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

Skip to comments.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! (Vanity)
Vanity ^ | First Published 07/11/2001 | By Lazamataz

Posted on 04/16/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And from John Adams:

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.

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 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."

THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED

Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.

Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and can harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

 


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: banglist; liberalism; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last
To: Lazamataz

The only limit on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment.

One may only disarm another if the other is acting in a life-threatening manner.
This includes keeping arms which will, in all likelyhood, gravely harm others subsequent to a negligent/accidental discharge.


121 posted on 04/16/2007 11:19:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Ignore anything Lazamataz posts. He's a gun-hating Sarah Brady lapdog. I bet he's actually afraid of guns! He wants you to think your individual RKBA is protected by the second amendment so you won't bother to secure the true source of your protection -- your state constitution.

Like all the other gun-grabbing liberals, he wants to lull you into thinking the U.S. Constitution will be there when you need it to protect your gun rights. Where is it on concealed carry? Where is it protecting my right to concealed carry in Illinois? Ask him to explain that. How is that possible? What about equal protection?

You'll probably get some propaganda from him about how Illinois is violating the U.S. Constitution and getting away with it because of some secret pact between Major Daley and the U.S. Supreme Court, or some such nonsense.

He doesn't know. He's absolutely clueless. He's a waste of my time and yours.

I'm not even sure that he can read.

122 posted on 04/16/2007 11:20:07 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
entire white, adult, male, citizen, landowning population.

For today's world, change that to, "entire, adult, citizen, taxpaying population" for owning a weapon according to the 2nd Amendment and I can live with that.

123 posted on 04/16/2007 11:25:13 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
As long as the government has access to weapons of mass destruction and normal people have NO, (not limited by price, knowledge, or maintenance), access to weapons of mass destruction, there is no defense against a rogue domestic government.

I disagree because you are imagining two views that are unnecessarily restrictive in scope.

First; you are imagining that the government will use WMDs against a civilian population in order to fight a resistance movement. How popular would the government be if it wiped out whole neighborhoods in an attempt to kill two or three resistance fighters who might be living there?

Secondly; you put forth the premise that resistance to a tyrannical government would mean fielding troops in direct opposition to government troops, and defeating same, in order to defeat the government's wayward ways.

Government troops act on the demands of a few politicians. Just a few cups of "Socrates Tea" delivered to a few of those pols funding and directing the troops would radically alter their will to oppress and there are many ways to deliver the "Tea."

124 posted on 04/16/2007 11:45:54 AM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dmz
The current definition seems to be that to “bear” something indicates that it can be carried or conveyed.

"To own and employ" would be a pretty fair simile for "To keep and bear" in the context of the 2nd Amendment. The phrase "bring to bear" comes to mind as a reference. "To possess and apply" would work also.

125 posted on 04/16/2007 11:58:25 AM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I always wondered how privately owned warships, which were fairly common during early America, managed to reconcile with the Second Amendment. They were purely a defensive measure, thus did not need to be discriminating.

If you're out at sea and firing at a pirate ship there's not a lot else to hit other than water. Even if you're parked off the coast of a hostile nation, say the port at Tripoli, you might kill some "innocents" in the city but those "innocents" would be citizens of an enemy nation. And that is not necessarily such an indiscriminate act of destruction either as shipborn cannon of the day were sufficiently accurate to specifically target individual buildings or harbored ships.

In addition they would have been required by the Constitution to have a Letter of Marque to engage in offensive actions against a foreign nation. Without one they would have been limited to acts of self defense on the high seas. Those parameters pretty much comport with the Constitution in general and the 2nd Amend. in particular I think.

126 posted on 04/16/2007 12:14:35 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
First; you are imagining that the government will use WMDs against a civilian population in order to fight a resistance movement. How popular would the government be if it wiped out whole neighborhoods in an attempt to kill two or three resistance fighters who might be living there?

By the time a government is ready to wipe out neighborhoods in order to get to resistance fighters the government doesn't CARE how popular it is. It rules by might, not by right, or by popularity.
What about when it is no longer a "resistance" movement but a popular uprising against despotic rule? Do you really imagine that she who's name must not be mentioned would stick at loosing the troops on the public JUST because they didn't have access to the same type of weaponry?

