Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]

My work, and the work of Thornwell Simons ^ | 07/12/2001 | Lazamataz

[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.¹

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." ²

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.³

And from John Adams:

 

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

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 Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.

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:

• Knife
• Club
• Sword
• Dirk
• Mace
• Pistol
• Rifle
• Shotgun
• Cannon shooting ball shot

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:

• Machine gun
• Machine pistol
• Small explosive device
• Satchel charge
• Antitank rocket

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.

• Nuclear device
• Large explosive device
• Fuel-air explosive
• Biological weapon
• Land mine
• Chemical weapon
• Booby trap

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.

[4CJ]

FWIW, in South Africa a person can booby-trap their vehicle to protect against theft. But here in America we can't. :o(

Anyone can own a nuke. Nowhere does the Constitution deny the individual the possession of ANY weapon, or in any way limit them. The 10th Amendment guarantees that the rights not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states OR people. Until the Constitution is amended to limit the private ownership of nukes, anything else is unconstitutional.

[Ranxerox]

I think a strong argument to support your position would be the Founding Fathers reluctance to keep up standing armies. To paraphrase a part of the Maryland Constitution:

...standing armies are dangerous to liberty and ought not be kept up...

I don't think it is too hard to argue that a nuclear bomb (even a small one) essentially makes you a one-man army.

[Lazamataz]

FWIW, in South Africa a person can booby-trap their vehicle to protect against theft. But here in America we can't. :o(

I agree with the American decision. I do not favor the possession or use of indiscriminate weapons.

Anyone can own a nuke. Nowhere does the Constitution deny the individual the possession of ANY weapon, or in any way limit them. The 10th Amendment guarantees that the rights not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states OR people. Until the Constitution is amended to limit the private ownership of nukes, anything else is unconstitutional.

I have made my argument above. Please show me exactly where I am wrong within the confines of my argument.

[Lazamataz]

Well, I understand your argument to be that, from their mere failure to expressly include in the Second Amendment protection for the one indiscriminate weapon that you believe they had (contagious diseases), we are at liberty to assume that that omission represented a conscious decision on their part to exclude from the protections of the Second Amendment any and all indiscriminate weapons that might be invented or discovered in the future. I think that I might be more comfortable with your argument if there was some historical evidence linking their probably unconscious failure to expressly include contagious diseases with a conscious design on their part to exclude all indiscriminate weapons from the amendment's protection. Moreover, I think that the most reasonable inference to draw from the absence of such evidence is that those associated with the adoption of the Second Amendment never even thought about the distinction between discriminatory and indiscriminate weapons.

I view the founding fathers as reasonable and sensible men, and that if one of them even briefly considered the idea that smallpox was a weapon they were protecting, they would shrug off the thought quickly as the one of brief crazy thoughts that enters any of our minds. Of course they did not debate the concept of inclusion of weapons of mass destruction -- in their time frame, only one such weapon existed, which is biological agents -- because the first person who raised the concept would have been laughed out of the convention.

The Founding Fathers were quite clear as to what they meant by arms, and that included shoulder-fired and hand weapons, as well as cannonry. There are even mentions of swords. All of these share the distinction of being discriminating weapons. The person who wishes to include indiscriminate weapons bears the responsibilty of showing me that the Founding Fathers meant for these weapons to be included in the definition of Arms as it exists in the Second Amendment.

The people who wish to adhere only to the exact text of the Second Amendment without any discussion of context and intent are mistaken, because an unreasonable man could look at the text of the Second Amendment and conclude that the right to keep and bear arms refers merely to appendages. In other words, this strict constructionist who made no effort to understand the context and intent of the Amendment could conclude that this right means you have the right not to become a double-amputee. This is a perfectly reasonable reading of the Second Amendment if you discard all common sense, and refuse to consider the writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers.

[Eagle Eye]

You still are not addressing the authorization of private vessels of war and the armament that they may deploy.

Sorry, you do not get to narrow down the definition of 'private ownership' to exclude those actually wealthy enough to procure, maintain, and properly deploy systems that you are classifying as 'indescriminate weapons'. The Constitution doesn't make that distinction and many of us won't recognize it as a defining point at which one may or may not own a certain weapon or weapon system.

[Lazamataz]

I don't think its fair for some to own while others are prohibited. If we aren't all equally entitled to own what we will, then might is right. In which case owning a weapon gives you the right to.

You are crossing into National rights again. As an agent of the government, they are not exercising individual rights when they are under color of duty and possessing government property -- they are exercising national rights, which is a topic I am not presently discussing.

Not one individual on this planet is confirmed to own a nuclear weapon.

[Lazamataz]

You still are not addressing the authorization of private vessels of war and the armament that they may deploy.

I did, search the thread.

[Lazamataz]

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.

[Eagle Eye]

Missed your resonse while composing my question. Sorry.

Private warships satisified the discrimination test well, in those open seas.

Where is a warship limited to open sea use or of using only conventional weapons? Even then a warship could threaten a land-based fort or port and there was nothing then that prevented shelling from killing non-combatants or the such.

Chivalry, honor, rules of engagement, honor etc. may have prevented or limited the use or effect of some weapons systems then but I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents them. Machine guns and artillery are only as discriminating as the operators and the ammo used.

