Mandatory Firearms Possession, Got to love Maine!!

[HorseSoldier]

The Libertarian in me disagrees with unnecessary "shall" or "shall not" laws, even ones that I philosophically agree with.

 

[essayons21]

To all of the posts regarding this as government intrusion...

There is a line between constitutional conservatism, libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, and anarchy. Just because the government tells us to do something doesn't mean it is bad. The powers of the government to tell us to do something are enumerated by the Constitution and limited by the Bill of Rights.

For example:

The Congress shall have Power To... ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

and lets not forget the first part of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

If we stand by our Constitution and Bill of Rights as the bulwark of our liberties, we must also accept the responsibilities inherent in those documents.

 

[silicosys4]

Forcing all private citizens to own guns is the best and quickest way to get them permanently banned from private ownership.
IMO.
Nobody likes being forced to do anything, as apparent by the amount of gun owners who are rubbed the wrong way in this thread. Right now the only thing separating us from being at the mercy of the very vocal antis is a group of people that are not gun owners, but do support the 2nd amendment. This is how a democracy works when you have 3 interest groups instead of a very easy 2

 

[essayons21]

Forcing all private citizens to own guns is the best and quickest way to get them permanently banned from private ownership.
IMO.

Please explain this logic.

 

[Warp]

Mandatory firearms ownership is beyond stupid. It is wrong. It is sinking to their level, and it is no better than them.

Personal freedoms and liberty, personal choices. If you don't want a gun that is 100% acceptable.

AND personal responsibility.

You don't get personal responsibility with things that are forced onto people.

The whole idea is asinine.

 

[silicosys4]

Easy. forcing otherwise ambiguous or unconcerned people to do something usually turns them against whatever it is they are being forced to do. We need those ambiguous people to say "I don't own a gun but agree with gun rights" when they vote.....not "screw those people that want to force me to do something I don't want to"
Turn those people against us, and we are the minority....and you know what happens to the minority in a democracy.

 

[TennJed]

As far statements go, I like the ones that state gun control laws are unenforceable here, this one I can not get behind

 

[HorseSoldier]

As stated, I don't think a "you are officially ordered to own a gun" law is an appropriate action for government. On the other hand, I'd be all in on a government incentive program to encourage firearms ownership like, say, amending the tax code to make firearms purchased for home or personal defense tax deductible.

 

[Warp]

Easy. forcing otherwise ambiguous or unconcerned people to do something usually turns them against whatever it is they are being forced to do. We need those ambiguous people to say "I don't own a gun but agree with gun rights" when they vote.....not "screw those people that want to force me to do something I don't want to"
Turn those people against us, and we are the minority....and you know what happens to the minority in a democracy.

We aren't a democracy.

 

[Trent]

I know of more than a few paroled felons who have committed heinous atrocities against their fellow citizens who, though they may have "paid their debts to society" (whatever that means), even you might object to their having the "right" to live next door to your family with children or in your workplace. Though the ones I'm thinking about are guilty of doing a little more than ripping their mothers off of a few checks when they were teenagers, they, of course, have the same right you speak of; to live and work "wherever they damn well choose".

Given the high rate of recidivism incurred by most probationers and parolees, for your sake and for your family's continued well-being, I sincerely hope that the offenders I have in mind don't choose your neighborhood to live and work in.

I understand what you are saying, but I looked at it from a different perspective.

I grew up in a nice quiet town which slowly (over a couple of decades) went to hell in a hand-basket. Crime was WAY up over the last decade. The concept of "homeless people" went from something you saw on TV shows, to something you saw on Main Street. And this isn't downtown Chicago; this is a town of ~30k in downstate IL. One of the parks I used to hike in down by the river was closed by the park district and serves as an "unofficial" homeless area campground.

Within a 6 block radius of where we lived, there were over a dozen sex offenders, one of whom was recidivistic (3 convictions, all ages 8-12), who walked past my house every day to the grocery store and eyeballed my daughters playing in the yard, whenever they were outside when he passed.

