So, over the course of the past 2 or so years there has been an increasing number of people in this community who I think I would consider on the right side of the tracks. I assume many people here are against restrictive gun laws for at least hand guns.
But what about owning other defensive tools? Would it be fine for a private citizen to own a tank or an H-Bomb or a cruise missile? What possible reason could anyone have for owning this. Doesn't owning a weapon of mass destruction imply an intentional threat? The reason America and other countries have weapons that are able to lay waste to cities in minutes or seconds is deterrence. They don't intend on using them, but they are there so no one ****s with anyone. Can a single individual be trusted with a uranium tipped missile? He would certainly never be allowed to use it.
By their nature, tanks, h-bombs and cruise missiles aren't defensive tools.
If you live near other people, the very presence of those things creates a threat to your neighbors. There's a reason why the U.S. keeps their nukes in the middle of nowhere (the Dakotas) and the Russians keep theirs in Siberia or wherever: they're dangerous.
I absolutely support the right to own guns for self-defense. But you can't defend yourself against a home invader or a mugger with a cruise missile or a tank.
Those types of weapons are only useful for defending against a foreign military threat, and we've properly delegated responsibility for defending against those threats to the government.
Remember, the government has a monopoly on the use of force. The only time private citizens may properly use force is when it has been initiated against them, and the government can't come to their aid.
I don't know much about guns, by my understanding is that many of the legal differences between assault weapons and "civilian" weapons don't really concern their lethality - the restrictions are on things like clip capacity and the presence of flash suppressors.
The fact that they might be more effective at killing people than other guns doesn't change the important fact that they can, as their primary purpose, be put to legitimate use, such as self-defense, target shooting, or hunting.
Of course, when you're distinguishing between categories of firearms, the line is more difficult to draw than when you're distinguishing between firearms and purely offensive weapons, like tanks, bombs, and the like.
I mean, if an assault rifle is OK, what about a mounted heavy machine gun? To answer my own question, I would say that use of such a weapon for home defense puts others at an unreasonable risk, and would probably be impractical. However, it's a different scenario if its owner has, say, a shotgun or a handgun to be used for home defense, and keeps the machine gun dismantled and locked away most of the time, and just takes it out to tear shit up at a shooting range.
john31584 wrote:Remember, the government has a monopoly on the use of force. The only time private citizens may properly use force is when it has been initiated against them, and the government can't come to their aid.
As the resident Anti-Weberist, I'd like to point out that, though the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, it has no right to such a monopoly. If a citizen wants to defend himself against the government, he has to be equally as well armed as the government. The constitution provides that citizens have the right to defend themselves in militias. The constitution is saying that the government has no right to monopolize the use of force. I modern times, however, most militias are outlawed on the grounds that the National Guard serves as a militia. This creates a problem in that the National Guard is a part of the government, and as such, cannot defend its citizen from the government. With no militia to aid the citizenry, the responsibility rest solely on the shoulders of the individual to be prepared to fight whatever comes his way. Now, not a lot of people can afford WMDs or even cruise missiles (a cruise missile could run up to 15 million for one missile and a guidance system), so no one is just going to use them on their neighbor, but if a citizen feels that his government is oppressive to the point where revolution is necessary, then he must be prepared to fight, and tanks, missiles, WMDs or any other weapon may be necessary in that fight.
I think individuals should not be coerced into not owning WMDs, but I also think a just and rationally designed society can incentivize individuals to choose not to own WMDs.
