TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:A person has the duty to protect themselves and family. The police do not have that duty, their duty is to the community. My neighbor does not have a duty to protect me or my family. My neighbors have a duty to themselves and their families, and if I need assistance they may help, but are not obligated to. If I see that a neighbor needs help I may help them, but I am not obligated to protect them.

That's your modern understanding of your duty. It wasn't that way when the country was founded.

Thanks for the pointer. I'm currently working my way through it.

Update: Having now read most of it (I gave up about three pages before the conclusion, I can say that this is a quite ponderous academic exercise from which I learned very little. The one takeaway I got was that rights come with duties. It might be interesting to discuss what the duties of an individual bearing arms in modern society are, but other than that my eyes were glazed over. As a starter for that discussion I'll quote the one thing that stood out to me.

In 1785 the “Recorder” wrote, “It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace.”

We have had these discussions in the past, and there seem to be two main streams of thought; those who feel they have a duty to assist in the safety of others and those who believe their duty is only to their own family and immediate surroundings.