"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?

[NewUser]

Hey guys, this has been on my mind for a while and I'd appreciate feedback!
Where does Ron Paul say the right to bear arms ends? Can citizens own anything the government can own? Can they own tanks? What about nuclear weapons? Where exactly does right end?


Ron Paul talks about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_NaaKqwV8

Thank you!

 

[AFPVet]

In a nutshell, I believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to anything that can be used in a conventional military response. I typically see the word "bear" and think weapons that can be picked up. I hope this helps

 

[erowe1]

There is no limit.

 

[Philhelm]

Your right to bear arms ends at the barrel of my gun.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hey guys, this has been on my mind for a while and I'd appreciate feedback!
Where does Ron Paul say the right to bear arms ends? Can citizens own anything the government can own? Can they own tanks? What about nuclear weapons? Where exactly does right end?


Ron Paul talks about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_NaaKqwV8

Thank you!

No where.

If some billionaire wanted to build and man a nuclear powered, nuclear armed aircraft carrier, he has the right to do so.

Only government wastes good capital on something so useless though.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with Murray Rothbard (not just because he's Rothbard, I don't agree with him on everything, I just think he's right here) that nukes shouldn't be able to be owned, because they literally CAN'T be used in a peaceful manner. A machine gun can be targeted against specific targets. Even a tank could, depending on where you are. But a nuke simply can't be, any use of it against a "legitimate" target would also murder civilians.

Now, how exactly an anti-nuke "law" would be enforced I don't really know, but they shouldn't be owned. And that goes for people as well as government.

That said, for any government owning nukes to prevent another government from owning nukes is hypocrisy to the highest order.

 

[FSU63]

This makes me wonder as well. While I certainly wouldn't mind people walking around with assault rifles, it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have people walking around with rocket launchers and nukes.

 

[FSU63]

Only government wastes good capital on something so useless though.

I wouldn't go that far. Nuclear deterrence is very useful.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This makes me wonder as well. While I certainly wouldn't mind people walking around with assault rifles, it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have people walking around with rocket launchers and nukes.

Who says people would be walking around with them? In a true libertarian society all property would be privatized, so that would be up to the private property owners. Of course, people can break the laws, but that's true now as well.

Mind you, there MIGHT be people walking around with rocket launchers in certain places. That would be up to the property owners.

Nukes, I think, are a special case for the same reasons Rothbard says they are a special case.

 

[Contumacious]

Hey guys, this has been on my mind for a while and I'd appreciate feedback!
Where does Ron Paul say the right to bear arms ends? Can citizens own anything the government can own? Can they own tanks? What about nuclear weapons? Where exactly does right end?


Ron Paul talks about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX_NaaKqwV8

Thank you!

The government has no authority to infringe upon our right to bear arms in order to defend themselves.

Nuclear weapons and similar WMD's are different because they are used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Beyond the silliness, everything except Nuclear ordnance just due to the sheer fact that by its nature it cannot be reasonably be used without damage to innocence (or collateral). This goes for stuff like Biological weapons as well. Infectious diseases by their nature are uncontrollable and meant to wreck havoc on the entire population so it gets the same axe as Nukes. They're also not very useful to private defense agencies as they kill the enemy as well as they kill your own clientele.

 

[FSU63]

Who says people would be walking around with them? In a true libertarian society all property would be privatized, so that would be up to the private property owners. Of course, people can break the laws, but that's true now as well.

Mind you, there MIGHT be people walking around with rocket launchers in certain places. That would be up to the property owners.

Nukes, I think, are a special case for the same reasons Rothbard says they are a special case.

Well, I'm assuming you're talking about minarchism (since, in an anarchist society, the second amendment wouldn't exist). However, I don't believe that roads should be privatized. People have the right to travel, and the only viable way to travel today is on roads. So not ALL property should be privatized, IMO.

