Are there any unarmed libertarians on this site? If you do not own a firearm, what are your reasonings for it?
Firearms are one of those things that you don't realise how much you want/need only after it's taken from you.
Not sure if I'm really "educated" enough for my post to be considered on par quality here, but here's my view... Some of it may be copied/pasted from replies I've made in other discussions that I've been a part of.
As an American and a Christian, I believe that I have a responsibility to have arms, to be trained in their use, to be trained in at least basic warfare tactics, especially guerrilla tactics, and be prepared, able and willing to use those arms and tactics, be it against a foreign intruder or my own government, or my own neighbor, should the need arise.
My American responsibility, really, is founded on my Christian responsibility. Most of what I say will not make any heavy distinction between the two. I do realize, though, that not everyone here, and not necessarily everyone who believes similar to me politically, is a Christian.
First, I'd like to examine the Constitution of the United States of America. The second amendment says that I have the right to bear arms and that I have the right to a militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state. First, I'd like to point out that it says that these are necessary to the security of a free state. Because we do not have a significantly large, well trained or organized militia, we can conclude from this that we are either not secure, we are not free, or we are neither. I'd like to be both.
Now, what is the purpose of a militia. A militia's purpose is to protect the people from it's own government (or anyone else within the country that needs protection from) equally or more so than it is to protect the country from an outside invader.
I'd also like to point out the fact that it says "arms", not small arms, and I'd like to make mention of the fact that I do not believe any gun or arms control is necessary or right. I might go further on this later...
Necessary to the security of a free state... In the midst of a sort of "listing of our rights", we all of a sudden see this. What do I think of it? I believe it is a charge, a responsibility. It's saying, this is more than a right, it's a responsibility, it's necessary.
All of that you may consider American, as most of the documentation is from the Constitution, but I believe it's foundation is on Biblical principles. Even if you don't agree, Biblical principles at least do line up with this, there is no doubt about that.
If you wanted to, you could even apply stewardship to the situation. I'm supposed to be a good steward of my property and that means I'm supposed to protect it. Moreover, I'm supposed to protect my family, and others, from being harmed. Being disarmed and rendered at the mercy of the government is no different.
The real purpose of gun control? To increase the ratio of government power to people's power. That's it...
And that is the true purpose of gun control laws... It's not to benefit the people or make them safer, it's to reduce the power of the people. It's to reduce the peoples ability to keep the power of the government in check.
Self defense and defense of those that can't defend themselves. If you render yourself defenseless by surrendering your guns, your allowing yourself to become unprepared and unable to do what you're called to do.
I mean, do you think that God calls us to be good stewards so we can buy ourselves stuff we want? No, there are a lot of other reasons. The Church has major responsibilities, they can take a lot of money.. Good stewardship, be it with money or other things, can contain valuable lessons that can be applied elsewhere in our lives. The point is, though, good stewardship isn't merely something we're supposed to do for our own benefit. How does this apply to gun control? We're supposed to be good steward of what we have. Our land, our money, our country, our freedom, even our guns. That means protecting it. In my honest opinion, by choosing not to prepare one's self to protect it, he's choosing not to protect it. Basically, what I'm saying, is that this applies to gun control because good stewardship is a responsibility, not just a method of personal gain.
As far as the effectiveness of a militia, the Swiss used to be an excellent example. Some of Richard Maybury's books will go into more detail on that. I believe his book on WWII has a chapter or two that gives a lot of good information on it.
Now, I'm not saying I'm perfect, know all the answers, or am even a good example of this. I need a lot of practice with my guns before I'd consider myself really prepared, and there is a ton that I believe I should learn tactically. So I'm saying this to myself as well.
I've had more to say on gun control in general, but not all of it really applies to a responsibility to own and know how to use weapons, so I'll stop there for now.
To answer the orignal question, we do own weapons. Quite a few.
Hope it helps.
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
I don't own any weapons. Not to brag or anything, but if I get attacked by a gang of 7 year old socialists, I will probably be able to fend them off.
I'm planning to, as soon as I convince my husband. We are homeowners now so we have a responsibility to defend our property in addition to our lives. However, he's afraid that using guns even in self defense can lead to all sorts of legal trouble. And he's right to some extent: there're a lot of legislators who seem to think that law-abiding citizens are too dangerous to be allowed to defend themselves without repercussions.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
It may or may not console you to know that, in my country, after I have passed the years worth of bureaucracy and £120 invested in a gun cabinet (required by law), it is still usually illegal for me to shoot someone who enters my property and tries to kill me. That is apparently murder. I still think its worth getting a firearm though, although not just for home defence. I don't want to sound pushy or lecture, but if the right to bear arms is taken from you, you'll be kicking yourself that you didn't get a gun when you could.
I've spent my money on other things--like computers! Someday I'll get around to it.
American laws are generally more favorable to the use of firearms at home (my home is my castle). Ironically, it seems to be less trouble to actully kill your attacker than simply would them. I'm not sure exactly why, perhaps because in this case there's only one version of events: yours?
Ditto.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
You probably spent all of your money on incantations and leather pants with multi-coloured dragons stitched on them.
I'm not tacky...
We have a gun, totally by accident, because someone gave it to us. A beautiful 303, that I have never used.
I am not averse to owning a gun at this time. However, as I continue down the path of my life, my anarcism becomes increasingly pacifist. I discussed it a little here before, although it is nascent and my philosophy is still somewhat undeveloped (and boy does it raise hell to model pacifism around here!) But I also think that fear is the most dangerous thing out there, so, gun-owning or not, it is important to be comfortable and confident with a weapon.
BTW - Natalie! It's great to see some other women around here!
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I live in the UK. I think that is enough reasoning to be honest.
Markets clear.
liberty student: I don't own any weapons. Not to brag or anything, but if I get attacked by a gang of 7 year old socialists, I will probably be able to fend them off.
I don't know, what if they are 7 year old socialists who SHARE THEIR COOKIES!
thompsonisland: liberty student: I don't own any weapons. Not to brag or anything, but if I get attacked by a gang of 7 year old socialists, I will probably be able to fend them off. I don't know, what if they are 7 year old socialists who SHARE THEIR COOKIES!
Fair enough about pacifism. But if it ever comes under attack, Liberty must defend itself. After all, is the motto of this organisation is Tu Ne Cede Malis, is it not?