Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 04/18/2002 8:59:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
To: MarkL
that's illogical. If someone preparing to defend themself makes it ok to kill them, then its ok to kill anyone except people who willingly walk into the gas chamber.
101 posted on 04/18/2002 2:11:26 PM PDT by HaveGunWillTravel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
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.

Though germs were not understood, there was an understanding of the communicability of diseases and the existence of diseases was also well understood. They also had names for various diseases. And in the case of smallpox, blankets were purposely infected and distributed to indians as early as the year 1763:

These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]

This certainly casts doubt on your assertion that the concept of using disease as a weapon of mass destruction was unknown, nor that its indiscriminate nature was in doubt.

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.

An enemy. These are actions of a nation at war, which could be said to be the case in the use of biological agents against the Indians.

I would like to keep our focus strictly to individual rights as detailed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

102 posted on 04/18/2002 2:39:30 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
i believe a government that will use nukes to oppress its citizens, disobeying rules of discrimination set forth previously, may need to be taken out with or threatened by another faction, who has obtained the necessary "arms" to bring this about. the second amendment was written to ensure that the populace could defend itself from tyranny, if tyrants possess nukes, should they be banned from those opposing the tyrants... when you outlaw nukes, only criminals will own them.

the discussion of nukes in the hands of people is a straw argument....

103 posted on 04/18/2002 2:48:44 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 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.

If you have a Letter of Marquee issued by the Congress, we can talk about what weapons would be permissible.

For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic.

104 posted on 04/18/2002 2:55:23 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
the discussion of nukes in the hands of people is a straw argument....

My point.

105 posted on 04/18/2002 2:55:52 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I don't think that limiting the weapons used was what they had in mind.

Disease was used as a weapon in 1767. I don't think they had the keeping and bearing of smallpox in mind, either.

They wanted a well-armed people to be a barrier to tyrants.

Armed with discriminating weapon, yes, I would agree.

Let us face it, many of the indiscriminate weapons I have mentioned would be a deadly risk to even possess. If you had VX nerve gas, could you transport it, transfer it among containers, and so on without killing yourself and all your neighbors? If you had smallpox, could you culture it and have it ready to employ without infecting yourself?

The risk of possession of these indiscriminate weapons well outwieghs their utility in use versus a criminal or a tyrannical government.

As far as a tyrannical government is concerned, I have long suspected that should this occur many army and airforce personnel will abandon their posts with very indiscriminate weaponry, and at that time a state of general war (civil war) would occur -- and at that time the Second Amendment would cease to have meaning, and instead reality would be the only limiting factor.

106 posted on 04/18/2002 3:02:41 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
EXCELLENT ARTICLE! Got 'em all worked up.

I started at thread three to make people believe this thread is more popular than it is. :o)

You sly dog.

I think your position on land mines and booby traps is reasonable. It seems to me, however, that command detonated mines would fit within the "discriminative decision" category. Ya think?

107 posted on 04/18/2002 3:04:21 PM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If you have a Letter of Marquee issued by the Congress, we can talk about what weapons would be permissible.

For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic

They cannot be totally separated. The 2A is not strictly about individual self defense and cannot be argued as if it is solely in that context.

The question is whether or not individuals may own what you term indescriminate weapons. The Constitution makes no distinction making your distinction artificial.

If individuals cannot own weapons and implements of war, then there is no need for letters of marque. However, it seems that the founders contemplated the notion that the federal government might not have all the resources it needed to accomplish the mission, therefore relying on individuals who owned those resources.

The 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without infringement and nothing in the Constitution, except what you invent, places any restrictions on ownership.

Now I might not like my neighbor growing cultures of bacteria, brewing VX, or hoarding plutonium in his garage, but I cannot find where the Constitution prevents it.

But, as I said before, when your 'common sense' restricts some weapons and not others, you open the door to other people like HCI promoting their idea of common sense.

108 posted on 04/18/2002 3:17:50 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Good analysis. This brought me up short, however:

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.