The Constitution does not have a threshold for discrimination and neither you nor the author of the article can insert one.

[Lazamataz]

Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree.

[MarkL]

Perhaps. On the other hand, all the people of Japan were not aggressing against the US when we nuked them.

I disagree: While the US was planning an invasion of Japan, it was well known and documented that the Japanese civilian population (including women and children) were training with spears and swords to defend the Island against the invading forces of the US. This made them combatants...

Mark

[MarkL]

Private warships could, did and do engage in ship-to-shore bombardment. By the way you have a facility, as witnessed in other posts and other threads, to convey your ideas effectivly through the use of humor.

You're right on the money here: I've got a friend with a lakehouse, and one of their boats has this giant water balloon sling shot... They can sit off shore, and drop water balloons on your head from 50-75 yards out! Suprised the hell out of a bunch of us once.

Mark

[Eagle Eye]

Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional.

I don't appreciate you trying to frame my thoughts. Was the nuking of Hiroshima perfectly COnstitutional? What if the A bomb had been developed by private research and the only means of deployment was privately owned?

The use of small pax as a US GOVERNMENT POLICY was probably Constitutional since I cannot see any Constitutional prohibition.

Now was it moral or ethical? Looking back in retrospect it is easy to say that no, it wasn't.

Does the Constitution prevent Ross Perot or Bill Gates from owning private vessels of war? No.

Does the Constitution prescribe what weapons thoe privately owned vessels of war may or may not use? No. commissioned by the US government? No.

[society-by-contract]

:Not one individual on this planet is confirmed to own a nuclear weapon.

Groups cannot and do not have any rights individuals do not have.

Brady

[humbletheFiend]

In post number 49, I raised the following 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?"

As you might guess, the more general version of this question - can we sensibly discuss whether someone had an "intention" regarding something he never thought about? - has been kicked around for literally thousands of years and has always been a source of controversy in the area of statutory construction. To avoid the problem, some have looked to the language of the statute and the circumstances surrounding its enactment in an effort to discover a legislative "purpose" that may be broader than and independent of the particular subjective intentions and thought processes of the particular persons who enacted it. Of course, this approach should be used with a great deal of caution because it greatly expands the range of options available to the person who is doing the interpreting.

[Lazamataz]

I'm sorry you are offended by your own conclusions, but you have stated that there is no consideration of the discrimination of a weapon in the Consitution (to wit: "The Constitution does not have a threshold for discrimination and neither you nor the author of the article can insert one").

This means that any weapon, regardless of discrimination, can be kept and borne. Ergo, the most indiscriminate of all possible weapons -- biological agents -- may be kept and borne by any private citizen.

These are your conclusions, and I disagree with them.

[Cultural Jihad]

This means that any weapon, regardless of discrimination, can be kept and borne. Ergo, the most indiscriminate of all possible weapons -- biological agents -- may be kept and borne by any private citizen. These are your conclusions, and I disagree with them.

You posted an excellent example of taking the opponent's view to its logical conclusion. It wasn't a strawman argument at all.

[William Tell]

Lazamataz said: "Then I take it you hold the position that releasing smallpox against your attacker and causing an pandemic that eliminates 200,000,000 Americans is perfectly Constitutional."

The germ theory of disease was not well understood several hundred years ago. The word "malaria" means "bad air" and derives from the thinking that it was caused by odors or gas in the environment. This would complicate matters for our Founders since they would not be able to conceive of the control mechanism for inflicting injury at all, let alone selectively.

I have read of sieges during which the carcasses of dead horses would be catapulted across barriers to encourage disease among the besieged. I don't know for sure if this practice was used in post-Colonial America.

Cities during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War would come under siege and would be bombarded with heated shot with the sole intention of starting fires to drive the occupants out. This seems pretty indiscriminate to me and yet it would have the desired effect of defeating an enemy.

[Eagle Eye]

You have yet to show where the Constitution prohibits ANY weapon or weapons systems, and in the process, your tone is deterioriating.

Do you agree that the Constitution provides for privateers?

If so, what Constitutionally imposed restrictions are there on what weapons may be deployed.

Do not try to make this into a discussion of you trying to corner me into advocating NBC use, especially first strike use because that isn't the issue.

You are acting as an advocate of 'common sense' arms control, and being such, you want to impose 'reasonable' restrictions on what other people may own. Obviously the Founders never considered automatic weapons or long-range rifles.

Does this sound familiar? Your desire to restrict other based upon what you don't think someone else needs is no different in principle than HCI, just not as restricitve.

My position that the Constitution does not deny the individual the right to own any weapon does not imply approval of any improper use of that weapon, be it a nuke or a slingshot.

[4CJ]

My friend, I'm not arguing that individuals should own such weapons, only that as written, the Constitution does not have any limitation as to what "arms" may be used.

Consideriing that the people were the "militia" of their state, and that Madison and Hamilton both argued in the Federalist Papers that the militia (people) could be used against the national army, it obviously stood to reason that they advocated equal armament capabilities.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb 1788.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia", 10 Jan 1788.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. ... To these would be opposed a militia ... officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 46, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared", 29 Jan 1788.

I don't think that limiting the weapons used was what they had in mind. They wanted a well-armed people to be a barrier to tyrants.