The right to bear arms - is one justification obsolete?

I have a question about one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment. I've heard it stated that citizens have a right to bear arms as sort of a check against tyranny. There are obviously other valid justifications for the right to bear arms, but I'm specifically concerned with this one.

Specifically, it is argued that if a government ever becomes irredeemably tyrannical, citizens have the right to band together and challenge the government. Is this principle still valid? If so, then it must follow that private citizens should have the right to own more powerful weapons above guns, including missiles, nuclear weapons, etc (how else could one take on the modern government nowadays?).

Personally, I'm not comfortable with nuclear and other high powered weapons being legally available to anyone who can afford them, so I have to render the 'check against tyranny' argument for arms-bearing rights obsolete. Anyone agree or disagree?

Post 1

Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 8:16pm

I disagree. Even with Americans just owning assault rifles and pistols, the U.S. military could not effectively pull off a long-term occupation of America. One only need to look at the U.S. occupation of Iran and Afghanistan to see how difficult it is to maintain military control over an armed and angry population. The only way for the U.S. military to effectively pull off an occupation is whole-sale slaughter of the population (nuclear strikes, massive bombing campaigns, etc) but this would beg the question why any tyranny would be stupid enough to destroy the means for supplying its military whom they rely on for maintaining that tyranny?

In fact WW2 Japan nixed an idea of invading American soil. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said "there would be a rifle-man behind every blade of grass". So it's not just protection from a domestic tyranny that the 2nd amendment serves but from a foreign one as well.
(Edited by John Armaos on 12/27, 8:20pm)

Post 2

Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 9:54pm

One only need to look at the U.S. occupation of Iran and Afghanistan to see how difficult it is to maintain military control over an armed and angry population.

I didn't realize the U.S. went into Iran, too! Just kidding, sorry...

Anyhow, I disagree. I think the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that a high tech military can indefinitely maintain an occupation, provided the money and resources keep flowing. With precision weapons, aerial surveilance, air power, tanks, etc, you can impose your will over a large population with relatively few men. Certainly it's not perfect, and Afghanistan is a much bigger challenge than Iraq due to the terrain and the primitive tribes, but I believe that the U.S. could keep a puppet regime in power for as along as it had the will to do so.

But at any rate, if citizens have a right to deter tyranny, on which basis does the government have a right to prohibit sophisticated weapons for private ownership? Where do you objectively draw the line? Bazookas? Missiles? Predator drones? Fighter jets? Tactical nukes?

Post 3

Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 10:38pm

This question has been asked and answered here at least once.

First, you have the right of self defense, whether from someone who calls himself the government or not.

Second, how, exactly, does yours and your innocent neighbors' being killed in the blast of your own thermo-nuclesar device count as self defense? Weapons of War (being afraid of the word war, postmodernists call them wmd's) are tools of mass murder, or the destruction of armies, not personal self defense. There is a line between self defense and overkill.

Third, the question is not one of occupation, but one of revolution. So, the US army could shut down the US and occupy it. For a few weeks. And what would happen to the tax stream that supplies the US army? Duh, bye-bye, food supply.

Post 4

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 12:31am

Pete:

Anyhow, I disagree. I think the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that a high tech military can indefinitely maintain an occupation, provided the money and resources keep flowing. With precision weapons, aerial surveilance, air power, tanks, etc, you can impose your will over a large population with relatively few men. Certainly it's not perfect, and Afghanistan is a much bigger challenge than Iraq due to the terrain and the primitive tribes, but I believe that the U.S. could keep a puppet regime in power for as along as it had the will to do so.

Yes I did mean Iraq. I guess you can get whatever mileage you want from witnessing the effectiveness of the U.S. occupation, but I don't agree with your take on it. Since it's pure speculation either way, we'd have to rely only on imperfect analogies to give some insight on such a hypothetical scenario.

