# Is carrying a gun a duty?



## Lisa (May 23, 2007)

Why I carry a gun



> When I get into a discussion with my friends who are generally quite conservative about firearms and carrying guns, the question that always seems to come up is "Why exactly do you carry?"  I know the response most of my friends give and what they expect me to say as well.  They expect me to say that I carry to protect myself against my fellow citizens who have little, if any, respect for the law.  They expect me to say that I carry to stop from being robbed at the ATM, carjacked at a red light or held up in the parking lot.
> 
> And while these are true reasons for me to carry I answer more directly.  My answer is that while this is all true, I carry because it is my Constitutional right *and duty to be properly armed to protect not only myself, but those around me from the tyranny of government.*



Perhaps I find the author's ideas of a tyranny government somewhat far fetched, however, it started me thinking.  I have heard many people talk about their constitutional right regarding carrying a firearm.  However, I have not found a lot of discussion regarding the protection of others as a "duty"

Do you believe that you have a duty to protect those around you and is that why you carry?  Would there be any hesitation regarding using your firearm to protect another?


----------



## arnisandyz (May 23, 2007)

My "duty" is to myself and my family. If I use my firearm to defend a stranger I am putting myself at risk, and if my family is with me I am putting them at risk by leaving them. After it all, there may also be a court battle. If I go to jail, loose my job, etc. I failed my duty to myself and family again.

That being said, if I'm in a 7-11 that gets robbed, the robbers will get away with the money. Its not my judgment call if the clerk feels like his life is in danger or not. But if its like a Columbine situation where guns are blazing then I would feel compelled to take action.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (May 23, 2007)

I think it's my duty to do the best job I can to protect me and mine.  That is why I carry and train.

Jeff


----------



## Drac (May 23, 2007)

To protect the lives of my residents..


----------



## SFC JeffJ (May 23, 2007)

I wanted to add something.

That pistol on your hip would be a piss poor way to fight a corrupt and tyrannical government.  Hell, for something was just made "to kill other people", it sure does a piss poor job of it.

Jeff


----------



## Bigshadow (May 23, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Do you believe that you have a duty to protect those around you and is that why you carry?  Would there be any hesitation regarding using your firearm to protect another?



I believe the "duty" part comes from this....



			
				2nd paragraph Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.*  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.



The writers of the constitution put the 2nd Ammendment in for a reason.  I firmly believe that the intent was drawn from the Declaration of Independence.

IMO the 2nd ammendment is not at all about self defense but it was intended as the people's liberty teeth.


----------



## K31 (May 23, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> I wanted to add something.
> 
> That pistol on your hip would be a piss poor way to fight a corrupt and tyrannical government.  Hell, for something was just made "to kill other people", it sure does a piss poor job of it.
> 
> Jeff



I think that you would do well to read the history of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. I wish I could remember the title of the book I read but it focused on a handful of Jews armed only with pistols except a single rifle. Hitler had to call in an SS division to finally stop the uprising by destroying the ghetto.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 23, 2007)

Something else...by definition CCW should be considered a RIGHT in accordance to the Second Ammendment. But by having to "ask permission" by sending in photos, fingerprints, etc it has turned into a privilege.

The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right


----------



## SFC JeffJ (May 23, 2007)

K31 said:


> I think that you would do well to read the history of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. I wish I could remember the title of the book I read but it focused on a handful of Jews armed only with pistols except a single rifle. Hitler had to call in an SS division to finally stop the uprising by destroying the ghetto.


From what I've read, they had more than one rifle, though they often used pistols to aquire more longarms.

Jeff


----------



## SFC JeffJ (May 23, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> I believe the "duty" part comes from this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll agree with you on that.  But it largely has to do with the longarms you have at home, not the handgun on your person.  Not that I don't think it is an inalienable right to carry one.

Jeff


----------



## Bigshadow (May 23, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> I'll agree with you on that.  But it largely has to do with the longarms you have at home, not the handgun on your person.  Not that I don't think it is an inalienable right to carry one.
> 
> Jeff



Oh certainly I agree.  It wasn't about handguns.  I would go a step further and say that I believe the intent was to assure the people the same arms that any military force would use against them.  So it really wouldn't be only  long arms.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 23, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Do you believe that you have a duty to protect those around you and is that why you carry?  Would there be any hesitation regarding using your firearm to protect another?