Secondly; you put forth the premise that resistance to a tyrannical government would mean fielding troops in direct opposition to government troops, and defeating same, in order to defeat the government's wayward ways.

No, I put forth that to OVERTHROW a tyrannical government you will field troops directly opposed to government controlled troops, at some point.

Government troops act on the demands of a few politicians. Just a few cups of "Socrates Tea" delivered to a few of those pols funding and directing the troops would radically alter their will to oppress and there are many ways to deliver the "Tea."

Once a government reaches this point there are many, MANY willing to step into that pols shoes with the thought, "I'll take precautions. They won't be able to do that to me."

Once a government is willing to field military troops against it's own citizens, the citizens need weaponry of the same type to overthrow that government.
Resistance is all fine and good but it takes an uprising, or a coup, to change that government.

127 posted on 04/16/2007 12:14:51 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
By the time a government is ready to wipe out neighborhoods in order to get to resistance fighters the government doesn't CARE how popular it is. It rules by might, not by right, or by popularity.

How would the government get to the point of being willing to wipe out whole neighborhoods without fighting a well entrenched resistance movement first? It wouldn't happen overnight. And if the government is going to throw all public opinion over the side who, in this nation, would support them? You are expecting a lot to change from the current finger-wetting pols and the "will of the people" attitude held most vociferously by the left.

Do you really imagine that she who's name must not be mentioned would stick at loosing the troops on the public JUST because they didn't have access to the same type of weaponry?

Yes. I'm sure she remembers Dealy Plaza.

No, I put forth that to OVERTHROW a tyrannical government you will field troops directly opposed to government controlled troops, at some point.

Completely unecessary.

...MANY willing to step into that pols shoes with the thought, "I'll take precautions. They won't be able to do that to me."

Not for long. No one would want to live in a bunker with food tasters forever.

128 posted on 04/16/2007 12:28:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
How would the government get to the point of being willing to wipe out whole neighborhoods without fighting a well entrenched resistance movement first?

Apathy. That's all it would take. The sheeple following what a government controlled media put forth.

Dealey Plaza, where an unsuspecting President was shot by a psychotic sniper.
How long did Joseph Stalin live? How long did Mao Tse Tung live? Were they killed by snipers? Were they overthrown by popular uprisings?
Anyone can kill an unsuspecting person.
It's a lot harder to kill someone that's prepared and expects attempts on their lives at any time.

Sorry, Tiger, I'm not attempting to downplay the use of resistance fighters. Resistance fighters can pave the way for an uprising or the overthrowing of a government but they, in and of themselves, cannot get the job done without, at some point, directly opposing government controlled troops.

An unscrupulous dictator, with no morals, no sense of compassion, paranoid to the extreme, and controlling a core of troops to support staying in power would be an extremely hard proposition to assasinate.

129 posted on 04/16/2007 12:56:26 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Please read this article over, and try again.

I missed the cannons in the list the first time around. I'd still like to know where you see Man-'o-War fitting in, or are they not considered a weapon?

130 posted on 04/16/2007 12:56:37 PM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

The article is interesting as are many of the responses. However, I think it misses the mark because it does not reference the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. vs. Miller.

U.S. v. Miller was the first case in which the Supreme Court addressed a federal firearms statute that was being challenged on Second Amendment grounds.

The reason I bring it up here is because the court made clear that it was private arms that were protected. "Ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME."

That was my point but I have included more detail below for those who may have more than a passing interest. I believe that most of this information came from a NRA publication.

The defendants, who had been charged with interstate transportation of an unregistered sawed off shotgun, challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's National Firearms Act of 1934 ("NFA"). The NFA, a tax statute, did not ban any firearms, but required the registration of, and imposed a $200 transfer tax upon, fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The federal trial court held that the NFA violated the defendants’ Second Amendment rights. After their victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared. Thus, when the U.S. government appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, no written or oral argument on behalf of the defendants was presented to the Supreme Court.

