Political Theory

Re: Gun rights and etc.

nhaag — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:04:55 GMT

M-la-maudite:

nhaag:

It is never the posession of an object that is criminal. Only acts can be criminal not objects.

What if the object can only be used criminally (ie, here, in an indiscriminate fashion), and that its use would necessarily infringe the rights of innocent bystnaders? wouldn't that make it illegal in a stateless society?

Btw, the use of WMDs is also illegal under international law, and their possession heavily curtailed; so, legaly speaking (aside from normatively), even states shouldn't be able to resort to it...

Still the argument holds, the posession can not be illegal, only action or the threat thereof can be a crime. So possessing the H-bomb is no crime at all, threatening someone with its use is a crime.

If the mere possession would lead to a crime, than one could argue that a scientist might possess the power to develop a, say virus that could kill humanity, and therefor the scientist is commiting a crime by having knowledge. Wow, that would be a great tool for the statist,no? you could logically derive from this a law that could make reasoning a crime.

Well, you could argue that a knowledge different from actually putting together the factors of production into the real thing, but this is only a transformation like the change from possessing to using.

Regarding the international law I refute to make any comment to that.

Re: Gun rights and etc.

hayekianxyz — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:25:10 GMT

I think that is somewhat along the lines of Lysander Spooner's intepretation of the second amengment, but I could be wrong, happens sometimes.

Re: Gun rights and etc.

Nitroadict — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:19:19 GMT

Nick. B:

Well its pretty self explanatory...however, what are your opinion on chemical, biological, and nuclear. Also please provide facts and educated thoght in your opinions, because i' m rather uneducated and a product of anti-weapon media. Thank you.

I previously thought Ron Paul's comment on the 2nd amendment was particularly enlightening:

The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny.

I obviously disagree with "not about protecting oneself against common criminals", however, tyranny is a far worse threat.

Re: Gun rights and etc.

Sphairon — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:04:12 GMT

I'd recommend this paper by Walter Block on gun control in a free society.

In short, he says that potential of destruction as compared to density of population will decide whether ownership of a weapon may be considered a threat against your neighbors or not. For example, owning a rocket launcher in a crowded city may be considered a threat, whereas owning a rocket launcher in a lonely desert may not concern any of your far-away neighbors.

Re: Gun rights and etc.

M-la-maudite — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:56:28 GMT

nhaag:

It is never the posession of an object that is criminal. Only acts can be criminal not objects.

What if the object can only be used criminally (ie, here, in an indiscriminate fashion), and that its use would necessarily infringe the rights of innocent bystnaders? wouldn't that make it illegal in a stateless society?

Btw, the use of WMDs is also illegal under international law, and their possession heavily curtailed; so, legaly speaking (aside from normatively), even states shouldn't be able to resort to it...

Re: Gun rights and etc.

nhaag — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:12:10 GMT

How could the form of society inflict upon natural rights? Self defense is derived from the principle of selfownership. It is never the posession of an object that is criminal. Only acts can be criminal not objects.

Re: Gun rights and etc.

Nick. B — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:25:26 GMT

What about weapons in a stateless society?

Re: Gun rights and etc.

nhaag — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:17:59 GMT

Lyle D. Riggs:
Rationales based on self-defense justify the right of individuals or groups to obtain, possess and use WMDs. Market forces would determine who would actually posses them.

I can not follow your argument and find it flawed. First, agreed that the possesion of weapon of mass destruction is a no-brainer. No one acts criminal by possesing them or any other object.

Your conclusion that WMD are therefor tools that can be used for self defense though does not hold or only in very rare cases.

Self defense requires an aggressor. An Aggressor can only be an individual or a group of individuals. Your right to self defense includes violence only against the aggressor. WMD are not able to bring such a violence about(with rare exceptions. They lack the important criterion to be aimed at a specific target(individual). As you have no right whatsoever to aggress against someone that did not aggress against you, and the use of WMD will almost certainly inflict violence against non-aggressors, because that is what they are build to do -inflicting unaimed harm over everyone in a territory covered by the power of the weapon.

The only justified use for a WMD would be in a case where inside the range of the weapon only aggressors would reside. Maybe you find an island full of those that aggressed against you.

The terrorist remarks you made at the end of your post are mere propaganda without any relevance to the problem at hand unless you try to use it to bring back collectivism because "the terrorist forced us to".

Re: Gun rights and etc.

Lyle D. Riggs — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:26:23 GMT

A positive response for today's society is—absolutely not. A normative response for today’s society is that a private citizen should be able to own chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, WMDs. The costs of WMDs are likely to stop most individuals from owning WMDs, Bill Gates notwithstanding. Certainly, private groups could pool resources to purchase WMDs. Rationales based on self-defense justify the right of individuals or groups to obtain, possess and use WMDs. Market forces would determine who would actually posses them.

Firstly, one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment was to allow the citizenry to protect itself from the government. Possession of weapons was viewed as a necessary check against governmental violations of the law, e.g., unlawful search and seizures. (The NRA occasionally nods towards this justification, but usually limits its arguments to self-defense against criminals, as it negotiates with Congress and the States for further limits on our right to keep and bear arms.)

At the time of the approval of the bill of rights, the most effective and prevalent weapon was a smooth bore, black powder rifle. Government officials and private citizens alike could own this weapon. The right to self defense includes the right to ask (not compel) others to help. So, even if a government mob showed up to enforce some unlawful action, the private citizen could seek assistance from his neighbors. Each group would possess similar weapons. Thus, private citizens and government officials were on relatively even ground concerning weapons and the private citizen was able to defend himself.

The relative equality of weaponry that the citizen and government official could have existed until the proliferation of machine guns around World War I. The advent of weapons of mass destruction, the type of weapons about which you inquired, quickly followed. They came primarily after the passage of the income tax. This allowed the government to steal huge sums of money from the citizenry to fund the type of long-term research needed to develop WMDs. This development occurred under the shadow of the Cold War. WMDs were justified as necessary for national defense. We now know that these weapons have been used against a country’s own citizens, e.g., Iraq.

If the Second Amendment is frozen in time such that we are only guaranteed the right to possess smooth bore, black powder rifles, to protect ourselves from a government possessed of WMDs, then the Second Amendment has truly lost its meaning. If all you have to protect yourself against governmental abuse is a black powder rifle, then your first shot better be accurate, because there will be no second shot.

So, if the Second Amendment is to have any real meaning, its rationale must be vindicated. The private citizen must possess a way to protect himself from governmental over-reaching. The only way to accomplish this is to allow a private citizen to possess chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or to prohibit the government from possessing them. The latter is unlikely, so the former is what we are left with. This would maintain a relative equality in weaponry between the government and the citizen as envisioned by the authors and ratifiers of the Second Amendment. With this right of course would come a grave responsibility to avoid accidents and misuse of the weapons, but that is not different than owning any other weapon. The difference is not in kind, but in degree—a huge degree where WMDs are involved.

Secondly, private citizens should be able to possess WMDs to defend against terrorists, mobs, and other similar groups. That is, non-governmental groups in possession of WMDs. Terrorist move quickly; government tends to move slowly. If a terrorist group threatens to use WMDs against a small community, then that small community would best be able to defend itself if it too possessed WMDs.

These are two justifications. I am sure there are others.

Gun rights and etc.

Nick. B — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:30:35 GMT

Well its pretty self explanatory...however, what are your opinion on chemical, biological, and nuclear. Also please provide facts and educated thoght in your opinions, because i' m rather uneducated and a product of anti-weapon media. Thank you.