Maine town rejects mandatory gun ownership proposal

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/12/maine-town-rejects-mandatory-gun-ownership-proposal/

Residents of a small western Maine town have rejected a proposal that would have required a gun in every home.

About 50 registered voters in Byron on Monday voted against an article that read: "Shall the town of Byron vote to require all households to have firearms and ammunitions to protect the citizens?"

Even Anne Simmons-Edmunds, head of the select board, who initially supported the measure, says she voted it down.

The measure was proposed by her father, Bruce Simmons. He voted it down too, saying the wording was wrong. He says it should have read "recommend' rather than "require."

Some of the town's roughly 140 residents say the proposal made the town a laughingstock.

Randy Richards says he's a gun owner, but resented the proposal because it was government overreach.

-t

[cheapseats]

Considering this:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

and this:


...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Requiring gun ownership can at least be argued to be constitutionally sound.

Not so, Gun Control.

[CT4Liberty]

I am no more in favor of mandatory gun ownership than I am from mandatory lack of gun ownership. Self defense is an individual responsibility and thus an individual choice... should we make it a crime for people not to punch back if they are being punched?

If someone decides that not owning a gun is in their best interest, that is their right. Saying that having guns in the hands of unwilling people, will somehow make a town safer is pure nonsense...

[Quark]

Considering this:



and this:



Requiring gun ownership can at least be argued to be constitutionally sound.

Not so, Gun Control.

It is inconsistent with the classical liberalism of the founders though. Taking away one's liberty to choose how they wish to live their life and which actions they wish to partake implies man's servitude to government, not vice-verse. I am just as against forcing somebody to own a gun as I am against controlling one's ability to own a gun: one is just more practical than the other in my eyes, but still a loss of liberty, nevertheless.

[mello]

Didn't Kennesaw, GA do the same thing 20 years ago? If I remember correctly, crime plummeted & they have not had a murder afterwards.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

In today's atmosphere, it would probably lead to no knock warrants for people suspected of not having a firearm in the home. They'd have to make sure the law is being followed.

[Nirvikalpa]

I am no more in favor of mandatory gun ownership than I am from mandatory lack of gun ownership. Self defense is an individual responsibility and thus an individual choice... should we make it a crime for people not to punch back if they are being punched?

If someone decides that not owning a gun is in their best interest, that is their right. Saying that having guns in the hands of unwilling people, will somehow make a town safer is pure nonsense...

+1. Completely agree.

[Acala]

Sadly, this stupid proposal shows that many, if not most, supporters of the right to own a gun really don't have a clue about the meaning of liberty.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Didn't Kennesaw, GA do the same thing 20 years ago? If I remember correctly, crime plummeted & they have not had a murder afterwards.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/robert_a_heinlein.html)

[Acala]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/robert_a_heinlein.html)

Being required to own a gun is EXACTLY as wrong as being required to own health insurance.

[cheapseats]

It is inconsistent with the classical liberalism of the founders though. Taking away one's liberty to choose how they wish to live their life and which actions they wish to partake implies man's servitude to government, not vice-verse. I am just as against forcing somebody to own a gun as I am against controlling one's ability to own a gun: one is just more practical than the other in my eyes, but still a loss of liberty, nevertheless.


I am not FOR requiring Gun Ownership.

But if it is true that it is sometimes NECESSARY "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", FORCE will almost assuredly be required to meet that NEED. By prevailing "standards", brute Force pretty much DOES imply guns.

IF it is sometimes necessary to dissolve political ties and IF Citizens are obligated by that need, like I said, at least argument can be MADE for requiring gun ownership. Not so, Gun Control.

The "Courts" have surely spoken, on whether Citizens are bound by Constitutions/Laws to which they were not signatories. Whether Citizens are TRULY bound by them or free of them is obviously up to the individual to demonstrate. Betcha $10,000 that MOST "Defenders of Self & Second Amendment" REGISTER their guns, as prescribed by "official" humans.

