| | Ted wrote:
Even if we characterize a tactical nuke as an indiscriminate weapon, upon what constitutional grounds could we outlaw their possession? I think that the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments place a burden upon those who would pass such a law. Let me state that I don't particularly look forward to owning a nuke, let alone my neighbour's having one. I just think the issue is open.
Man's rights are not unconditional in a physical sense. Man's rights only guarantee political freedom, that is freedom from oppression by a government or others, which include some physical freedoms, such as freedom of movement, but not unlimited physical freedom, such as inflicting harm on others in an initiation of force. The freedom of speech for example doesn't include the right to sell or buy child pornography or yell fire in a crowded theatre. I don't think the 9th and 10th amendment would imply we have rights as they would be defined by an anarchist. If we understand that man's rights are rooted in our capacity to reason, then of what reason can we expect an individual (not talking about a militia or a standing army, but one individual) to posses indiscriminate weapons? To insure the security of a free state against a possible tyranny? Of what use would there be to a rebellion to use WMD? WMD and other indiscriminate weapons are generally only useful in demoralizing a citizenry because their use only succeeds in killing vast swaths of a civilian population, now why on Earth would a domestic rebellion be any effective if it could demoralize it's own people to revolt against a government that is oppressing them? Not exactly a useful tactic in winning over hearts and minds to your cause.
Now if we're talking about the future of WMD technology, with the potential to wipe out humanity completely off the face of this planet, then most certainly we can't possibly think any one individual would have the right to posses such a weapon. Weapons such as a supervirus, or a nanovirus could wipe out humanity. In fact it may be possible that one day humanity will be wiped out just from an accident in a science lab, such as inadvertently unleashing a supervirus or a deadly nanovirus.
Also, can we define "indiscriminate" in objective terms? It is not weapons, but weapons bearers who really discriminate.
Yes but there are weapons without the possibility of discriminating individual targets. For example, how could a nuke every be used discriminately? It can't, the blast wave of such is too big. Biological weapons too, cannot ever be discriminate. It's a physical impossibility. So it's not that I define what weapons an individual has the right to posses be just based on the bearer discriminating his targets, but based on whether it is even possible for the weapon to ever be used discriminately. So yes I think we can reasonably define indiscriminate weapons in objective terms. We may have disagreements on which weapons are indiscriminate in nature, but there's no reason to think we can't attempt to define which weapons are or are not indiscriminate in nature. Similarly, just as we may have a disagreement on when a minor ought to legally become an adult. Would the legal age be 17? 23? 18? What really matters is that we pick an age that is objectively applied just as we pick which weapons are to be defined as indiscriminate and objectively apply this law.
Chemical weapons might be messy, but tear-gas is often used to good effect, and so is mace.
Yes but tear gas and mace are non-lethal weapons. I'm not even sure we can even consider those arms.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 4/29, 9:22pm)
|
|
