Do you feel it's the government's responsibility....

Not safe from ourselves or safe from our own rights and freedom. .

Agreed... but my answer is still NO... To me, in life, you can only rely on yourself to truly trust your safety to..

Even then, I do some of the stupidest things that I'm surprised hasn't killed me yet..

__________________
Never let your fear decide your fate!
Kein Mitleid für die Mehrheit

Well then who is "us"...how can the people be their own enemy? How can the government claim that the citizens are the enemy? Logically, that would make the government the enemy of the people.

Much the same with me.

I think, probably, we agree in principle, if not in semantics.

__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist"- Archbishop Camara

The Mad Luddite

That's a good question, and although I took the oath several times during my military career, I never really thought about it in depth until this thread - although I did give it at least some thought. In my youth, I just assumed it would be obvious should the situation arise.

__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist"- Archbishop Camara

The Mad Luddite

You snipped out too little of the oath.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"

Lets define enemy: a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

So, I think everyone who thinks the Constitution is "outdated" and needs to be "revised" should go see your nearest US military officer.

__________________
U.S. Constitution -10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's great and all. I'm familiar with the words, and swore the oath 4 times. It's the meaning of the words that's the stickler.

Since the Constitution itself contains instructions for its own amendment, simply wanting or attempting to change the Constitution doesn't make one its enemy, at least to my understanding - especially considering that the Bill of Rights itself is a series of amendments.

__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist"- Archbishop Camara

The Mad Luddite

It's for your own safety. Others might think you have a limited vocabulary if you only post 2 letters.

__________________
Dear Math, it is time you grew up and solved your own problems.

That's what made me stop and think before answering, the "defending against enemies, foreign and domestic" part.

From the beginning, to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, we may have tried, and tried hard to protect, but the truth is, thousands of graves are testament that we could not and can not be kept "safe".
The best we can hope for is a good block, followed by a mean counterpunch, lol.
THAT'S our government's only true responsibility, and nothing more should be expected or allowed.
Everything else is up to us and our own common sense.


Yes, that piece paper, on which our principles are written.




But, I think that's a little extreme, as pointed out below...

From one of the Founding Fathers himself,
"such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments" http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

The Federal Government is supposed to withhold the constitution and only provide for what it is written. James Madison himself says the current federal government is unconstitutional and for this reason we need to put a stop to it.

__________________
U.S. Constitution -10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I feel it is the government's job to keep the NATION safe. And since they have failed to secure our borders, they are not doing their job.

Individuals - NO.

__________________
It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong.
Laura Ingalls Wilder

Ditto on this.

__________________
"Be still sad heart, and cease repining. Behind the clouds, the sun is shining. Thy fate is the common fate of all. Into each life, a little rain must fall." -Longfellow

So what are you saying? The parents of the children at Sandy Hook failed in their responsibility because they did not keep theirs safe?

Theoretically yes. The parents of the children made the choice to send their children to a place where they were unprotected.

No, I'm not saying that.. But the parents trusted the Government to protect their children. The government failed to do so again...

Even though the ultimate responsibility belongs to the parents, they allowed the Government to disarm themselves and the school personnel on PUBLIC (read as Government) school property.. Thus trusting the Government to protect their children...

Here in PA it is required to send your children to school so you ( in general) only have a few choices;
Home school (hard to do when both parents have to work in order to survive)

Private school (costly and out of most people's reach, because you still have to pay School Property taxes even if you send your child to a private school, so your costs are almost double)

Charter Schools (which wasn't legal until recently)

So the Government, both State and Federal have accepted the responsibility to protect the children, they have forced parents to relinquish their parental Rights...

But again the Government through it's regulations and laws have failed AGAIN to protect our children. Then they want to blame an inanimate object for their failure(s).

So don't you think the Government should get out of the way of the parents/community and allow them to school their children without interference?

Or do we continue to allow the Government to fail in their attempt to keep them safe?

Even the police and the courts have said their responsibility is to serve and protect the Community/State, but not the individual.

So why are they allowed to disarm us, thus keeping us from protecting ourselves?

I say they're not allowed to do that per the Constitution. They can't limit what I have as far as firearms..

But we who believe in the 2A have conceded some things such as allowing Government the right to do background checks and such for those who wish to own full automatic rifles and pistols..

But now that isn't enough.. Now they are going after the semiautomatic rifles and pistols..

Why?

What are they afraid of?

Could it be that they really are trying to enslave and control us?

I say yes..

__________________
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
www.pafoa.org
http://www.45thpacok.com

[QUOTE=beowoulf90;6392439]No, I'm not saying that.. But the parents trusted the Government to protect their children. The government failed to do so again...


The parents did not trust the government to protect their children. They trusted the society they live in. They trusted their neighbours.

You can of course be a helicopter parent keeping your child at home and never out of your sight. But then the day you go to the bathroom and don't take your kid with you and an intruder breaks in in those few minutes and takes your child and then kills your child you will be responsible for failing to protect your child. According to your logic. How did your gun help while you were on the toilet? Think this can't happen? It has.

[quote=emdeengee;6392506]
Yea you will always find a reason to limit peoples Rights.. There will always be some excuse..

If the parents trusted society, then they paid the price for that trust...

Unfortunately you are correct we can never be 100% sure we can protect our children, but people apparently like you want to make that even harder for a parent to protect their family..

which tells me you don't value the Constitution or those who have died defending it..

__________________
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
www.pafoa.org
http://www.45thpacok.com

And how has society or neighbors proven to be trustworthy?

As far as the intruder- the parent obviously did not provide adequate protection against intrusion.

There is very little that you can say that will completely absolve the responsible party. Every parent or person will take risk because there is risk in living. Always the chance that something can happen that could have been prevented had some actions been taken beforehand. Each person makes decisions about reducing risk based on their experiences, we all evaluate the need for certain precautions based on how high the risk.

The parents of Sandy Hook made a decision to send their parent to school that day because they assumed that the risk of harm was low. All their experience thus far backed this assumption, but that day they were wrong.

Guns are not the cure-all for protecting yourself and others but taking guns away from the law-abiding does in fact limit the tools for protection.

I get laughed at for saying this, oh well, society would be much safer if the police didnt exist.

I would agree with that.

And I love the post detailing the differences in federal, state, and local government responsibilities.

__________________
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.