As can readily be observed, the true "state of nature" in no way justifies this conclusion -- as our very position at the top of the food chain conclusively demonstrates. Defenders of Locke's position are left with two choices: introduce a series of rather lame qualifiers concerning "moral status," or acknowledge a Creator who has endowed us with the rights embodied in Locke's "natural law."

The first option is well nigh indefensible, and it ultimately reduces to might makes right. It certainly does not allow one to make any distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate weaponry -- as long as it doesn't hurt me or mine, I can use whatever force is necessary.

The second option provides an entirely defensible basis for "natural law," and the distinctions between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. At the same time, however, the existence of a Creator introduces some additional difficulties to Locke's position -- chief among which is the implication that God, and not we, are the true owners of our bodies.

This brings up a related point: the "state of nature" observed by Locke was primarily a society formed in general accord with the Christian concepts of community, judgement, and eternal life.

In that view, there may be in fact be a moral justification to "disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings" if it is harmful to the community at large.

109 posted on 04/18/2002 3:23:37 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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.

It's fine and good to limit such devices, but without an Amendment prohibiting WMD, biologicals etc I cannot agree. The founder's did not limit what weapons may be held by the citizens; they didn't limit weapons to only the army or militia; they didn't limit weapons to SELF-defense purposes only; they didn't limit the weapons held to be "discriminating" weapons only or otherwise create distinct classes; they didn't limit weapons to anyone by virtue of age, wealth or any other exclusionary tactic.

And should the last situation you described occur, the armies will be able to slaughter the civilian population regardless - not too many individuals could begin to have the necessary firepower to protect themselves. But the THREAT of having a small nuke might stop them and prevent that very situation from happening. A well-armed population is what kept the Japanese from invading the mainland in WWII. If they thought we all owned a P-51 Mustang maybe they wouldn't have attacked in the 1st place.

110 posted on 04/18/2002 3:41:13 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

111 posted on 04/18/2002 7:26:10 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I entertained one the other day. Bought him a beer. He then proceeded to pi$$ me off so I shot him. I used my micronuke 4o personal nuclear device. It was funny seeing the little mushroom cloud rising from the top of his head.
112 posted on 04/18/2002 7:33:18 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: HaveGunWillTravel
I disagree. As far as I am concerned, I can own nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure that there is a law aginst you owning one, but there are laws against you stealing one or receiving a stolen one, or the fissionable material required for one.

Do you think a lot of private citizens can enrich Uranium from 0.7% U-235 to 90.0 %U-235 on their own?

113 posted on 04/18/2002 8:03:18 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Of all the discrimination available, a trained sniper is the most discriminating possible shooter.

I disagree. Once one is aligned on and commited to the target, it is entirely possible to not even recognize that one has, indeed, engaged.

114 posted on 04/18/2002 8:26:44 PM PDT by patton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Lazamataz said: "An enemy. These are actions of a nation at war, which could be said to be the case in the use of biological agents against the Indians. I would like to keep our focus strictly to individual rights as detailed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

You are certainly more informed than I regarding the use of smallpox as a weapon. Jenner's development of a vaccine came in 1796, so I am puzzled as to how one could handle smallpox infected blankets without incredible risk to himself or the people he was trying to protect.

I disagree with your distinction regarding individual rights versus national action against an enemy. The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the federal government can become the enemy of the people, use its control of the army to tyrannize the people, and thus the people must have the means to defeat the tyrants and re-establish a free state.

I also disagree with your claim in the posted article that a machine gun is of "slightly more questionable" justification with regard to target discrimination. Having trained on the M-16, I assure you that it does not belong among those arms which might reasonably be outlawed as being indiscriminate.

I am also puzzled by your assertion that an anti-tank rocket is less discriminating than a cannon shooting ball shot.

115 posted on 04/18/2002 8:56:11 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HaveGunWillTravel
that's illogical. If someone preparing to defend themself makes it ok to kill them, then its ok to kill anyone except people who willingly walk into the gas chamber.

Not at all... If someone is preparing to become a combatant in a war, then they are fair targets... I am not a believer in a "fair fight" when it comes to fighting a war. I believe that if you're going to take the hideous plunge into war, then you have to be ready to use overwhelming force against the combatants.