[cheapseats]

Being required to own a gun is EXACTLY as wrong as being required to own health insurance.

Disagree.

INDIVIDUAL HEALTH BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE PEOPLE SHALL CARRY HEALTHCARE INSURANCE

strikes me as substantively different from

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE PEOPLE SHALL KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

[CT4Liberty]

Disagree.

HEALTH BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE PEOPLE SHALL CARRY HEALTHCARE INSURANCE

strikes me as substantively different from

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE PEOPLE SHALL KEEP & BEAR ARMS.

If you are REQUIRED to keep and bear arms... do you have a free state to secure?

[cheapseats]

If you are REQUIRED to keep and bear arms... do you have a free state to secure?


If I am REQUIRED to breathe, am I free?

"Freedom isn't free" is an understatement, and Liberty requires LOTS of discipline.

CAN people be/stay free WITHOUT keeping arms, and keeping resolved to BEAR those arms in defense of Self, Liberty & Justice IF NEED BE?

[HOLLYWOOD]

Being required to own a gun is EXACTLY as wrong as being required to own health insurance.I neither approved or disapproved MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP.

I was pointing out what MELLO observed... from a quote from an excellent science fiction writer/author Heinlein's quotes

[Acala]

I neither approved or disapproved MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP.

I was pointing out what MELLO observed... from a quote from an excellent science fiction writer/author Heinlein's quotes

Okay. If HEINLEIN advocated using government force to MAKE people own a gun against their will, HEINLEIN was wrong.

[Quark]

I am not FOR requiring Gun Ownership.

But if it is true that it is sometimes NECESSARY "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", FORCE will almost assuredly be required to meet that NEED. By prevailing "standards", brute Force pretty much DOES imply guns.

IF it is sometimes necessary to dissolve political ties and IF Citizens are obligated by that need, like I said, at least argument can be MADE for requiring gun ownership. Not so, Gun Control.

The "Courts" have surely spoken, on whether Citizens are bound by Constitutions/Laws to which they were not signatories. Whether Citizens are TRULY bound by them or free of them is obviously up to the individual to demonstrate. Betcha $10,000 that MOST "Defenders of Self & Second Amendment" REGISTER their guns, as prescribed by "official" humans.

Such an argument is a utilitarian, "progressive" argument. The ends don't justify the means. There are other means to insure the security of a free people without compromising their liberty. Encouraging people to own guns can be just as (if not more) effective as legislation. It is a societal issue, not a state one. If we start using utilitarian reasoning we can easily apply it to anything. An example being, say, the draft. We fought and won the revolutionary war with a voluntary militia. However; surely a draft for a standing army will have the same ends as a voluntary militia in fighting wars. Does that mean it's any good to have a draft for a standing army?

[TheGrinch]

Didn't Kennesaw, GA do the same thing 20 years ago? If I remember correctly, crime plummeted & they have not had a murder afterwards.

Yes indeed, and what most people here probably don't realize is that the requirement part is NOT enforced, it's more a matter of a intruder erring on believing they're probably armed.

I have to assume the "requirement" would be the same here. It would be preposterous to force everyone to own a weapon, because as we all know, not everyone is responsible enough to own one.

[enjerth]

Yet, some of us believe that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword."

[cheapseats]

Such an argument is a utilitarian, "progressive" argument.

Noooo, it is hardline hairsplitting STEEPED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.




The ends don't justify the means.

I am not aware of anyone saying that in this thread.

But in the spirit of hairsplitting . . . while ends very often do NOT justify their means, occasionally they DO.

Life is riddled with gray, which is NOT to say that NOTHING is black & white.



There are other means to insure the security of a free people without compromising that same freedom.

Such as? Lemme guess . . . Dispute Resolution Organizations?



Encouraging people to own guns can be just as (if not more) effective as legislation. It is a societal issue, not a state one.

Agreed.



