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

[osan]

There is no limit.

What he said.

 

[osan]

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.

So long as this is applied equally to every living being on the planet I MIGHT agree on purely pragmatic grounds. Note "might". I wouid further note, however, that nukes have been used peacefully. MAD was a peaceful use. The threat of their use is materially peaceful. Their actual use is not. This is thin-slice semantics at work, but that does not make it any less true.

A machine gun can be targeted against specific targets.

So can a nuke of any size, for a given definition of "specific".

Even a tank could, depending on where you are.

Pea-shooter -> tank gun = spread in scope.

Tank gun -> nuke = spread in scope.

Pe-shooter -> nuke = spread in scope.

The only difference is the degree of spread. Even the pea-shooter can kill unintended targets. The difference you are attempting to cite is perforce arbitrary and in principle invalid until you can provide a legitimate objective basis for choosing the location of that line.

But a nuke simply can't be, any use of it against a "legitimate" target would also murder civilians.

Define "legitimate".

Now, how exactly an anti-nuke "law" would be enforced I don't really know

You rationally admit there is no legitimacy...

but they shouldn't be owned.

And that goes for people as well as government.

And in the same breath plunge yourself into an irrational non-sequitur.

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

At least you got that bit correct. Now go work on the rest.

 

[osan]

People have the right to travel

So far, so good...

and the only viable way to travel today is on roads

BZZZZZT... and thank you for playing.

You have not defined "viable". Roads are not required for viable travel. They may be necessary to travel that falls under the current definition of CONVENIENT, but you can get from here to there quite viably on foot or on the back of a horse, for example. It just takes longer and requires more effort.

So not ALL property should be privatized, IMO.

I tend to share this opinion, though for apparently differing reasons... at least in the details, and we all know where the devil lives, yes?

But I don't think that walking around with grenade launchers ANYWHERE should be okay.

That is your opinion, to which youi are entitled. You have, thus far, provided no objective basis for it beyond pure emotion.

I would add that as I put on my pop-psychologists hat it occurs to me that your opinion may well stem from a fundamental, arbitrary, and irrational distrust of your fellows. That often stems from a fundamental and irration distrust of oneself.

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.

Pure emotionalism and non-sequitur attempting to masquerade as reason, concluding that we need some undefined quantity of a non materially-existent thing.

 

[osan]

Only in a very qualified way. That is, on their own proeprty or property made available to them by owners. I personally doubt that road owners would prevent people from using roads. There's much more money to be made from roadside advertising and such than in preventing relatively free travel.

In practical terms I agree, but FSU is querying in the context of pure principle and that is valid. Your response should be confined to the hypothetical proposed.

Travel, per se, is a fundamental human right. The right derives axiomatically from the Cardinal Postulate, "All men hold equal claims to life". From there, there derivation of the fundamental right to travel requires but a few simple and obvious steps. The right is a negative one, which is to say that its existence stems from the fact that nobody holds the general right to prevent another from traveling.

I just realized I got this bass-ackwards. The right to travel is positive. The positive duty of one's fellows is to not act in violation of the right, all else equal.

I am somewhat disappointed that nobody took me to the woodshed on that one.

 

[osan]

I don't know what our defense would be. I'm torn. On one hand, I realize that mass killings would become pretty common, as it would be so easy to acquire things like grenade launchers. On the other hand, the only true way to protect ourselves from the government and military would be to have nukes. But I shouldn't even have to point out the problem there.

You need to get your head straight.

When was the last time you read about someone in the USA committing murder with a grenade launcher? Never? That's because it hasn't happened yet. Can't get grenade launchers, you say? Sure you can. Hell, they are not even difficult to manufacture at home.

Even the drug gangs don't use them, yet with all the payola they have to throw around they could get them pretty easily. Why have they not resorted to attacking each other with RPGs, which are easier to get than a lay in Tijuana? You presume facts not in evidence and it is a VERY bad habit. It torpedoes your arguments and damages credibility. Do as you please, but I would recommend you put an end to it.