I wouldn't exactly say the U.S. is doing a stupendous job of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's obviously difficult and not something that can be sustainable in perpetuity. Witness even there, the U.S. is doing everything it can to end the occupation under reasonable circumstances (more or less, depending on the administration), the ongoing policy is to train a local army and organize a local government to take over, the occupation itself without such a strategy cannot be sustained unless we were there as conquerers, which would require a whole lot more bloodshed, which wouldn't work on a U.S. population since it is required to survive in a manner that allows for the U.S. military to be clothed, fed and armed. Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign populations, the idea of the U.S. military occupying U.S. soil is different in many respects. I don't think it's a perfect analogy, it was only to point out how difficult it is to pull off an occupation with a citizenry that is armed and mad without some type of long-term solution in place. So without that, how could the U.S. military pull off a long-term occupation of American soil? You can't train a local army to take over, because it is the local army. You can't decimate the population, kinda defeats the purpose of having your tyranny. So more likely you'd just see a bloody, drawn out occupation that would eventually wither and die, why? Because Americans per capita have the highest gun ownership in the world. I don't care how sophisticated the weaponry is, the numbers are just too large, and the only effective weapon against large numbers like that are weapons of mass destruction, which would annihilate both tyrannized population and the tyrants.

It should be telling that the Japanese had no qualms about invading China and half of the Pacific during WW2, but they were skittish when it came to occupying American soil, and they specifically cited the high rate of per capita gun ownership as their reason for not trying. Surely that should be persuasive in some respect, shouldn't it? Clearly just the threat coming from such a high rate of gun ownership deterred a foreign invasion.

Post 5

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 3:12am

There is also the idea that there'd be an internal revolt among the military in that situation - one thing to occupy a foreign angry nation, another this own country of theirs...

Post 6

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 4:10am

Is this principle still valid? If so, then it must follow that private citizens should have the right to own more powerful weapons above guns, including missiles, nuclear weapons, etc (how else could one take on the modern government nowadays?).

I've read this query elsewhere. My first reaction was, "Wow, do people really think those in the military are just a bunch of brain dead robots? Seriously?"

I envision many high ranking military officials putting the kabash on military retaliation against a revolting citizenry. I see military personnel abandoning their posts, and joining the resistance. We have some amazing private leadership here, because we've been free for so long. I see engineers at private firms collaborating with resistance leaders to make competitive weapons, and I don't see tyranny as having potent appeal against our cherished history of freedom.

Tinkerers have developed rockets in their basements. It's the American way.

Post 7

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 9:02am

Where do you objectively draw the line? Bazookas? Missiles? Predator drones? Fighter jets? Tactical nukes?

If by objectively, we include, precedent based on physics, then we regularly mutually permit and tolerate fellow citizens to not only own, but actually deploy, under their control, the equivalent of several million ft-lbfs (in the collision frame of reference--the only one that matters to us personally)of destructive energy, in the objective instance of automobiles.

And, we place into the hands of perfect strangers, separated by no more than a thickly painted double yellow line and the suggestion that it is not a good idea to cross it, the lives of our loved ones as fellow citizens take endless turns aiming their several million ft-lbfs of destructive energy at targets mere feet from where our loved ones are sleeping.

The muzzle energy of a .50cal is only 11,500 ft-lbfs, so objectively, by precedent, we are well beyond .50cal -- orders of magnitude -- when it comes to what we regularly tolerate the fringe abuse of, when it comes to the cost of our mutual freedom.

So objectively, the current objective/physical precedent is 'several million ft-lbfs,' and the current objective barrier to not only possession of but actual deployment is a test that any 16 year old can pass.

Of course, that is an objective argument, based on physics, ie, the objective means by which we project the risk of harm onto our fellow citizens also practicing their freedom.

Bazookas? Still not up to several million ft-lbfs.

So, wherever that line is drawn, it should be drawn objectively.

I once had this conversation with someone who told me, seriously, that when it comes to the physical harm that we expose each other to as a consequence of our freedoms, quote, "The PHYSICS doesn't matter."

Seriously. But that's political science, not real science.

Post 8

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 9:24am

If I take my handgun to the range, capable of deploying 350 ft-lbfs of destructive energy, I and all my fellow deployers make sure it is unloaded and inoperable before walking downrange to the targets, and nobody has hands on weapon.

When I take my automobile onto the highway, and actually deploy it, not only is my gas tank often full, but me and my fellow citizens regularly take turns aiming our several million ft-lbfs at targets mere feet from each other, head-on.

It's as if we were at the range, facing each other.

We worry endlessly about the folks deploying their 350 ft-lbfs, and would not be comfortable about them aiming at targets mere feet from our loved ones.

