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 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 next last
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]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

151 posted on 04/30/2002 8:43:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

RKBA and Nuclear Weapons

A common argument in the gun control vs. gun rights controversy is the question of whether a private citizen has the right to own nuclear weapons.

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 America

We 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 States

December 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, 1913

Marque (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.


152 posted on 04/30/2002 8:50:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Nice job. You do that? We can work our arguments together to cover any areas I missed.
153 posted on 04/30/2002 8:52:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Yup, that's mine. The core point is a proper understanding of Cooper's Four Rules: violate a rule, and others (individuals and gov't) have the right to force you to stop violating that rule.

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).

154 posted on 04/30/2002 10:04:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

155 posted on 05/01/2002 8:31:33 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.

156 posted on 05/03/2002 9:00:40 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.

157 posted on 05/07/2002 8:32:05 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
I have concluded you will not be returning to the forum. I declare a win by default, since you are a no-show.
158 posted on 05/10/2002 10:26:54 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

159 posted on 06/12/2002 3:24:01 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

160 posted on 06/19/2002 11:42:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 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