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.
I know of no individual people who own nuclear weapons, but I know of a few nations who do. And the rights of nations versus the rights of individuals is a completely different topic that that which I have written about above: The rights of the various and several individuals, only.
Not exactly. It also depends on where you put your nose.
Maybe, or maybe we can simply use the logic and common sense of the inherent bracketing of rights as I have described them. However, if you were interested in a more precise amendement, I would recommend you use my discrimination arguments above.
The discrimination-test will allow for individual possession of laser, plasma, and other directed-energy small arms that the present interpretation of the amendment may not allow. The courts are likely -- at present -- to deny possession of laser pistols to the common man, and I find this to be an abhorrant future probability.
When lasers are outlawed, only Klingons will have lasers.
Then you must believe that the first amendment does not protect writings on the Internet. Please describe how the language of the Constitution protects one but not the other. If one wished to justify as Constitutional the restriction of free speech on the Internet, wouldn't it be necessary to amend the Constitution?
I suspect that Horiuchi intended her death. Of all the discrimination available, a trained sniper is the most discriminating possible shooter.
Rogue cops don't detract from my argument, whether or not the government coddles and covers up for the criminal policeman in question.
Do you think we can fairly attribute to those who were involved in the adoption of the Second Amendment an intent regarding a distinction between discriminatory and indiscriminate weapons without any clear evidence that any of them ever even thought about the distinction?
Then, since nuclear weapons are indiscriminatory, and since you invariably will violate an innocent parties right of quiet enjoyment should you detonate a nuclear weapon, then you will be forced to concede that your possession and use of a nuclear weapon is likely to violate anothers rights. And since you clearly infer you believe your rights do not trump anothers, I expect you would understand and agree with the discrimination test.
Where does the idea of contemporenous construction of the constitution fit in? That is the idea that if it was permissible at the time of ratification, it should be ok today. I am especially interested in Letters of Marque and Reprisal which permit private warships. A private cruiser would be quite a defensive weapon for those on the coast.
This is a good natured inquiry from a firearm owning soverign individual who supports the RKBA and JPFO.
Brady Campbell
Richmond, Virginia
The only problem I have with that idea is that I don't trust the courts to make "common-sense" modifications of the law, any further than I can throw them (all of them). As it is, they're already quite happy to rearrange the law to their aesthetic sensibilities; I don't want to encourage them any further.
And like I said earlier, even if an amendment isn't passed, the states still have all the sovereign powers they need to protect our legitimate rights.
Regardless, since I was trained in the use of nuclear rounds with these howitzers, that should satisfy even a California liberal. In effect, the Government gave me a license.
I want my howitzer and my nuke projectiles, it's my right!
BTW, nice article
So the only test that they intended indiscriminate weapons to be included would be the clause in the second amendment that specifically protected the right of the people to keep and spread contagious diseases -- which, as I have pointed out, is the only indiscriminate WMD available to the founders at that time.
Absent that clause, I reasonably assume they had no intent to INCLUDE the possession and use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.
Neither do I, so I am satisfied with the status quo and the analysis I have done, with an eye towards perhaps freeing up the restrictions on fully automatic guns somewhat for civilian ownership, based on my discrimination argument.
Private warships fire upon other aggressive or hostile warships in an area where collateral damage is highly unlikely.
Private warships satisified the discrimination test well, in those open seas.
What prevents Ross Perot or Steve Forbes from owning a private battleship? What prevents them from having NBC capabilities on that ship? Wouldn't that fall under private ownership? Since nothing prevents 'indescriminate' use of HE shells, why draw the disntinction for NBC?
I do not automatically have to agree with the discrimination test, that is a false choice, it is not an either or arguement. I believe that the standard was set a long time ago, and that standard is was the USE reasonable, not wheter the ownership is resonable.
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.