The fact is if someone makes an obvious attempt to not be a combatant then the military has the moral obligation to try not to involve them. However, if a civilian attempts to "defend himself" against a military force, then that person is a combatant.

Mark

116 posted on 04/18/2002 8:56:36 PM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Well, whether or not one is a combatant, it would seem that if one is simply preparing one's self for defending against an attack, this should not make it any more ok for the attacker to be attacking them. Relying on the moral obligations of an attacking military to leave those who are not defending themselves alone is foolish. If you are going to be attacked, preparing yourself shouldn't give the attack any greater justification. If you are killed by someone you didn't personally provoke, you have then had your right to be left alone violated. If being willing to try to defend yourself against an attack makes it ok to attack you, then you should be able to defend yourself with overwhelming force. Heck, it should then be ok to attack everyone pre-emptively. We should just nuke everybody right now. (Before we lose our advantage.)
117 posted on 04/18/2002 10:27:51 PM PDT by HaveGunWillTravel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
You are certainly more informed than I regarding the use of smallpox as a weapon. Jenner's development of a vaccine came in 1796, so I am puzzled as to how one could handle smallpox infected blankets without incredible risk to himself or the people he was trying to protect.

That's okay, William, failure to know something is no sin. The method of handling these blankets consisted of using individuals who had been exposed to smallpox as a child and were thusly immune.

The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the federal government can become the enemy of the people, use its control of the army to tyrannize the people, and thus the people must have the means to defeat the tyrants and re-establish a free state.

Today, both in my concept of discrimination of weapons and in practicable reality of access to weapons, firepower required to repel a standing army is not available to the common person. Therefore, you will need to use small arms to 'trade up' and also to rely on the patriotism of service personnel to 'liberate' indiscriminate weaponry. There is no other present way to contest a standing army.

I also disagree with your claim in the posted article that a machine gun is of "slightly more questionable" justification with regard to target discrimination. Having trained on the M-16, I assure you that it does not belong among those arms which might reasonably be outlawed as being indiscriminate.

I also have trained on the M-16, and the H&K MP5. The firearms are controllable and one can be reasonably discriminating with them, but there is a very slight degree of a lack of discrimination. Because of this, I would do the following: Repeal the 1934 NFA, repeal the 1986 Manufacturing Ban, and the sole check I would place on them is a normal Brady check. I would, of course, repeal Brady for all non-class III hardware.

I am also puzzled by your assertion that an anti-tank rocket is less discriminating than a cannon shooting ball shot.

The violence of the explosion at the terminus of the ordnance trajectory makes it less discriminating.

118 posted on 04/19/2002 7:42:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I entertained one the other day. Bought him a beer. He then proceeded to pi$$ me off so I shot him. I used my micronuke 4o personal nuclear device. It was funny seeing the little mushroom cloud rising from the top of his head.

That was not a mushroom CLOUD. That was Psilocybin Cubensis.

119 posted on 04/19/2002 7:44:58 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I agree that the words do not specifically limit the possession and use of WMD's. In fact, I never think I argued that.

What I am arguing is that these words exist in a context of reality, and that this reality is that your rights are bracketed by mine. Nobody's rights trump anothers, and therefore we must analyze the ability of you to wield a weapon to positive effect without damaging my rights.

It is for this reason I have analyzed the indisriminate nature of the various forms of weaponry. Those that are excessively indiscriminate cannot be useful to you within the context of the failure to violate my rights.

120 posted on 04/19/2002 7:50:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Fascinating thoughts...
121 posted on 04/19/2002 7:50:58 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
They cannot be totally separated. The 2A is not strictly about individual self defense and cannot be argued as if it is solely in that context.

I'm sorry, the Founding Fathers appear to disagree. If they meant the Letters of Marque to be an issue related to the Second Amendment, I imagine they would have either mentioned Letters of Marque in the 2A or they would have mentioned the 2A in the clause establishing the Letters of Marque. Being as neither is the case, they are clearly distinct issues, and this essay is focused strictly on the Second Amendment.

