Weapons of Choice?

What weapons should an individual be allowed to have by law? A tactical nuclear weapon? A surface-to-air missile? An anti-tank weapon? What criteria do we use to draw the line?

Post 1

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 2:55pm

Depends on whom ye aiming at... ;-)

Post 2

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 3:41pm

Some people who have studied the origins of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say that the point of the second amendment was to guarantee that the grass roots would have enough firepower to keep government in check and fight back if it got out of bounds. This would seem to say that they can (and should) keep any kind of weapon the feds have, or at least any they might use to enforce domestic laws.

On the other hand, explosive or radioactive ammunition is a safety hazard. Thus I'd say people should have any weapons they please, subject to safety considerations. Utility companies handle natural gas, and electric companies and medical institutions handle radioactive materials, with acceptable risk. We ought to be able to work out laws for the ammunition situation as well.

Post 3

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 12:10am

In the Stone Age, a constitutional republic would have included the right to bear spears and stone axes, but not necessarily weapons more powerful than that because -- in line with Peter's reasoning -- because the government wouldn't yet wield any weapons more powerful than that (or, more relevantly, defenses against such weapons).

I think Peter's right. In order to uncover which weapons need to be "permitted" -- one needs only to ask which weapons would be necessary to defeat your own government's defenses. In our case, burst-fire assault rifles appear moral, as well as some low-end surface-to-air missile launchers and some low-end anti-tank weapons (e.g., 40-mm grenade launchers).

EMP weapons may be a more humane alternative to these low-level explosive anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Nuclear weapons do not appear to be necessary in this endeavor.

Ed

Post 4

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 8:30am

Ed T. wrote:

In our case, burst-fire assault rifles appear moral, as well as some low-end surface-to-air missile launchers and some low-end anti-tank weapons (e.g., 40-mm grenade launchers).

Yo, Ed, could I have one of these? I was trained. I don't know if it is how it got its name or it came later, but the name is said to be an acronym for "homing all the way killer." :-)

Post 5

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 9:59am

I always considered the idea of numbers with respect to this issue. Yes the U.S. government has some sophisticated weaponry, but they don't have the numbers to successfully occupy a large population armed with even just small arms (automatic rifles for instance). Think about the number of guys you have at a military installation, consider the civilian population required to support it, consider then this civilian population with automatic rifles, consider further how easily it would be to over-take a military installation with a defiant civilian population with automatic rifles unwilling to give any logistical support to that military installation.

Hence I think a civilian population with small arms is a sufficient check to the possibility of a military junta/dictatorship.
(Edited by John Armaos on 1/15, 1:07pm)

Post 6

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 2:19pm

John,

Good points.

I admire the Swiss:

http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/the_swiss_and_their_guns.htm

I met a Swiss engineer who visited our company for a few months last year. Young guy. We went on walks a lunch quite often for several weeks after I got to know him. He was quite talkative. I realized after being around him awhile he was very self confident. Not just that he was a fit young man and a bright engineer but a very self assured proud man. We talked a little about his military service. Yes, they all do that, he goes for a week a year to train, he has his gun and ammunition at home. "Everybody does that". And they have virtually zero gun crime. Don't mess with the Swiss.

Post 7

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 3:03pm

I'm so sorry, Merlin. It just wouldn't be moral.

If it's any consolation, there are two weapons which you, as an American citizen, should be allowed to own and operate. They, if publically owned, would make for quite a peaceful and polite society, wherein the government would fear its public (which is appropriate):

M203 grenade launcher

FIM-92 Stinger

If a third or more of all citizens had these, we'd have peace, tranquility, and laissez-faire capitalism because -- out of fear, if nothing else -- no other kind of social arrangement would be tried (which is also appropriate). The tax rates would never go above the maximum amount required to run a government: 15%.

:-)

Ed

Post 8

Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 7:09pm

Glenn asked, "What weapons should an individual be allowed to have by law? A tactical nuclear weapon? A surface-to-air missile? An anti-tank weapon? What criteria do we use to draw the line?"

