Posted on 04/18/2002 8:59:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument. The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns: And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And from John Adams: Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons? Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that the state of nature implied a law of nature, which is that "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions." Ergo, there were "natural rights" to life, liberty and property.5
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. 4
THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE
If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:
"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."
6
THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED
Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. In his words, "....liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others....". You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.
Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.
Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:
The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:
The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.
Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Seeking Relevance for the Libertarian Party
By Thomas M. Sipos
FrontpageMagazine.com | April 4, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY (LP) stands for the private ownership of nuclear weapons.That was how LP officials first explained the party to me. Back during the Cold War, a high school buddy and I were trolling New York's third parties, partly from morbid curiosity, but mainly to expand our campaign button collections with some exotica. At the LP offices, some guys were hanging out, just shooting the breeze. Unlike the tense paranoia permeating the SWP, CPUSA, and Lyndon LaRouche's US Labor Party, the LP guys welcomed us with cordial disinterest.
So that our button quest not appear entirely mercenary, we feigned interest, asking questions. One LP official responded by plucking The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress from a shelf and reading aloud a passage. Unrelated to anything we'd asked, he added that Heinlein defended private ownership of nuclear bombs. We'd been macho-flashed.
Hey, ConsistentLibertarian was just being consistently Libertarian.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment does not grant us rights, it enumerates them. So I don't think that the government can morally outlaw any weapon from possession, if said weapon were necessary to defend our rights. If enough people decide, for whatever reason, that nuclear weapons are a necessary part of defending their life or freedom against the government, then they will do so with full moral authority in asserting their right to self defense. The government may not agree, but it will still be moral.
As for individual self defense against individuals, there is probably an argument to be made about proportionality, to some extent. A nuclear weapon detonated to evict trespassers from one's property is a disproportionate response. A person using a machine gun to defend his life and property is not guilty of a disproportionate response if the person has reason to justify lethal force in the first place, and if using the machine gun is done properly and does not place others at unnecessary risk, just as using a handgun, rifle or shotgun can be used.
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment does not grant us rights, it enumerates them. So I don't think that the government can morally outlaw any weapon from possession, if said weapon were necessary to defend our rights. If enough people decide, for whatever reason, that nuclear weapons are a necessary part of defending their life or freedom against the government, then they will do so with full moral authority in asserting their right to self defense. The government may not agree, but it will still be moral.
As for individual self defense against individuals, there is probably an argument to be made about proportionality, to some extent. A nuclear weapon detonated to evict trespassers from one's property is a disproportiontate response. A person using a machine gun to defend his life and property is not guilty of a disproportionate response if the person has reason to justify lethal force in the first place, and if using the machine gun is done properly and does not place others at unnecessary risk, just as using a handgun, rifle or shotgun can be used.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" - basically Congress may give permission to private citizens to go attack foreign ships & countries (presumably for retaking stolen property, retribution, etc.). Such permission presumes that said citizens either already have or may obtain battleships and other maximum-firepower weapons. Nothing is said about granting permission to own such weapons, only to use them outside US borders, indicating that the 2nd Amendment fully applies to the biggest weapons available at the time. Today, that would by extension include aircraft carriers, B2 bombers, and nukes.
Don't react to that yet. Keep reading.
Cooper's Four Rules defines minimal yet complete and redundant rules for handling guns, and by extrapolation, other weapons. You have the right to own and carry a gun, but if you break those rules and thus create a dangerous situation, others (including by incorporation the government) have the right to disarm you in the interest of their own personal safety - you have the right to own a gun, but if you point it at me without proper cause, I have the right to disarm you with deadly force. While one has the Constitutional right to own a nuke, I contend that it is nearly impossible to "keep" one (much less "bear") without inherently violating a nuke version of Cooper's Four Rules, and thus other citizens (acting alone or as an incorporated government) have the right to disarm anyone of their personal nuke - you have the right to own a nuke, but I have the right to disarm you of it via deadly force if you bring it within range of me, just as I have the right to disarm you of a rifle if you point it at me (even if it is unloaded).
You have the 2nd Amendment Constitutional right to own a nuke - but if you bring it in range of ANYONE innocent, even if it is disarmed, you can be legally and righteously terminated.
Constitution for the United States of AmericaWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
...
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the StatesDecember 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
...
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Webster Dictionary, 1913Marque (Page: 897)
Marque (?), n. [F. marque, in lettre de marque letter of marque, a commission with which the commandant of every armed vessel was obliged to be provided, under penalty of being considered a pirate or corsair; marque here prob. meaning, border, boundary (the letter of marque being a permission to go beyond the border), and of German origin. See March border.] (Law) A license to pass the limits of a jurisdiction, or boundary of a country, for the purpose of making reprisals. Letters of marque, Letters of marque and reprisal, a license or extraordinary commission granted by a government to a private person to fit out a privateer or armed ship to cruise at sea and make prize of the enemy's ships and merchandise. The ship so commissioned is sometimes called a letter of marque.
Nukes, with their large volumetric effect, inherently cause the posessor to violate Rule #1 on a large scale with few exceptions. One may Constitutionally posess a gun, yet that gun may be Constitutionally confiscated if the posessor is indiscriminately pointing it at innocents; likewise, one may Constitutionally posess a nuke, yet that nuke may be Constitutionally confiscated if the posessor is indiscriminately "pointing" it at innocents, which is awfully hard to not do - so inherently hard to not do that the gov't may immediately disarm a posessor of a nuke, just as the gov't may immediately disarm a nutcase waving a gun around in a crowded mall ('tis Constitutional to immediately act to protect society at large in some dangerous cases).
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.