If we start using utilitarian reasoning we can easily apply it to anything.

You can, but NOT everything is specially enshrined in our Constitution.

[Antischism]

Good. No one should be forced to own a gun if they don't want it.

[Quark]

Noooo, it is hardline hairsplitting STEEPED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

It's a big leap to interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be enforced." It is quite clear that the philosophy behind the constitution (classical liberalism) is meant to secure the liberty of the people, and the bill of rights is an explicit clarification of how the federal government can't overstep its boundaries on these liberties. Just because something is not in a constitution, does not mean it's a power for the state (or federation) to take advantage of. All powers given to a state or the federation are explicitly referenced in a constitution, and everything else is off-limits. Since the wording says "right" and not "obligation" it is quite clear that the second amendment is meant as a protection of the negative and natural rights of life, liberty, and the estate.


I am not aware of anyone saying that in this thread.


But if it is true that it is sometimes NECESSARY "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", FORCE will almost assuredly be required to meet that NEED. By prevailing "standards", brute Force pretty much DOES imply guns.

This quote doesn't explicitly state it, but from how it was written there was an implication that whatever we must do to reach the end product (in this case: winning a rebellion) we must do it.



But in the spirit of hairsplitting . . . while ends very often do NOT justify their means, occasionally they DO.

I'd argue that in this case the ends don't justify the means, because we have other ways to promote gun ownership which do not violate anyone's natural right to liberty.


Life is riddled with gray, which is NOT to say that NOTHING is black & white.


This is a gray situation.



Such as? Lemme guess . . . Dispute Resolution Organizations?



Agreed.


You agree with me. There are other ways to promote gun ownership.



You can, but NOT everything is specially enshrined in our Constitution.

There is no power given to any government (as far as I know) that trades in liberty for an enforcement of gun ownership.

[cheapseats]

It's a big leap to interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be enforced."

Once AGAIN, I am not making the leap . . . "merely" pointing out that THIS leap is more constitutionally sound than the Gun Control whopper.

Once AGAIN, I draw attention to the explicit term NECESSARY and to the implications of that specific NEED, if that Need is indeed acknowledged as righteous.

[cheapseats]

Such as? Lemme guess . . . Dispute Resolution Organizations?

Agreed.



You agree with me. There are other ways to promote gun ownership.

Nice try.




There are other means to insure the security of a free people without compromising their liberty.



Such as? Lemme guess . . . Dispute Resolution Organizations?




Encouraging people to own guns can be just as (if not more) effective as legislation. It is a societal issue, not a state one.




Agreed.

[Christian Liberty]

If I am REQUIRED to breathe, am I free?

"Freedom isn't free" is an understatement, and Liberty requires LOTS of discipline.

CAN people be/stay free WITHOUT keeping arms, and keeping resolved to BEAR those arms in defense of Self, Liberty & Justice IF NEED BE?

Yes. If the law required you to breathe, you ain't free. Same thing with being forced to own a gun or health insurance. It so happens that natural law does not allow you to live without breathing, but that isn't government's problem. People who don't breathe, nonexistant though they may be, shouldn't be criminalized.

[cheapseats]

Good. No one should be forced to own a gun if they don't want it.


It follows that no one is obligated to fight for Freedom if they don't want to.

THEN it follows that no is obligated to fight AGAINST Civil Liberty violations if they don't want to.

THEN it follows that Political Junkies & Activists should LEAVE 'THE SHEEPLE" ALONE.

[Quark]

Once AGAIN, I am not making the leap . . . "merely" pointing out that THIS leap is more constitutionally sound than the Gun Control whopper.

How is it "more" constitutionally sound? By that, do you mean it's easier to construct an "interpretation" of the constitution which supports the claim that a state or the federation has this power? If so, then I suppose it's more constitutionally sound. However, that requires the assumption that the constitution is there to be "interpreted" and doesn't say what it means. A fallacy which libertarians and especially classical liberals oppose.