Good question, Glenn. I'd say it depends on the weapon's intended target and the agent authorized to defend against that target. Since the proper target of a tactical nuclear weapon can only be a foreign enemy, the only agent authorized to employ it would be a military organization, not a private individual. The same is true of a surface-to-air missile or an anti-tank weapon. Smaller-scale weapons should, however, be available for private use -- either for hunting or for defense against private criminals.

I don't think it follows that private individuals should have weapons sufficient to match the firepower of the government itself. If the government views its laws as properly enforceable, it cannot allow a competing agency the same enforcement power. It cannot hand over an equivalent arsenal of weapons to private citizens and say, here, use these against us, if you object to how we're governing.

If the government becomes so overbearing and draconian that a revolution is the only alternative, then private citizens will be at war with their own government, which will then be the equivalent of a foreign army. In that case, laws against private ownership of large-scale weapons would no longer apply.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/15, 7:17pm)

Post 9

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 8:35am

Ayn Rand suggested that handguns should be illegal. Only the police should be allowed to have them.

Post 10

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 9:07am

Citation please.

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 2:52pm

Here is what I think Michael may have been referring to. Rand was asked at a Ford Hall Forum Lecture in 1971, "What is your opinion on gun control laws"? She answered:

"I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising now, which isn't very practical."

In another Ford Hall Forum lecture in 1973, Rand was asked the same question: "What's your attitude toward gun control." There she responded:

"It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim."

Here I think Rand may be overlooking a legal distinction between the right of exigent self-defense and private retaliation in which a suspected criminal is pursued privately and subjected to vigilante justice. If one is attacked by a criminal in, say, a home invasion robbery, one is perfectly justified in using a handgun in self-defense to protect oneself or one's family. This does not constitute "killing people at whim."

If, however, one pursues a suspected criminal when one is not under immediate life-threatening duress for the purpose of shooting and killing him in retaliation, then one could be accused of "killing at whim" by ignoring the need for a dispassionate trial in which the suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A handgun can justifiably be used for self-defense in the first case but in the second. Moreover, it has been shown that private gun ownership has a statistically significant effect on deterring crime, because criminals are less likely to engage in robberies in places where they know that gun ownership is permitted. See John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime for the evidence.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/16, 2:59pm)

Post 12

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 3:02pm

Thanks Bill for the citation. Rand seems to be taking a non-committal stance here, I don't see anything that says she thought handguns ought to be illegal.

Post 13

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 3:23pm

John,

As usual, Marotta is just trying to stir the pot.

Bill,

How come citizens can't own Stinger missles in peacetime?

Ed

Post 14

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 3:42pm

Bill,

I recall a thread a few years ago where you argued that police, courts and military could all be private, and everything would be just fine so long as they obeyed the government, which they would do because the gov�t would always be the final arbiter. When I pointed out that it�s impossible for the gov�t to be the final arbiter when it lacks to power to enforce its decisions against others with more power, well, I just couldn�t seem to help you get the point.

Now, you write �If the government views its laws as properly enforceable, it cannot allow a competing agency the same enforcement power. It cannot hand over an equivalent arsenal of weapons to private citizens and say, here, use these against us, if you object to how we're governing.�

Did you forgot to credit me with your evolving views on this?

Post 15

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 5:49pm

Jon wrote,

I recall a thread a few years ago where you argued that police, courts and military could all be private, and everything would be just fine so long as they obeyed the government, which they would do because the gov�t would always be the final arbiter. When I pointed out that it�s impossible for the gov�t to be the final arbiter when it lacks to power to enforce its decisions against others with more power, well, I just couldn�t seem to help you get the point.

Now, you write �If the government views its laws as properly enforceable, it cannot allow a competing agency the same enforcement power. It cannot hand over an equivalent arsenal of weapons to private citizens and say, here, use these against us, if you object to how we're governing.�

Did you forgot to credit me with your evolving views on this?

