Replies

This was written in response to ConsistentLibertarian's (or as I like to call him, InconsistentLiberal) repeated use of this particular straw man argument.

His response to me is that he rejects one of the premises on which this argument is based. To quote him:

But since you make an argument based on a premise I don't accept, I need you to say something more about why I should accept that premise. [To wit, ] You're making inferences about the Framers intent based on texts which are not part of the constitution. I need you to say something more about why those inferences matter. For me, the text is all that matters.

My response to him is that we can address this premise right now. This individual (who I suspect is a disruptor, but that is an ad hominum observation and in no way detracts or supports my argument) has stated they reject the premise that one can infer meaning and intended results in the Constitution by examining the writings, speeches, and actions of the persons who wrote it. While this seems like an obvious premise to put forth, I am willing to take him through the logic process point by point, since it is a compound premise and is subject to the possible fallacy of the Complex Question. I will demonstrate it is not.

So therefore, ConsistentLibertarian:

1) Agree or disagree: A person can have a political viewpoint.

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

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?

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.

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

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.

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

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.

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.

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

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.

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

Awaiting your response to premise 1.

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

It is not illegal, under federal law, to own a nuclear weapon. Obtaining one might be difficult, and a bit pricey; but if you can get one it is legal to own, as far as I can find in the United States Code.