And what is this "shouldn't have to point out the problem" nonsense. That's the old "it's SO obvious to everyone but YOU" fallacy.

 

[osan]

I agree that its not likely that anyone would. I agree that government shouldn't exist, at that. I haven't speculated too much on how I think such a thing could be enforced, because ultimately I don't claim to know how a free market society would work. Maybe signing a contract saying you won't build nukes would be a requirement that is generally expected to use private roads. Maybe owning a nuke would simply be considered a violation of the NAP, much like threatening your neighbor with violence if he doesn't do X is a violation of the NAP. Maybe this issue wouldn't come up at all. Who knows? I agree that you can't trust the government here, either. But philosophically, I do think there's a difference between a rifle, or even a rocket launcher, and an ICBM. I think you can too.

You're rambling, and not quite coherently at that.

But nukes WILL be used against innocents.

Other than the two instances in Japan, they have yet to be unleashed on anyone. You appear to be in possession of a crystal ball. Could you provide a time, date, and location so I can be sure to locate myself differently?

There's simply no other way they could be used.

Several thousands of them have been used. I do not recall too many innocents being killed as the direct result of the blast. There were those islanders who were all loused up with fallout when Castle Bravo went amok due to the lithium miscalculation, so I guess you can claim at least one case.

While your position may ultimately prove agreeable in the positive world, your principled arguments are inadequate - largely, I suspect due to poorly crafted sentences. You should work on that - I am serious - because this matters when engaging in communications, especially when hovering around the borders of the philosophical.

Hence why their ownership in a free society is incompatible with a free society.

Non-sequitur. I would rather say their ownership in a free society would tend to make some very uncomfortable. Nobody, however, is perforce entitled to that brand of comfort at the exxpense of the rights of others.

Because their very existence is intrinsically a threat to violate the NAP.

Proof by assertion. FAIL.

By your method of reason, my penis is threat to the NAP, not because of its nearly incomprehensible magnificence, but because it might make others uncomfy (unimaginable, but work with me here), or might be used to violate the rights of others. "What-if" is no basis for the promulgation and imposition of rules by which all are expected to live. That gets out of arbitrary hand not even half a step out of the gates. It is a non-starter.

That isn't the case for an AK47, or a tank, or etc.

As demonstrated... how, exactly?

If you think threatening violence should be legal, that's one thing.

I could set my watch by the regularity of your fallacious assumptions. Here, you tacitly assert that the mere presence of an object is "threatening violence". I have a fair collection of firearms here, yet they threaten nobody. You appear to have failed to realize the fundamental problem that is manifest in the gap between an actual threat and one perceived. By your reasoning, nobody holds a principled right to ANYTHING because anything you care to name, including talcum powder, could be perceived as a threat. This points to something rarely discussed by people: the craft of threat assessment. Most people have marginal skills in that area and in some specifics are downright psychotic - and here I use the term in its strict clinical sense. I walked the subway cars on my way uptown in Manhattan to meet a friend on 9/11/2010 wearig my large leather, orangey-tan holster - empty of course - and this Puerto Rican woman on seeing it looked as if she were about to start screaming in some wild and uncontrolled manner. Her threat assessment skills were all but nonexistent. Her perception, being so violently out of sync with positive reality, can be reasonably qualified as psychotic in a manner and degree.

You are clearly suffering from a categorically similar failure in your threat assessment training, assuming things that are simply not supported thus far by anything you have demonstrated.

But if not (conventional libertarian theory does allow banning the threat of NAP violations as well as the violations themselves) I don't see how owning an ICBM, however absurdly unlikely, would NOT be a violation of the "no threatening people" ordinance.

Good conversation, BTW. Food for thought on all sides.

You fail to qualify "threat" yet again. Anything can become threatening, such as an otherwise innocuous piece of leather on a man's belt.