I forgot to add, I believe that somewhere along the way people confused this duty to throw off tyranny with fighting crime or the myriad of other self defense things.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 23, 2007)

Arms to me by definition is anything capable of firing a lead projectile at high velocity. Be it a long rifle, shot gun, pistol, MP5, AR-15, AK-47...whatever! Rate of fire, ability to conceal, range, caliber whatever it's all the same. When the police are called out to an "armed-robbery" or to pursue a suspect that maybe "armed and dangerous" they aren't given specifics as to what type of "arms" the suspect/robber is using, only that they have a gun. 
Now-a-days the right to bear arms is becoming a privilege but only because there has been those who abused their rights by harming others. Thus under the guise of safety and the ability to solve crimes involving firearms is regulation and licensing necessary. 
It is when these regulations and licensing gets abused by the same government utilizing it is when the people need to stand up and say something about it. 
We are supposed to trust our government(s) city, county, state, federal to help protect us, especially those who cannot protect themselves by the use of a police and military force. The bigger the threat the larger the force (i.e. military for armed invasion by another country), which is why as I understand it one of the reasons we have a National Guard. But a citizen of this country should have the right to enact his freedom to defend themselves, their family, and their property as necessary, especially if the threat is immediate and help is too far/long in coming. 
Duty? Isn't it all our duty to make the choice to defend or to submit? 
The founding fathers wrote the DOI, Constitution and the BOR out of long experience of oppression and tyranny. But they also wrote for future generations as well. I believe they were intelligent and learned enough to have the foresight to know the results/consequences of a "free-government. Reading these (inspired) documents (to which I hold sacred) shows that with every line. That a large and very diverse group of learned and unlearned men came to an agreement that this is what they and their descendants should be governed by. 
So yeah, it's our duty to adhere to these rights and freedoms given to us and _repeatedly_ paid for with the blood of those fighting to defend it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 23, 2007)

I find the idea of using a firearm to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government to be a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.

You could take _all_ the shooters here at martial talk and give them _all _the guns they want.  Let us set up shop out in the woods somewhere.  Sad truth is, the US Government has the equipment dollars, the personell dollars and the training dollars to squish us any time they like.  The technologies have simply advanced too far and the money gap is simply too wide anymore.  We might have a number of motivated, armed people.  They have missiles guided by satellites that can rain fire on us from space.  

The 2nd amendment has its place and its uses, and I would never advocate disarmament.  However,  the realities have evolved beyond that original intent.


----------



## Blindside (May 23, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I find the idea of using a firearm to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government to be a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.
> 
> You could take _all_ the shooters here at martial talk and give them _all _the guns they want. Let us set up shop out in the woods somewhere. Sad truth is, the US Government has the equipment dollars, the personell dollars and the training dollars to squish us any time they like. The technologies have simply advanced too far and the money gap is simply too wide anymore. We might have a number of motivated, armed people. They have missiles guided by satellites that can rain fire on us from space.
> 
> The 2nd amendment has its place and its uses, and I would never advocate disarmament. However, the realities have evolved beyond that original intent.


 
Seems to be working fairly well in Baghdad.  

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
-Sun Tzu


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 23, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Seems to be working fairly well in Baghdad.



You appear to be operating under the illusion that they _want_ to win over there.....

The Confederates lost the US civil war because the North economically outstripped them.  It would only go worse for us today.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 23, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I find the idea of using a firearm to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government to be a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.
> 
> You could take _all_ the shooters here at martial talk and give them _all _the guns they want.  Let us set up shop out in the woods somewhere.  Sad truth is, the US Government has the equipment dollars, the personnel dollars and the training dollars to squish us any time they like.  The technologies have simply advanced too far and the money gap is simply too wide anymore.  We might have a number of motivated, armed people.  They have missiles guided by satellites that can rain fire on us from space.



They don't even need all of that. If you've watched any of the episodes on the Discovery Channel the program called "Future Weapons", they got stuff that is really scary when considering trying to hole up against that type of fire power/technology... and they don't need a large force either. 

But it's not working in Bagdad unless you mean the insurgents... well they've been able to hold out this long because we're not conquerors nor Nazis that would just simply wipe out the entire city and damn the innocents simply because there are no innocents because they haven't helped us find the insurgents. Our military (thankfully) does not operate under that ideology. Thus we get into a Vietnam type of situation where it's hard to tell the enemy from the civilians and we're not allowed to go all out against them because the possibility of collateral damage is too high and that makes for bad P.R. if we don't have that already anyway. 
Yet the insurgents are being supplied and it's done very very well in that we can only suspect and point fingers but cannot say for certain who is helping them. Since they've near-unlimited resources (oil money) it's longer than we can expect it to be. 

But the topic... ahh lets not stray too far from it... Lets do this... are the Iraqi insurgents doing THEIR duty? Would we do no less if the situation is reverse?


----------



## jks9199 (May 23, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Do you believe that you have a duty to protect those around you and is that why you carry? Would there be any hesitation regarding using your firearm to protect another?


 
Yes.

And so does the Chief.

But then, that is my job!

Personally, I believe we each have an individual responsibility for our own protection, in accord with our own morals and beliefs.  In other words -- accept that staying safe and one peace is your own responsibility, and nobody else is going to do it for you, but stay true to yourself.  If you're a pacifist or don't believe in harming others, you need to learn to avoid the situation, and to protect yourself within that framework.  If you don't like guns -- you don't have to carry one.  Just don't mess with my choice to do so!


----------