122 posted on 04/19/2002 7:53:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

123 posted on 04/19/2002 8:00:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Letters of marque are in the body of he Constitution. The second amemdment is a modifier of the original document, not a document in itself that can be separated at will for any side's convenience.

Private ownership of arms and 'terrible implements of war' came first. Private individuals designed, owned, possessed, and deployed these weapons. The founders relied on the individual citizens and groups of citizens to provide instruments of war and provided a means to commission their use. No restrictions mentioned.

The second amendment guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms with no infringements.

The second amendment does not exist in isolation and cannot honestly be treated that way. It guarantees that the individual may keep and bear arms in the context of, but not restricted to contributing to the common defense.

Nothing in the second amenmendment (a modifier to the original document) restricts what arms a person may have. In fact, it specifically states that the RKBA may not be infringed.

We can disagree philosophically, but when you or anyone else begin to place legal restrictions on rights recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution, the we will go round and round.

Your 'common sense' says no unconvnetional weapons. The Kalifornia legislature's commons sense says no 'assault rifles', no small inexpensive concealable handguns, no sniper rifles, no high capacity magazines, etc. HCI's common sense says no handguns for citizens.

Either "shall not be infringed" means what it says or it doesn't. I say it does, you say it doesn't.

124 posted on 04/19/2002 8:26:47 AM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Then you and I shall agree to disagree. I view the Second Amendment as an issue apart from the Letters of Marque and you do not.
125 posted on 04/19/2002 8:29:35 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It is for this reason I have analyzed the indisriminate nature of the various forms of weaponry. Those that are excessively indiscriminate cannot be useful to you within the context of the failure to violate my rights.

And if you and your family are alone (for all intents and puposes) in the wilderness, and 100 invaders approach your home intent on killing you and your sons, raping your wife and daughters, stealing your property, destroying your home, you expect me to fight back with "discriminate" weapons? I want something to KILL every one of them. It's not a question of a "fair" fight - it DEFENSE - whatever it takes.

Whatever rights they had were abrogated the instant they invaded. I could care less about the "rights" of criminals. Since they have violated my rights, I maintain that not allowing me to defend myself or family - as needs dictate - is the theft of my rights.

126 posted on 04/19/2002 8:43:20 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
And if you and your family are alone (for all intents and puposes) in the wilderness, and 100 invaders approach your home intent on killing you and your sons, raping your wife and daughters, stealing your property, destroying your home, you expect me to fight back with "discriminate" weapons? I want something to KILL every one of them. It's not a question of a "fair" fight - it DEFENSE - whatever it takes.

It is a general rule not to entertain hypotheticals in a debate of logic, but let me disregard that sound advice for a moment: Fully-automatic weapons in each of your hands -- mom, sons, you -- would do the trick. A squad of lightly-trained and lightly-armed irregulars, when dug in, can pose an insurmountable obstacle to an equally-equipped force many times the defenders size. Use terrain as a force-multiplier. Since I place full-auto armaments in the light-regulation category, in Laz's world, you would be able to get such weaponry by undergoing a 5 minute criminal and mental background check.

127 posted on 04/19/2002 8:48:29 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Lazamataz said: 'Fully-automatic weapons in each of your hands -- mom, sons, you -- would do the trick. "

Perhaps. But if you anticipate such an attack, then you go on the offensive and you make use of whatever is available to destroy your enemies. Someone one said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". Your interpretation of the Second Amendment should not require that I remain weak in the face of a recognized threat.

128 posted on 04/19/2002 10:36:56 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Perhaps. But if you anticipate such an attack, then you go on the offensive

In wartime, or in a period of civil strife. If, however, you are in a functioning society, you summon police assistance, and you will thusly increase your ranks substantially.

But, you will counter, what if the access to your property is disabled, rendering the police unable to get to you? Well, I respond, perhaps they will airlift reinforcements in. But, you offer, suppose they had a Stinger MANPAD missle? ....and this is exactly why it is not wise to get sucked into these hypothetical situations when engaged in a logical debate.

129 posted on 04/19/2002 12:27:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

130 posted on 04/19/2002 12:28:38 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Since I place full-auto armaments in the light-regulation category, in Laz's world, you would be able to get such weaponry by undergoing a 5 minute criminal and mental background check.

