Provocative Reading

[DragonMind]

In a civilized society, provocative ideas should be examined, understood and debated. In that spirit I offer up the words of Robert Boatman (http://www.ironwordranch.com/). It has made me consider deeply my attitude towards weapons carry. His assertion that carrying a gun is not only a Constitutional right but also a Social Obligation has given me a lot to think about regarding my role as a husband, father, grandfather and freedom-loving citizen of the United States.

Rational discussion encouraged, mindless rants and empty talking points are not welcome.

[Jonathan Randall]

Well, it certainly was once considered as such. I would not go so far as to say that being armed is a duty, but I would say that giving it serious consideration may very well be.

There are folks; however, who, by their own admission, do not think it wise that they be armed - either because of lack of training, mental stability, or proper attributes. Lack of training can be remedied, but, like you and nearly everyone on this board, it has to be the right kind of training. Simply learning basic safety and the mechanics of shooting are not enough.
Shoot/don't shoot training must also be incorporated and not everyone has the cognitive, motor skills, or calmness to be able to fire correctly in a situation where innocents are also near or in the line of fire. This does set a practical limit on who can or should carry.

That being armed is a right per the Constitution, is beyond dispute, imo. Had the Founding Fathers thought there would be any misunderstanding later, they would have put the well regulated militia clause in a separate area of the Bill of Rights. Most, if not all of them, would have considered the right to self-defence to be self-evident.

This is from a former gun control supporter who has turned the other way. Goodness knows, mass murderers would not be able to rack up such increasingly large body counts if enough citizens were armed to the point that the next time one of them walked into a diner or onto a college campus intent on shooting everyone in sight, they would find their fire returned and their ability to massacre limited.

[Erik]

I feel it is our civic duty to get honest, clear, real information about gun accidents and successful self- or others-defence events so decisions can be made upon facts, not hysterical nonsense.

[Jonathan Randall]

Lack of training can be remedied, but, like you and nearly everyone on this board, it has to be the right kind of training.

Correction. I meant to say," as you and most on this board know, it has to be the right kind of training".

[David Craik]

A little over the top for me. I'm a bit strange though, as I recognize no mandatory "social obligation" that I can think of beyond not infringing upon the rights of others. Though I would and have intervened in the defense of others I see this as a personal imperative, not one placed upon me by a system of societal obligation. I owe "society" nothing, and ask for nothing. I don't see requiring an individual to purchase or use an object much more defensible than requiring them to buy health insurance under Obamacare or a printing press in order that they may be required to exercise freedom of the press.

I might have to do more research, but the author bringing Sparta and Rome into it seems a little disingenuous to me with regard to the United States, which has a de facto standing and volunteer army. It would make more sense comparing these states to Switzerland. Spartiate males were the army, and Sparta had a military-based society. Rome had an annual conscription or "levy" of citizens to serve, not to mention hordes of captured enemy/slaves. Even the word "legion" comes from "legere", "to levy". We have no permanent system of conscription in the United States, least of all where citizens bring their personal arms to battle. The Second has to do with the prevention of internal (as well as external, in a time where we had little in the way of a professional army) tyranny, an idea which would hardly be popular among caesars and the Roman senate. Tyrants were quite prolific in Rome over the years, arms were for defense of the Roman state, not for the assertion of individual and collective citizens' rights. Spartan peers were to defend the state; I doubt seriously if helots were permitted to wander around with personal arms with the idea that they were to defend themselves against injustices visited upon them by all and sundry. The Bill of Rights where the Second Amendment resides is a series of limitations on the power of the United States federal government, not an enumeration of powers granted to entities like Sparta, Rome, or even a city or county government's mandate to compel a citizen to assist police officers or defend the populace at large.

To my mind, a "right" is a non-transferable power owed to the people, to be exercised at will. Compelling someone through a system of societal mores or force of law to exercise a "right" is akin to there being no "rights" at all. You can't force a citizen to exercise a "right", this makes it nothing more than an edict - not really a "right" at all. Society at large or the state forcing an individual to own a weapon and act against another doesn't sound much like "freedom" to me. There is the freedom to keep and bear arms, but there also is such a thing as freedom of choice.

Reading Mr. Boatman's article (which in itself in kind of "ranty", IMHO - the guy quotes the last part of the Second four times in a row in one place, caps and everything), I get the distinct impression that he is pretty "right-wing" in his views. Thus I find his apparent assertion that individual freedom takes a back seat to the obligation to act for the greater good of a societal collective quite ironic. Glenn Beck and Confucius is a very interesting mix.

[DragonMind]

David,

I agree about the rant factor. I also found the name-calling a bit off-putting.