You're digging a deep hole. You must like holes.

 

[osan]

Nonsense all you would need to do is not cut paychecks.

Thread winner, hands down.

/thread

 

[osan]

Artillery. If you're already at the point were your last line of defense are shoulder fired AT weapons at MBT's then you are in trouble.

XNN

Speaking of which, I might suggest we forget about the OP and focus on how to defeat MRAPs and other armored vehicles likely to be used by DHS against us in the event someone decides its time for martial law. I'm serious. Who gives a shit about nukes and all that. We have better things to discuss. Practical things.

 

[tod evans]

Speaking of which, I might suggest we forget about the OP and focus on how to defeat MRAPs and other armored vehicles likely to be used by DHS against us in the event someone decides its time for martial law. I'm serious. Who gives a shit about nukes and all that. We have better things to discuss. Practical things.

Defending ones self against an MRAP in an urban environment isn't really practical.

In rural settings however their top-heaviness is easily exploited.

 

[osan]

You are ten times more likely to be killed by cop than a terrorist.

Only ten? Really? No... REALLY????

 

[osan]

Defending ones self against an MRAP in an urban environment isn't really practical.

In rural settings however their top-heaviness is easily exploited.

Define "practical" when DHS are terrorizing said environments and warfare is open or nearly so.

 

[tod evans]

Define "practical" when DHS are terrorizing said environments and warfare is open or nearly so.

Loss of life is the major factor when dealing with these jokers in an urban setting, if one is willing to sacrifice a few lives these vehicles can be overcome with 5 gal of propane and a delivery hose.

Problem is they are able to call in reinforcements at a moments notice..

 

[pcosmar]

Define "practical" when DHS are terrorizing said environments and warfare is open or nearly so.

The Molotov Cocktail was proven to be quite effective against armor,, especially in an urban environment. Often dropped from upper floors on the tops of them.

Though,, myself, I would prefer to draw them away from urban environments to minimize any civilian casualties.

Bait and lead to a time and place of my own choosing.

"please brer wolf,, don't throw me in the briar patch"

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

Cat is out of the bag though. Just like liberals can't wish away guns we can't wish away nukes.

 

[NewUser]

So where does it end? Can private citizens own nuclear weapons if they can afford them?

 

[erowe1]

So where does it end? Can private citizens own nuclear weapons if they can afford them?

I find the way you put this odd. Why specify "private citizens"?

 

[FindLiberty]

So where does it end? Can private citizens own nuclear weapons if they can afford them?

Why not?

And to save money, it's OK to just leave off unnecessary radiation shielding, the unreliable time-delay electronics with its battery sucking seven-segment red LED display and that ridiculous "countdown cancel" button.

I'd just keep it simple to operate with a reliable, long-life DPST (insist on glazed ceramic base) knife-switch.

 

[PierzStyx]

So where does it end? Can private citizens own nuclear weapons if they can afford them?

Do you think private citizens are less likely to use them than the private citizens that are part of the government? I don't think so.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Cat is out of the bag though. Just like liberals can't wish away guns we can't wish away nukes.

Yeah, that's true. I don't know what the solution to that is, short of all governments agreeing to destroy their nuclear weapons simultaneously, and punishing anyone, government official or not, who tries to build one with death. That won't ever happen, but I suppose it theoretically could.

I agree that in reality its similar to firearms in that completely controlling them isn't possible. But the difference is, with nukes I actually think the cause of preventing their creation is just, whereas this is not the case with guns.

Do you think private citizens are less likely to use them than the private citizens that are part of the government? I don't think so.

One random private civilian on the street? No. But I bet there is at least one civilian in the US that would love to build and use one. 300 million is a lot of people.

 

[Cleaner44]

So where does it end? Can private citizens own nuclear weapons if they can afford them?

Who do you believe is more trustworthy, "private citizens" or "national governments"?