We don't blink an eye when perfect strangers deploy several million ft-lbfs, and aim at targets mere feet from our loved ones...while simultaneously eating a Big Mac, fixing their hair, or talking on a cell phone...

Imagine if the NRA sponsored an event where highly trained professionals took turns aiming millions of ft-lbfs at targets mere inches from other, for sport. They would wear special kevlar body bags with advertisers ads printed on them. They would mostly get it right, but sometimes there would be spectacular misses, and a 100,000 paying fans in the stands would "ooooh!" and "Ahhhhh!" and exclaim, "That's a darn shame, who saw that coming?" America would never tolerate such exercise of freedom, would it?

Unless it was NASCAR.

Now, imagine it was realized that part of the problem was all that high energy deployment in traffic in a constant left hand turn, and we changed the venue and gave each of the contestants their own straight quarter mile lane.

Would freedom dictate a 'safer' venue, or would freedom push the horsepower to the edge of catastrophe and beyond, until exactly the same periodic spectacular accidents would result in the same "ooooh!" and "ahhhhhh!" and "That's a darn shame, now who saw that coming?"

Or...recreational drugs. You know, the often sensible use of 5 mph marijuana, and the occasional abuse of 95 mph meth.

The NRA objectively condones nothing remotely like either NASCAR/NHRA, or even, the AAA, and yet...

well, go figure, and the reason for the demonization is precisely because of the underlying question in this thread.

An armed-to-the-teeth nation is an impediment to the goals of the herdists/tribalists/socialists, who are itching enact their heavy handed pet Soc. grad school thesis.

Post 9

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 10:46am

Sometimes, folks have argued to me that cars are 'slower and more massive', and therefore, less dangerous than 'speeding bullets.'

This is, objectively, a special subset of collision physics called 'small mass/large mass collisions.'

When a bullet collides with a human being, in the collision frame of reference, it can certainly be lethal to the human, no sane person is denying that. The kinetic destructive energy in the collison frame of references is dissipated by the body and the bullet. Work, in the form of deformation, is done on the body and the bullet. They share neither the same collision frame of reference(they are moving relative to each other), nor the same mass of the object that appears to be hitting them, nor the same mass over which to absorb the kinetic energy delivered to them in their respective frames of reference. What objectively physically matters to the body is neither just the mass nor the velocity of the bullet, but the combination mass x collision frame of reference velocity squared, where mass is the mass of the bullet, abosrbed by the much larger mass of the body(and destructive to the body, all the same.)

The ratio of 'destructive energy absorbed per unit mass' is not the same for the bullet and the body. It is much larger for the bullet(the small mass in the small mass/large mass collision), by the ratio (M/m)^2. (ooops. you know what I meant...)

See "Jupitor/Levy Comet" event to see which object takes the worse of these events, on an 'energy per unit mass' basis.

The point being, when your butt is strapped into an automobile, and you are intimately participating in the dissipation of a several million ft-lbf dynamic event in your personal collision frame of reference, your butt is the small mass.

Uh-oh.

You don't need to remember HS physics to figure this out. You just need to read Page 8 of every paper.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/28, 1:37pm)

Post 10

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 2:00pm

Something I have never understood about the Rodney King incident.

If he had been standing on that same highway in LA that night, drunkenly deploying 350 ft-lbfs with a handgun, randomly and drunkenly deploying it at innocents, passers-by, and only accidentally not killing anyone, and LA SWAT had shown up and summarily executed him on the spot, the nation would have cheered the heros in blue. Well, in ballistic nylon black, anyway.

But, when he actually drunkenly deployed a couple million ft-lbfs of destructive energy, randomly and drunkenly deploying it at innocents, passers-by, and only accidentally didn't kill anyone, and the LAPD showed up and merely spanked him, we excoriated them.

There were other issues, no doubt. But, I don't understand why we every day give a bye to the drunken deployment of several million ft-lbfs, while simultaneously accepting summary judgement/on the spot execution in the instances of drunken deployment of several hundred ft-lbfs events. This isn't uniform, the law in some states permits the deployment of deadly force when officers are faced with a nut in a car, but in general, the public immediately sees the need for summary response in one case, but less-so in the other.

We are inured to the deployment of several million ft-lbf dynamic events, because we think we understand cars, at the same time we cower at the several hundred ft-lbf events.