Once AGAIN, I draw attention to the explicit term NECESSARY and to the implications of that specific NEED, if that Need is indeed acknowledged as righteous.

The second amendment starts by stating the need (to secure the free state), what is required to meet this need (a Militia), and how we obtain this requirement (protecting the right to keep and bear arms by the people.) Hence it gives us both the ends (secured free state) and the means to reach these ends (a militia produced by the natural liberty of the people.) That's all it says if we interpret it logically and semantically and not "fluidly."

[CT4Liberty]

If I am REQUIRED to breathe, am I free?

"Freedom isn't free" is an understatement, and Liberty requires LOTS of discipline.

CAN people be/stay free WITHOUT keeping arms, and keeping resolved to BEAR those arms in defense of Self, Liberty & Justice IF NEED BE?

No - if you live in a state that criminalizes you for not breathing, you are not free .... whether you are talking about forever or for a short period of time... should they have arrested Houdini for holding his breath under water for a few minutes on end? If they did, would that be a free state?

If people want to kill themselves, the state has no place in that decision... and therefore, youre argument is completely off base.

In order to keep a free state, not EVERYONE needs to be armed... only those who wish to be, and believe me, if their freedoms are truly at risk, no law will stop them from taking up arms and their numbers will swell. But you cannot preserve freedoms by first limiting them, that is a neocon argument.

[cheapseats]

How is it "more" constitutionally sound?

Not going around that mulberry bush again . . . not least 'cuz you WANT defending freedom to be OPTIONAL. Fret not, it IS.

Too bad people who are so clear and firm that gun ownership should not be required are not equally insistent that Gun Control should not be tolerated.

[CT4Liberty]

Not going around that mulberry bush again . . . not least 'cuz you WANT defending freedom to be OPTIONAL. Fret not, it IS.

Too bad people who are so clear and firm that gun ownership should not be required are not equally insistent that Gun Control should not be tolerated.

Who, on this board, would tolerate Gun Control? You cant say "hey, look, those guys want to force you to do something...thats evil, in order to stop them I am going to force you to do the opposite" ...

Most people who are for all out gun control are not blind to the fact that they do not believe in true liberty... that in and of itself is at least honest and more consistent than preaching the use of force to protect liberty.

That is a neo-con type of argument, the TSA type of "we have to trample your freedom in order to preserve it" type... most socialist/liberals have no illusions of true liberty like many neo-cons do.

[Christian Liberty]

It follows that no one is obligated to fight for Freedom if they don't want to.

THEN it follows that no is obligated to fight AGAINST Civil Liberty violations if they don't want to.

THEN it follows that Political Junkies & Activists should LEAVE 'THE SHEEPLE" ALONE.

Well, no, you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Have to fight against civil liberties violations. Under libertarian principle, it is the violators who are guilty, nobody else.


Not going around that mulberry bush again . . . not least 'cuz you WANT defending freedom to be OPTIONAL. Fret not, it IS.

Too bad people who are so clear and firm that gun ownership should not be required are not equally insistent that Gun Control should not be tolerated.

I'd admit that if we had to have firearms this would not be as bad as being required not to have firearms. But they're both bad.

[cheapseats]

Well, no, you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Have to fight against civil liberties violations. Under libertarian principle, it is the violators who are guilty, nobody else.

"Violators" are not only violating, they are PROSPERING. Yep, laughing all the way to their VAULTS.

Bad Guys act in THEIR NATURE. They will KEEP acting in their nature if it benefits them and IF THEY CAN . . . we rape, we pillage, yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate's life for me.

Is there NO POINT at which the "victim" bears some responsibility?

George the Younger really butchered this one: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

The more popularly held sentiment "fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame on me" speaks directly to Personal Responsibility...pesky flip-side of Liberty.




I'd admit that if we had to have firearms this would not be as bad as being required not to have firearms. But they're both bad.

Sure . . . but I have a distinct preference between the two.