Gun prohibitionists often cite this case for the proposition that the court held that the Second Amendment only protected the right of the states 'National Guard to have government issued arms (i.e., the "Collective Rights" theory). This is an untruth. In fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the "militia”, and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia-type arms.

Recounting the long history of the "militia" in the colonies and the states, and the Constitutional Convention, the court stated that these "show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." The court also made clear that it was the private arms of these men that were protected. "[Ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Recounting the origins of this all-inclusive "militia”, the court quoted historian H.L. Osgood: "In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms". The court referred to various colonial militia statutes that required the individual ownership of arms and ammunition by its citizens. In setting forth this definition of the militia, the court implicitly rejected the "Collective Rights" view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to the organized military forces of the states. The court held that the defendants' right to possess arms was limited to those arms that had a "militia" purpose. In that regard, it remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether or not a short barreled shotgun has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. Thus, in order for a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the court held, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

But the court did not require that Miller and Layton (neither of whom were members of the National Guard or Armed Forces) be members of the National Guard or Armed Forces in order to claim Second Amendment protection. Nor did the Supreme Court remand the case for the trial court to determine whether Miller and Layton were members of the National Guard or Armed Forces. Clearly, under the court's ruling, Miller and Layton had a right to claim individual Second Amendment protection, even if they were not members of the National proposition that "the people," as individuals (not the states), had the constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to keep and bear any arms that could be appropriate for militia-type use.

131 posted on 04/16/2007 1:44:44 PM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Apathy. That's all it would take. The sheeple following what a government controlled media put forth.

Do you think the MSM is government controlled and would accept government troops unleashing WMDs (you made WMDs the standard in your first post) on Americans in order to go after the few who would be actively committing acts of violence against the government? I can't see it. That would be a 180 degree turn around from the MSM I see today. I also think the surest way to end apathy would be such action.

An unscrupulous dictator, with no morals, no sense of compassion, paranoid to the extreme, and controlling a core of troops to support staying in power would be an extremely hard proposition to assassinate.

Thousands of other pols and bureaucrats wouldn't be though. Mayors, judges, legislators, LEO chiefs of all kinds. If enough kept turning up dead the pressure would turn back towards the top.

Sorry, Joe, no guerrilla force has ever been defeated on its own soil.

132 posted on 04/16/2007 3:34:14 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

Yeah, that's right. Let Lazamataz play with matches. :-)

Besides, arent you a little bit too old to play with toys?

133 posted on 04/16/2007 4:16:45 PM PDT by lowbridge ("the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible." -Rosie O'Donnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

That was my first thought as well. LOL


134 posted on 04/16/2007 5:51:45 PM PDT by perfect stranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

(Taggart: Gol darnit Mr. Lamarr. You use your tongue prettier'n a twenty dollar whore.)

135 posted on 04/16/2007 6:18:51 PM PDT by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

136 posted on 04/16/2007 7:33:45 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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:

* Dirk

Dude!

Dirk as a tool of defense.

That just sounds nice all by itself.

137 posted on 04/16/2007 7:39:48 PM PDT by humblegunner (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

It amazes me every time some leftist makes this fatuous argument. If you try to tell him explosives, even firecrackers, are highly regulated and restricted, you get a blank stare.


138 posted on 04/16/2007 7:41:41 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS; Lazamataz; JRios1968; al baby

Dang—a rare Model 26 beeber...8^)


139 posted on 04/16/2007 8:34:15 PM PDT by rzeznikj at stout (Boldly Going Nowhere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Do you think the MSM is government controlled and would accept government troops unleashing WMDs (you made WMDs the standard in your first post) on Americans in order to go after the few who would be actively committing acts of violence against the government?

Let the Dems come into power, maybe.

Thousands of other pols and bureaucrats wouldn't be though. Mayors, judges, legislators, LEO chiefs of all kinds. If enough kept turning up dead the pressure would turn back towards the top.

In a despotic rule, the smaller pols wouldn't count.

Do I see it in the next 10 years? No.
Do I see it as a possibility in the future? Yes.

No guerrilla force has ever been defeated on its own soil.
Name me a guerrilla force that has deposed a government without directly facing government soldiers at some point.

140 posted on 04/16/2007 8:35:00 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 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