If a nut wants to cause the most havoc in a crowded Times Square, should he show up with a .45 or a Ford Taurus?

Fortunately for us, our nuts so inclined have no real appreciation for physics.

Part of this is Hollywood's fault. In the movies, often, the effects of firearms are simultaneously grossly exaggerated (someone fires a handgun at a car and a hidden cannon augmented special effect launches the car end over end), or a squib augmented telephone pole explodes in half, and grossly under-represented at the same time(a human victim folds up into a neat pile after being shot, and stops moving.)

Some magazine once ran an experiment, how many rounds of AR-15/M16/.223 would it take to cut a telephone pole in half? The number was huge, like 2700 rounds(and several barrels.) It took hours. Not in the movies.

As anyone with teenage drivers in their family knows, the fastest way to cut a telephone pole in half(20 milliseconds)is with a six pack of beer and a Toyota pickup.

Hollywood hasn't been informing the debate on this topic for decades-- nor America.

Post 11

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 2:46pm

Well, I'd say the justification is not obsolete. And while the standard arms that are available to private citizens today may not be sufficient to defend against a modern military, there are many obvious reasons why the average citizen might not feel comfortable with having no restrictions on what weapons their neighbors may own. However, I would think from the purely Objectivist perspective (correct me or clarify if I'm wrong) anyone would have a right to buy whatever weapon they might want.

The question, I think, is how do you objectively balance the risks versus the rights. If someone knows another thread where this has been discussed, I'd be curious as to what arguments are made.

In the US, we still live in a relatively free society, but are seeing our individual rights steadily eroding. Nevertheless, for the moment, there is still a clear outlet for effecting change through our vote. I'd agree that those in our military would share this belief, and have strong sentiment in favor of not changing this balance (they'd still have our backs). So long as these statements remain true, I would think the risks (crazy neighbors with wmd's!) seem to far outweigh the benefits of allowing everyone to arm 'however they saw fit'.

However, should the political system degenerate to where our votes are essentially no longer effective, I could see a point where the military may no longer have our backs. At such point, small (and registered) arms would be of little use.

The trick, I suppose, is to make sure we never let it get that far.

jt

Post 12

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 7:32pm

"As anyone with teenage drivers in their family knows, the fastest way to cut a telephone pole in half(20 milliseconds)is with a six pack of beer and a Toyota pickup."

What's the easiest way to kill 30 kids in a classroom? Assuming you have the option of a .22 and a car you can try to both get airborne and aim properly, what's the easiest way to kill a person standing on a 10ft tall concrete embankment?

What's the easiest way to kill an intruder in your bedroom?

Are you advocating a Second Amendment right to possess a motor vehicle?

What's your point?

Post 13

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 5:18am

Ted:

My point was to respond to the following question, not yours, back in post 7:

Where do you objectively draw the line? Bazookas? Missiles? Predator drones? Fighter jets? Tactical nukes?

If by objectively, we include, precedent based on physics, then we regularly mutually permit and tolerate fellow citizens to not only own, but actually deploy, under their control, the equivalent of several million ft-lbfs (in the collision frame of reference--the only one that matters to us personally)of destructive energy, in the objective instance of automobiles.

And, the easiest way to kill 30 kids in a classroom is to wait until recess and deploy a few million ft-lbfs at them on the playground via automobile, then speed away.

But, nobody is talking about banning the several million ft-lbfs abusable objects within a thousand feet of schools, only the several hundred ft-lbfs abusable objects.

Post 14

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 6:09am

Fred,

I still have trouble wrapping myself around your point, and hope I am not sounding naive. Automobiles and truck have specific productive purposes - the transportation of people and goods. Whereas the specific purpose of weapons IS killing or wounding - destructive purposes - hopefully only used in the course of defending oneself. I find the comparison rather difficult - we are not talking apples to apples.

jt

Post 15

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 6:26am

Jay,

Just to play devil's advocate... I don't believe that categorizing possible weapons by purpose - as you did - addresses the issue. The purpose for a car is transportation, and the purpose of a gun (depending upon the particular gun) is hunting, target practice, personal defense, or military use. A car can and has been used as an attack weapon - just as gun intended for, say hunting, has been used as an attack weapon. I just don't see where your distinction changes the question.