But what would stop the CRIMINALS from posessing anything more significant? Let's face it - criminals want victims, the more defenseless the better. Statistically it has been proven time and time again that tighter regulations on weapons increases the rate of crime, and that removing those restrictions decreases crime - especially concealed carry legislation. The criminals can't be sure that everyone is not packing.

Even though I posess a CCW, when I carry, I almost always carry open. I'm not out to plug somebody, I just want to be left alone. If the sight of a large .45 on the hip doesn't deter them, not much would. The same goes for indiscriminate weapons - the law is not going to deter the criminal, but the possibility of retaliation will.

Which begs the final point. It's not a question of equalization, it's about the rights of NON-criminals. If faced with 1 assailant, 10 or 100, it's not a question of limiting my response, it's ending the threat.

131 posted on 04/19/2002 12:49:14 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
Heh! Finally someone gets to a different argument other than the angels-on-a-pinhead disagreements entertained on previous posts. I wondered how long this would go on before I had to remind all that even if it were legal to own nukes, you as a private citizen couldn't do it because the environmental, safety (explosive + chemical + radiological), and cost factors push it wa-y-y-y beyond John Q. Citizen's ability. Notwithstanding the legality of owning Pu-239 or U-235....
132 posted on 04/19/2002 1:01:27 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I find little to disagree with, except this: criminals are not likely to possess nuclear weapons or employ biological agents or set land mines or use fuel-air bombs. Just doesn't make sense -- the valuables they are after would be destroyed in most cases. Therefore, criminals don't really enter into the discussion of limitation of weapons possession based on their ability to be discriminating.

Once again, this is all about the fact that the Second Amendment does not exist in a vaccuum: It exists within reality, and reality is that your your rights are bracketed by the need to avoid violating my rights.

133 posted on 04/19/2002 1:05:46 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
the angels-on-a-pinhead disagreements

It is upon these 'angels-on-a-pinhead disagreements' that policy is formed and well-argued.

Remember the original premise of this thread: Antigunners use this Nuke Possession strawman to try to knock down the reasonable possession of long arms and handguns. The purpose of the original article is to defuse that strawman argument.

134 posted on 04/19/2002 1:09:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
What is your position on what the Chinese citizens should have done at Tiannamen (sp?) Square, given that the Chinese government would use tanks?

Was Bernhard Goetz justified in shooting at his four assailants on the NY subway car? If he had had something less discriminating (hand grenade), would he have been justified in using that?

135 posted on 04/19/2002 1:42:25 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Right you are!
136 posted on 04/19/2002 1:47:18 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Tymesup
What is your position on what the Chinese citizens should have done at Tiannamen (sp?) Square, given that the Chinese government would use tanks?

I'm sorry, we are confining our discussion to the Second Amendment. And since Chinese citizens are not protected under this amendment, this is aside the point.

Was Bernhard Goetz justified in shooting at his four assailants on the NY subway car?

I believe he was, until such time as he stated "You don't look so bad, here, have another" and shot again. At that exact moment, he went from a person who a victim who was defending himself, to an assailant who was attacking incapacitated opponents.

If he had had something less discriminating (hand grenade), would he have been justified in using that?

No, because schrapnel from the grenade would have invariably injured other people on the car and people on the platform, not to mention himself.

137 posted on 04/19/2002 1:50:24 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Therefore, criminals don't really enter into the discussion of limitation of weapons possession based on their ability to be discriminating.

Are terrorists criminals? Were the planes destroyed on 9/11 weapons? Would some "martyr" infected with smallpox be considered a weapon? Would Saddam, bin Laden or Arafat be considered a criminal based on their actions?

Once again, this is all about the fact that the Second Amendment does not exist in a vaccuum: It exists within reality, and reality is that your your rights are bracketed by the need to avoid violating my rights.

Unless I USE a WMD against you, I have not in any way violated your rights. For the sake of argument consider a hypothetical - that animals have rights as well (not debating one way or another, just an example). Assume you have somehow become lost in the wilderness. At night, you build a fire (a potential weapon) to PREVENT attacks by creatures of the night. YOU have not violated any rights - they certainly don't have the right to attack you - that violates your rights. So even though you possess the weapon, and use it wisely, the balance is still equal.