If one reads the writings of the Founding Fathers and early Constitutional scholars, it is hard to conclude anything other than they meant the right to keep and bear arms to be an absolute right of every citizen. The tortured language analysis employed by gun opponents, particularly with regards to the militia clause, does not hold up when examined in the totality of the writings. Statements such as these do not strike me as ambiguous:


"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Elbridge Gerry Your citing the existence of a standing army is interesting given the Founders' significant opposition to a standing army and their desire that a militia of the people be the means of defense against tyranny; particularly from the government itself. The question of should we have a standing army, and if so what should its role and limitations be would make an interesting discussion as well.

What I found most interesting was the concept of a societal obligation and its application to exercising a right. Jefferson thought that keeping arms was both: a right guaranteed free from usurption by the state and collectively defending society's liberty a duty which required possession (and skill) with those arms. I would see that as the distinction between this issue and the health insurance issue. One might argue that the duty to have healthcare is compelled by the right to life, though it would be hard to conceive of the social obligation that you live. The social benefit of lowered costs doesn't reach the level of compelling obligation in my mind.

Does our agreement to belong to a society also imply tacit acceptance of some mutually agreed upon obligations to one another? I don't think that the freedom to choose whether or not to comply with those obligations negates their existance. For example, we have agreed to a system of laws for the protection and betterment of society. Free will implies that we can choose to obey or not, but the obligation still exists by mutual consent. If a people have absolutely no obligations to their society, does a society in fact exist?

The aspect of this that really gave me pause is considering my obligations to my wife, my children and grandchildren, my family and then the extension of that to my society. Clearly I can choose to defend my wife, my children, my grandchildren, and outward. The question is do I have an obligation to defend them? I can't imagine a loving spouse or parent arguing that they have no obligation to protect their family. One could argue that our obligation extends only to those who are unable to defend themselves, but that is not a very satisfying distinction. There are plenty of members of society who fit that description. Is it then based on distance of the relationship? Again, that would be a tough standard to define. I haven't resolved the issue completely in my own mind. But it does make for an interesting and enlightening debate.

[Jonathan Randall]

If one reads the writings of the Founding Fathers and early Constitutional scholars, it is hard to conclude anything other than they meant the right to keep and bear arms to be an absolute right of every citizen. The tortured language analysis employed by gun opponents, particularly with regards to the militia clause, does not hold up when examined in the totality of the writings. Statements such as these do not strike me as ambiguous:

Your citing the existence of a standing army is interesting given the Founders' significant opposition to a standing army and their desire that a militia of the people be the means of defense against tyranny; particularly from the government itself. The question of should we have a standing army, and if so what should its role and limitations be would make an interesting discussion as well.

But it does make for an interesting and enlightening debate.

The contortions gun control advocates put the 2nd Ammendment through are downright dishonest, imo. So far, we all seem to agree on this here.

Unfortunately, the technological basis of modern warfare requires a standing, professional army of some size. We would probably be substantially more economically solvent in the U.S. if groups of citizens could bring their muskets out into the field and become citizen soldiers again in a time of emergency. OTOH, that concept got us our clock cleaned in The War of 1812 - at least until the final moments.

However; gun right's advocates can and do often engage in their own brand of spin. One can acknowledge the Right to Bear Arms as Constitutional, while at the same time recognizing that every year a non-trivial number of damn fools either get themselves or loved ones killed or maimed because they would not observe basic firearm safety. There really is no solution to this other than doing what groups like the NRA already do - emphasize safe and responsible gun ownership.

Good thread, though.

[David Craik]

I take no issue with the the right to keep and bear arms. I have defended same for a long time. I think times have changed, for better or worse, as far as having a standing army. The United States would be a very different place today if a professional army were not in place. We likely wouldn't be invading other countries or lighting up Libya right now. But that's neither here nor there.

The societal obligation to defend the liberty of all is a compelling idea. I cannot refute this. It is a shame the article didn't focus on such a thing rather than spending a lot of verbiage talking about crime.


Does our agreement to belong to a society also imply tacit acceptance of some mutually agreed upon obligations to one another? I don't think that the freedom to choose whether or not to comply with those obligations negates their existance. For example, we have agreed to a system of laws for the protection and betterment of society. Free will implies that we can choose to obey or not, but the obligation still exists by mutual consent. By breaking laws one infringes upon the rights, person, or property of another. I have stated already that not infringing upon others is the extent of my perceived societal obligation. Though again, the defense of societal rights does have merit and deserves serious thought.

My obligation to my wife and family was already set when I said my vows, and has nothing to do with what society or the law says, or what Mr. Boatman says. I believe a husband's/father's role is provider and protector and this idea predates guns by millennia. And my wife is happy with it too. :D