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