But I don't think that Fred's point - which is well made - answers the question. Should it be legal to own a nuclear bomb or vials of weaponized anthrax? If not, how and where is the line drawn between those extremes and the hand gun or rifle?

Post 16

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 7:56am

"And, the easiest way to kill 30 kids in a classroom is to wait until recess and deploy a few million ft-lbfs at them on the playground via automobile, then speed away."

You contradict yourself. You say that the easiest way to kill 30 kids in a classroom is not to kill them in a classroom.

As a joke, your argument works fine. As an argument it's a joke, a silly reduction of reductive materialism to the absurd. I assume that's the point of your argument by inessentials?

Post 17

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:04am

Jay:

Automobiles and truck have specific productive purposes - the transportation of people and goods. Whereas the specific purpose of weapons IS killing or wounding - destructive purposes - hopefully only used in the course of defending oneself. I find the comparison rather difficult - we are not talking apples to apples.

Exactly right. And in spite of our holy intent, physics prevails on the deathtoll/scoreboard, and far more Happy Motorists die for vital reasons(like, getting across town from our jaunt to get the really, really good Italian Ice and home in time to watch American Idol)than die from firearm deaths. Physics is objectively why that is true.

Physics objectively doesn't give a rat's butt about our holy subjective intent. If you stop to think about it, is having your one and only life ended here on earth because some yutz was speeding home to see 'American Idol' any less terrifying than having it ended by some Dark Ages politico seeking 72 virgins? Really?

Imagine what the relative deathtoll would be if the specific purpose of automobiles was to kill?

Apples to apples? No, objectively, physics to physics. The question raised was, 'objectively drawing the line,' not subjectively drawing the line, when it comes to the objective risk of danger we are exposed to by the fringe abuse/exercise of freedom by others. Introducing subjective 'intent/purposes' for physical objects moving freely around the tribe is hardly objective. If it is, then I want to know how many justifiable automobile accidents are caused by people rushing much needed human organs across town for an emergency operation, as opposed to the Italian Ice -- or any whim whatsoever-- scenario.

Cops don't even ask 'why was this several million ft-lbf event deployed?' and put it on the report. They just oversee the cleaning up of the chunks on the asphalt, and hurry on the next exploding meat fest.

The productive purpose of the firearms in my possession IS defending my family/my self, and is served even when not actually deployed and killing or wounding or destroying anything. Self defense is not destruction, self defense is the opposite of destruction.

You could apply the same logic to automobiles capable of going over 5 mph, if you want. If their purpose is aesthetic, then a car's beauty does not require that it be capable of actually projecting a couple million ft-lbfs at perfect strangers. No, by and large, Americans are free to not only possess automobiles, but actually deploy them as dynamic events moving freely across the nation, for any whim whatsoever, and we freely accept 50,000 sets/yr of the resulting 'chunks' on the highway(see 'physics' for why)as the cost of that freedom, without barely going past P8 of the local paper with the reporting.

Jay: objectively, Ma Deuce's brick wall piercing .50cal is 11,500 ft-lbfs of that which physically harms. Two Buicks passing each other and missing a head-on by 4 feet at a liesurely 45 mph each is an almost two million ft-lbf dynamic event, and their 20 gallon gas tanks permit them to continue to project such events for hours, continuously...

I agree with you; when it comes to objective danger, there is no comparison between automobiles and guns. Automobiles are objectively orders of magnitude more dangerous, and as you point out, in spite of their 'non-destructive'purpose, physics asserts its objective judgement of our intent.

But, don't take my word for it, nor even physics: anyone can read the papers and figure that one out.

Post 18

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:19am

Steve:

Should it be legal to own a nuclear bomb or vials of weaponized anthrax? If not, how and where is the line drawn between those extremes and the hand gun or rifle?

I don't know how the line will be drawn, my beat-to-death argument is that objectively, by precedent, that line goes well beyond '.50cal' and its 11,500 ft-lbfs.

Where I think a distinction is made with nuclear weapons and anthrax and such is that those are theatre wide, indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, primarily offensive weapons, or at most, deterrents against (some) of those who would use them as offensive weapons. They would be excessively poor tools of selective tyrrany directed internally, for example, and vice versa.

But totally moot: those who actually seek 'nuclear weapons' do not ask permission or obtain permits from anyone, nor respect drawn lines.

Post 19

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:47am