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...
From the looks of this thread, I think the better question is who does own a gun?
Maxliberty: From the looks of this thread, I think the better question is who does own a gun?
Asian Austrian:What if they are 7-year members of the NSDAP who share their jackboots all over your face? 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?
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?
I do agree with you, although I am not a shoot first kinda guy. I'm also under no illusion that any small arms I may have will protect me if the state comes knockin'.
liberty student:I'm also under no illusion that any small arms I may have will protect me if the state comes knockin'.
Asian Austrian: liberty student:I'm also under no illusion that any small arms I may have will protect me if the state comes knockin'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa These things need to be organised now and stored away until the time is right. I would tbh organise it myself but ... circumstances. Just wait...
They were on friendly turf. When the state comes a knockin' for me or any one else who openly protests for liberty, my neighbors and family will be informing on me. That is what we are up against.
Also, armed rebellion is so lame.
It was the same with Mao and Che and they led the people to victory against the state in guerilla warfare. Such things are possible. Just unlikely. I would rather give it a shot than surrender, if it becomes absolutely necessary.
The two ways for me to get hands on a gun would be either to completely give up privacy to fulfill the requirements of a gun ownership permit (plus the costs and hassle), or to buy one on the black market.Option 1 is not considerable for obvious reason.Option 2 would needlessly endanger me because illegal gun ownership is, to my information, a felony around here. Ammo would be hard to get as well, plus, as we all know, black market products tend to be of bad quality, but pretty expensive. I wouldn't be able to train since those few shooting ranges that exist would probably refuse to let me in without a permit.Europe rocks.
I don't try to make a case for pacifism for anyone else, only for myself.
"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
I used to need to know who I would be willing to shoot. I no longer need to answer that question for myself - I am fortunate in that I have been able, so far, to create one life. I do not think that I could take one.
Where everyone else is, is exactly where they need to be. Some folks are into armed rebellion, that's cool. I have come to see ALL violence as the embodiment of the state, and violent rebellion as the vehicle by which the disenfranchised seek to become the state themselves.
My experience in these discussions is that there tends to follow a showering of hideous hypotheticals in an effort to goad one who would profess pacifism into conceding some fundamental moral quandary at some point. This is totally understandable. Thus far, it hasn't changed my viewpoint, but it has helped refine it. I would not kill my own child to save 500 others, and I would not kill 500 children to save my own. It is up to me whether my mind is imprisoned, regardless of where my body is. I choose to be free, so I am.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Wish I could have one, but being underaged and not a ciizen has a lot of limitations when it comes to owning firearms.
thompsonisland: I don't try to make a case for pacifism for anyone else, only for myself. "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
I don't think Tolkien meant this as a justification of pacifism. That whole dialogue comes from Christian views on compassion, forgiveness and non-judg[ement (as in arbitrarily deciding who's going to die - something that the state does all the time). However, The Lord of the Rings is the book that's pretty clear on the idea that you do have to fight, and sometimes kill, for your life and freedom.
thompsonisland:I used to need to know who I would be willing to shoot. I no longer need to answer that question for myself - I am fortunate in that I have been able, so far, to create one life. I do not think that I could take one.
Out of curiosity, would you be able to shoot to defend your children?
Now, I'm not condemining anyone for being a pacifist. It's not a bad philosophy (unless it's forced on others). And I'd rather live next to peaceful people than to violent thugs :)
However, I do believe that for a free society to function a large portion should be willing to protect themselves both from criminals and from the tyranny from inside and abroad. To quote Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society."
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
I'm suprised so few people here own firearms. I own several, and I carry a pistol on me any time I leave my house (within the bounds of the law, of course). I live in Texas, so my guns are not registered, and though I do have to have a permit to carry my gun, anyone can buy one with a simple background check. I will never need to use my gun (i'm a 6'3 gym rat), but I own it because I can. Because I know how many people died a long time ago to ensure that I can. And because if ever someone tries to negotiate with me using force, I will be able to reply with the only language they would understand. When a criminal (thug or government) says 'your money or your life', I choose grant them the only choice they are allowed to make - their own well-being, their own death. Many wont agree with my randian views, but I am not in any way impeding their rights by privately carrying a gun they will never know about. I am only ensuring my own in the manner I best see fit, which I'm sure few on this board would argue with.
Sphairon:The two ways for me to get hands on a gun would be either to completely give up privacy to fulfill the requirements of a gun ownership permit (plus the costs and hassle), or to buy one on the black market.
If you pay taxes, own property and have a driver's license you don't have much privacy anyway. The state knows everything there's to know about you. If you're an immigrant, like myself, they also have your fingerprints. At least by buying weapons you're increasing the number of gun owner so the government may at least pause before passing any laws that upset millions of voters.
JParker:I'm suprised so few people here own firearms. I own several, and I carry a pistol on me any time I leave my house (within the bounds of the law, of course). I live in Texas, so my guns are not registered, and though I do have to have a permit to carry my gun, anyone can buy one with a simple background check. I will never need to use my gun (i'm a 6'3 gym rat), but I own it because I can. Because I know how many people died a long time ago to ensure that I can.
Now we're talking! If I wasn't already married I'd propose to you right away
Natalie, that's generally the first question people ask. Of course, if I profess pacificism, the answer is "no."
Granted, we are talking in hypotheticals. Hypothetically, my emotions will never get the better of my intellect. In reality, who knows. Like I said, I do have a gun.
I don't think Tolkien was arguing for pacificism either. But I don't think he had to be, for that quote to work in the way that I meant it.
Intentionally taking a human life, regardless of the motivation, presents some profound moral quandaries for me that only resolve when I commit not to do it, under any circumstance.
Of course, in order to be at peace with pacificism, one must also make peace with death and loss. However, I think one must make peace with those things to be at peace in general. That's a lot of "peace"s. Sorry about that.
Now that is a great post.