Actually, my views haven't evolved. I still agree with what I said back in 2007. If one were to adopt the system that I was proposing over three years ago, then the government's enforcement power would lie precisely in those competing agencies of force that are authorized and regulated by the government's laws. What I was referring to as the "private" use of force under our present system, would, under the system I was proposing, be one whose use of force is not authorized or regulated by the government's laws. So, under that system, the law would ideally forbid "private" citizens (i.e., those who are not authorized members of the military) from possessing nuclear weapons and the like.

Of course, an authorized agency of force could still choose to disobey the government laws and regulations, but so could the police under our present system. If today the police chose to disregard the law and become rogue officers, what agency or agencies would arrest them? Perhaps, the national guard or the military, but what if they too chose to ignore the law and stage a military coup? Whatever system you have, those who are ultimately in charge of enforcing its laws must choose voluntarily to abide by them. Short of that, no system can be considered workable.

Post 16

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 10:20pm

I don�t understand your post. Are you saying that private entities should be allowed military weapons, or that they should not be allowed military weapons? I'm not following 'under that system or that proposal.'
(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/16, 10:33pm)

Post 17

Sunday, January 16, 2011 - 11:56pm

Jon,

It depends on what you mean by "private." What I was referring to as the "private" use of force under our present system, would, under the system I was proposing in 2007, be one whose use of force is not authorized or regulated by the government's laws. So, under that system (the one I was proposing in 2007), the law would forbid "private" citizens (i.e., those who are not authorized members of the military) from possessing military weapons.

Post 18

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 2:03am

Here are some of the thoughts I've had on this subject.

On one hand part of me wants a strict and literal interpretation of individual rights such that if a person has commited no violation of another's rights then there is no moral justification for government prohibiting the possession of any weapon.

But, clearly that is silly. It is so literal an interpretation that it has stripped away reason itself. One nut case with an nuclear bomb or other WMD wipes out an entire city! Of course now I'm vulnerable to the argument, "Well, then why can't we regulate the sale of extra large magazine clips for semi-automatic pistols? Isn't it the same exact principle, but just scaled down?" I'm left without a consistent principle.

I could answer, "Yes, it is scaled down. But isn't it reasonable to draw a line of scale somewhere? I shouldn't have to keep my hands inside of big fluffy mittens just to ensure I don't hit someone with a fist, much less have them amputated. Since I get to have my hands, then I choose to draw the line the other side of pistols and rifles."

I still don't know of a way to formulate the answer to this issue that I'm happy with. And I'd rather live with that state of ignorance for now then to pretend I have an answer just for the sake of looking like I have an answer.
------------------

I'm comfortable with limiting citizen weapons to pistols and rifles because if things get so bad, and our government has so encroached on our liberties, and has done so in a way that leaves no alternative but taking up arms - we will have reached a state where the governments first problem will not be with what the citizens are armed with but how to get the men and the women of our military to go along with tyranny. And the police will be split between those who for psychological reasons are willing to be tyrants, and those who no longer are willing to carry out laws that have become that bad. If it were looked at as a contest between two armies - a citizen militia that arose spontaneously out of resistance against the U.S. military with its Air Force, Special Forces, NSA, Navy, Army, etc. there would be no contest. But it won't be that kind of struggle. It will be a contest by those who demand freedom attempting to win the moral battle in ways that demoralize the attempt of the government to convince soldiers and cops to become an arm of tyranny.
--------------------

Bill's argument of citizen's having, in effect, delegated defense rights to the government is a little shakey, but not totally off base. We can retain the use of small arms against criminals because we know that they might attack us even with a good justice system and excellent police force - they are here among us and the small arms will provide a reasonable defense under many scenarios. But we don't carry much of a fear that we need to have weapons, as citizens, to defer an attack by China or Russia or that to attempt to have such weapons would be helpful in that venue which is the only one that exists for WMDs (not used after all for deer or muggers). Hence his principle of the purpose of the weapon in terms of target determines which weapons we will risk having in the hands of citizens.

Post 19

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 8:05am