But I don't think that walking around with grenade launchers ANYWHERE should be okay. I understand why we have the Second Amendment, but I think it would just be stupid to let people have ANY weapon with NO restrictions. The difference between an assault rifle and a rocket launcher is this:

With an assault rifle, yes, someone could kill 10 people, for example, before someone pulled out a gun and killed them. With a rocket launcher, someone could kill THOUSANDS from even just a rooftop before anyone could get to them. No matter what gun restrictions we have, or lack thereof, there will be gun crimes, but we need SOME, just like how I feel we need SOME government.

The government has no authority to infringe upon our right to bear arms in order to defend themselves.

Nuclear weapons and similar WMD's are different because they are used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders.

All weapons can be used that way.

 

[Sanguine]

In a nutshell, I believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to anything that can be used in a conventional military response. I typically see the word "bear" and think weapons that can be picked up. I hope this helps

Sounds reasonable at first, but anyone with multiple weapons (say, a collector) cannot carry all of their arms on their person, while nuclear weapons may be picked up at any time. Any weapons they aren't carrying are also weapons that they don't bear. Weapons shouldn't have to be carried everywhere to be owned.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, I'm assuming you're talking about minarchism (since, in an anarchist society, the second amendment wouldn't exist). However, I don't believe that roads should be privatized. People have the right to travel, and the only viable way to travel today is on roads. So not ALL property should be privatized, IMO.

But I don't think that walking around with grenade launchers ANYWHERE should be okay. I understand why we have the Second Amendment, but I think it would just be stupid to let people have ANY weapon with NO restrictions. The difference between an assault rifle and a rocket launcher is this:

With an assault rifle, yes, someone could kill 10 people, for example, before someone pulled out a gun and killed them. With a rocket launcher, someone could kill THOUSANDS from even just a rooftop before anyone could get to them. No matter what gun restrictions we have, or lack thereof, there will be gun crimes, but we need SOME, just like how I feel we need SOME government.


All weapons can be used that way.

What makes you think that? What limitations does this "right" have?

 

[FSU63]

What makes you think that? What limitations does this "right" have?

I believe it's a human right. One that cannot be given or taken away from us. Do you suggest we just keep people inside our borders and trap them with private roads all around them?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In a nutshell, I believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to anything that can be used in a conventional military response. I typically see the word "bear" and think weapons that can be picked up. I hope this helps

I don't think you want to be holding onto mortars when you're firing them...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe it's a human right. One that cannot be given or taken away from us.

I asked you why you believe this.

Do you suggest we just keep people inside our borders and trap them with private roads all around them?

I don't believe private road owners would trap people in a truly free society, as it's not in their rational self-interest. Besides, the government can do the same if they decide they don't like you or want to build a project around your place...or even take your place outright via Eminent Domain. I've heard of people being forced to move because their cities allowed airports and other nuisances to be built too close to the residential zones.

 

[FindLiberty]

...nukes shouldn't be able to be owned, because they literally CAN'T be used in a peaceful manner..

Wait. Didn't Dr. Gaius Baltar acquire a nuclear bomb (from Admiral Adama) to construct a Cylon detector in the TV series Battlestar Galactica?

And. Countries that have Nukes seem to enjoy more homeland peace than countries that are "nukeless".

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wait. Didn't Dr. Gaius Baltar acquire a nuclear bomb (from Admiral Adama) to construct a Cylon detector in the TV series Battlestar Galactica?

And. Countries that have Nukes seem to enjoy more homeland peace than countries that are "nukeless".

They also seem to be more imperialist and tyrannical...

 

[FSU63]

I asked you why you believe this.

I don't believe private road owners would trap people in a truly free society, as it's not in their rational self-interest.

What if they are not motivated by money? I don't remember who it was (Carnegie, maybe?), but some railroad mogul that owned a bunch of railways completely shut down because of a disagreement with someone. I can see it happening often on the local level.

As for why I believe the right to travel is a human right, I don't know. Why is the right to life a human right? Or the right to own property? They just are.