselves and training for combat in case we're invaded by a foreign entity (the "rifle behind every blade of grass" scenario). We're not required to, individually, but it is given as a justification for our individual right and the more people who choose to exercise our right, the less vulnerable the country will be.

I might also add for completeness that this notion does not preclude our right to own and use firearms for other purposes such as self-defense or hunting, as these are natural rights and the Second Amendment makes no requirement for organized militia duty, instead stating in the main clause simply that the right to keep and bear arms is for the people (i.e. an individual right like all of the others in the Bill of Rights, not some self-serving notion of it being the right of the states ).

Our leaders back then had great foresight based on hindsight (as it should be), and knew that whatever else happened we would always be free if we were heavily armed, individually and consequently as a nation as a whole. Even if we no longer had a standing army for some reason and a larger, stronger nation invaded, we cannot be conquered as long as we're all armed and prepared to fight as an army of 300 million (the Swiss realize this, too--smart people). If we ever disarm our citizens, we'll never get things back to how they were and will always be subject to potential vulnerability and loss of freedom henceforth, just as likely from our own government as any other.