Posted on 04/18/2002 8:59:28 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: Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons? Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that the state of nature implied a law of nature, which is that "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions." Ergo, there were "natural rights" to life, liberty and property.5
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. 4
THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE
If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:
"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."
6
THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED
Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. In his words, "....liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others....". You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.
Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.
Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:
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 may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.
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.
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.
the discussion of nukes in the hands of people is a straw argument....
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.
My point.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
That was not a mushroom CLOUD. That was Psilocybin Cubensis.
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.
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.