If your fire managed to get out of hand and destroy thousands of acres and destroy wildlife, then you have violated the "rights" of others. You're a bad dude, and should be made to pay for your crimes.

So even though I might possess a WMD, it's not until I deploy the weapon improperly (assuming like fire or a plane that it has other uses), or deployed at all (a nuke) that I infringe upon your rights. The mere possession of that same weapon in no way infringed upon your rights.

138 posted on 04/19/2002 2:04:12 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Thanks for the response.

"I believe he was, until such time as he stated "You don't look so bad, here, have another" and shot again. At that exact moment, he went from a person who a victim who was defending himself, to an assailant who was attacking incapacitated opponents. "

We're on the same page here.

"If he had had something less discriminating (hand grenade), would he have been justified in using that?"

" No, because schrapnel from the grenade would have invariably injured other people on the car and people on the platform, not to mention himself."

Poor choice of weapon on my part. What's your position if the choice was not defending himself, or taking out the four assailants and one innocent bystander. Does your position change if the number of innocent bystanders decreases (there's a chance one is affected) or increases?

139 posted on 04/19/2002 2:26:03 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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:

By including the modifier "with a minimum of care", this exercise is mooted. For example, the mere possesion of nuclear devices tends to deter the use, as amply evidenced by historical fact. This represents there is a "minimum of care" which will protect innocents when defending against attackers with nuclear weapons.

Making an issue over the degree of discrimination is the camels nose. A bullet, a gun, a knife - none are perfectly discriminating, because there is always the chance of an error or failure which affects innocents. This is simply accepting the erroneous argument and casting it as a disagreement of degree.

The true refutation lies in the purpose of being armed - to deter attackers with the threat of effective response to an attack. This is the security of freedom. I need to be free to arm myself with my fellow citizens in the most effective manner required to meet the threat - as we so determine necessary.

An important observation here: The genie is out of the bottle. WMDs were already in existence in the 18th century, as posters to this thread have already pointed out. Today, manufacturing the WMDS of 1945 only require the resources of a modern machine shop or lab, raw materials, and the determination of small team of educated individuals. Another generation of technological development and the barrier may be only knee-high to a high school student. So it is reasonable to assume the attacker will someday come equipped with the WMD as a matter of course. Ponder that instead.

140 posted on 04/20/2002 8:40:45 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

141 posted on 04/21/2002 10:38:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

142 posted on 04/22/2002 7:39:57 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

143 posted on 04/23/2002 6:23:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

144 posted on 04/24/2002 10:05:11 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

145 posted on 04/25/2002 10:13:09 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

146 posted on 04/26/2002 10:28:55 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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.

147 posted on 04/26/2002 12:14:07 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

148 posted on 04/28/2002 6:09:41 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I would disagree that machine guns, machine pistols cannot be used with great accuracy and discrimination. Your discriminator also filters out the admitted necessity of the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against a rogue government. If a rogue government possesses fuel air explosives, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, then it might be necessary to employ these devices against it. Of course, like other weapons, the government may act to make these weapons illegal as it has. But there is no requirement that the people act to possess all weapons, all the time. From a practical standpoint, building and owning a nuclear bomb will be difficult at the present time. If someone does it, the government will decide to prosecute the owner of the weapon,and few people will complain.

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.

149 posted on 04/28/2002 6:36:30 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I would disagree that machine guns, machine pistols cannot be used with great accuracy and discrimination. Your discriminator also filters out the admitted necessity of the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against a rogue government. If a rogue government possesses fuel air explosives, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, then it might be necessary to employ these devices against it. Of course, like other weapons, the government may act to make these weapons illegal as it has. But there is no requirement that the people act to possess all weapons, all the time. From a practical standpoint, building and owning a nuclear bomb will be difficult at the present time. If someone does it, the government will decide to prosecute the owner of the weapon,and few people will complain.

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.

150 posted on 04/28/2002 6:55:48 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson