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...
thompsonisland: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.
I don't think people are inherently comfortable with violence and murder unless conditioned by the military culture. And even soldiers might have psychological issues with justifying their actions.
Fortunately, according to statistics most gun owners don't even have to shoot anyone: the criminals usually run away at the sight (or sound) of the weapon to find an easier prey :)
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Awww.
I highly recommend The Tao of Physics.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Natalie: thompsonisland: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. I don't think people are inherently comfortable with violence and murder unless conditioned by the military culture. And even soldiers might have psychological issues with justifying their actions. Fortunately, according to statistics most gun owners don't even have to shoot anyone: the criminals usually run away at the sight (or sound) of the weapon to find an easier prey :)
This could open up an historical discussion of the nature of soldiery. I first learned of The Christmas Truce from Lew, and there have been many pieces at LRC talking about how, even through WWII, soldiers didn't LIKE to shoot each other. The military was pissed, and intentionally took the gentlemen out of the soldier. Also of note that this corresponds to the precipitous decline in literacy among soldiers (and Americans in general) and the rise of the Education state.
Man, the baby's asleep, the realtor's coming over, I am supposed to get the house clean, and what am I doing?
The reason it's better to kill your attacker than simply wound them is simple: a dead attacker can't sue you for personal injury. Believe it or not that is a common tactic in states, such as Illinois and Massachusetts, where the ownership and use of firearms is greatly limited by the State in spite of the 2nd Amendment prohibition against infringing the right to keep and bear arms. A secondary reason to shoot to kill is that simply wounding an attacker does not necessarily render them harmless. You do not want to allow them another opportunity to continue their attack. It sounds harsh, and it is, but the important point to keep in mind is that it is your assailant who is committing an illegal act and that you have the inherent right of self-defense, no matter how many politicians want to deny you that right.
Just my $.02, which is becoming worth less and less thanks to the efforts of the Federal government.
The family of the dead attacker can sue you too.
In my book, it's better to be in debt than dead.
Natalie: The family of the dead attacker can sue you too. In book, it's better to be in debt than dead.
In book, it's better to be in debt than dead.
This is true and is simply another sign of how screwed up our society has become. However, it is generally more difficult, at least from the anecdotal evidence, for a family to sue someone who killed a family member that was committing an act of violence against the defendant. If nothing else the jury is more apt to side with the homeowner who was acting to protect himself. The reason, as I understand it, that some of the wrongful injury suits brought by wounded assailants have been won, is that the injured party makes the claim that they did not intend to harm the person who shot them. Somehow, the fact that said "peaceful intruder" was in my home at 3am gets overlooked. No one has ever been able to explain to my satisfaction how things have gotten to such a pass in this country.
And it is for this reason that you move to a place that makes these efforts useless, such as Texas. Here we acquit anyone who uses a gun in defense of self or property (and in a recent case, a man who killed someone who robbed his neighbor was acquitted of all charges brought forth). While its better to be in debt than dead, I wouldnt ever want to live in a place that punished my using force against someone who brought force into my life.
I agree, but, unfortunately, it wasn't possible in our case :(
Do you think Texas would have been better off setting up its own republic instead of joining the US?
Natalie: Do you think Texas would have been better off setting up its own republic instead of joining the US?
Well, we did. While many people argue that Texas never legally joined the US, I feel that this point is useless. If you read the Texas constitution, it is long and oddly assembled, but at the same time, lists all the rights of its citizens rather than the rights of the government. We are a state that respects people's privacy and ownership of their property and themselves. We have no income tax, and yet somehow with all the states screaming that they're going bankrupt, we have a (massive) budget surplus yet again. Yes, we don't have the social programs of places like California or the northeast, but our roads work (many of them privately owned), our deregulated power system has lowered costs for everyone and given people choice, and we manage to attract businesses left and right (only NY has more fortune 500 headquarters in it). If Texas were an independent nation, it would be in the top 10 economies in the world (estimates vary from #5 to #9), and we have every natural resource we need to be a prospering nation. I fully believe that the state should secede from the US and reform the Republic of Texas, though that will never happen. Really the only issue we have is illegal immigration from Mexico, which either is or is not a big deal to you.
JParker:We have no income tax, and yet somehow with all the states screaming that they're going bankrupt, we have a (massive) budget surplus yet again.
Taxachusetts governor is cutting state budget (good, I guess) and people yet again vote to keep the state income tax.
Maybe I should move to New Hampshire
JParker:Yes, we don't have the social programs of places like California or the northeast,
That must be one of the reasons of your success: people who want to get money for nothing stay in Cali and those who want to work go to Texas ;)
Really the only issue we have is illegal immigration from Mexico, which either is or is not a big deal to you.
I'm sure that on your own you'd have handled it much better.
I think that firearms are the coolest thing that's happened to self defense in the history of humanity. Yes, it's easier to kills people but it's also made it possible for the physically weaker to protect themselves against the physically stronger in direct confrontation (something that was practically impossible before the firearms).
As for Christianity, didn't Jesus himself said to sell clothes and buy a sword or something to that extent? Clearly, early Christians understood importance of being able to protect oneself.
Paintballer: Could you PM me with how your current preparations are going? What you have, what books you've read etc, this stuff greatly interests me and I am thinking of preparing myself in a similar manner.
Natalie:As for Christianity, didn't Jesus himself said to sell clothes and buy a sword or something to that extent? Clearly, early Christians understood importance of being able to protect oneself.
Actually, Jesus advised turning the other cheek, remember? The sword was purchased, because the future (which Jesus knew) required them to present themselves as an armed threat, thus fulfilling prophecy when the Romans arrested them. Jesus knew that, as well as he knew that Judas would betray him. Think of the swords as a prop.
Sadly, many Christians today have forgotten that Jesus was the ultimate pacifist, believing so completely in his father, he would allow himself to be killed.
It's a lot like that "render unto Caesar" thing which has been twisted into Jesus telling his followers to obey government (which is absolute nonsense).