We moved.

I can't force sex offenders to move away; I can't solve the homeless problem or the economic issues that have caused so many in that town to become homeless; I can't become Batman and solve the crime problem.

But I *could* move away from it, and get my family away from it.

And we did.

So ... everyone has the right to live where they want. And I have the right to move, when it offends me.

 

[RustHunter87]

Also I dont think you folks quit understand this Byron situation, its a town of under 200, there is no Byron police, no town water, hell there's not even a gas station in that town!
They are not gonna Force anybody to do jack all there doing is trying to pass a law that that will hopefully allow them to Keep there guns in the face of a slew of proposed anti gun regulations!

 

[Inebriated]

Those giveth can also taketh.

I'll have no part of being told what I must or must not have.

The sentiment is excellent, though.

 

[robMaine]

Also I dont think you folks quit understand this Byron situation, its a town of under 200, there is no Byron police, no town water, hell there's not even a gas station in that town!
They are not gonna Force anybody to do jack all there doing is trying to pass a law that that will hopefully allow them to Keep there guns in the face of a slew of proposed anti gun regulations!

Exactly why I mentioned it was a little tongue-in-cheek. I can see that maybe they went about it in the wrong way. But I love the thought/intention behind it.

 

[SwampWolf]

So ... everyone has the right to live where they want. And I have the right to move, when it offends me.

I understand what you are saying, but I looked at it from a different perspective.

Unfortunately, Trent, not everybody has the means or opportunity to move to wherever they want and whenever they want just because a (say) convicted pedophile exercises his "right" to live next door to a family with children. The burden of relocation due to the threat posed by being in the proximity of dangerous offenders should not have to fall on the backs of innocent people. This "right" you speak of, for dangerous, violent and/or repeated recidivists to live "wherever they damn well choose", is offensive to me and that's the "perspective" I'm coming from.

 

[gego]

Didn't the early Militia laws require all able bodied men from 16 to 60 be well armed and regulated (trained) for the common defense of the States? And I think they provided for arming those who could not afford to arm themselves.

The 2nd amendment addresses two group. One being "the people" meaning all of us in which it guaranteed our pre-existing right to be armed. The second being "the militia" meaning at the time all able bodied men from 16 to 60, in which it stated they are necessary for the security of a free State.

The first draft of the 2nd amendment was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free county: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This was changed to substitute "State" for "country", the religious exemption was deleted, and the phrases were arranged differently for the final draft. It seems that they intended not only a guarantee the right of people to keep and bear arms, but also were providing for a militia and the requirement that the State militias be well armed and trained, quite the opposite of the wishful thinking of the anit's that only the State's but not the people are guaranteed the right to be armed. (I think also some anti's believe the "well regulated" phrase means regulated in the sense of restricted instead of its meaning at the time of being well trained.)

So how is the proposed requirement for citizens to be armed inconsistent with the 2nd amendment or the need for security of our supposedly free States which compose our supposedly free country, or inconsistent with the thinking behind having a draft when we have had such laws?

My own view is that as free men we should consider it our duty to ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens to be armed for our own defense and the defense of our free States, should the need arise. It is sort of like carrying insurance on our property; we hardly even need it, but we are in bad shape if we don't have it when needed. I also consider it our duty to resist intrusions by government on our freedom, that level of resistance being what we individually regard as what will serve us best. Given the increased level of destruction of freedom by government, I think the level of necessary resistance is increasing.

 

[hso]

If you don't think government should tell you that you can't own a gun, why do you want them to tell you that you have to?

 

[chris in va]

Byron is a wide spot in the road of 145 people.

My little subdivision has more people than Byron.

 

[Warp]

If you don't think government should tell you that you can't own a gun, why do you want them to tell you that you have to?

Far too many people (IMO) support mandates for things they agree with, and oppose mandates for things they disagree with. Far too few people (IMO) truly understand the concepts of Liberty, Rights, and Freedoms.