1 vote

Gun-control? What about tank- or nuke-control?

OK, so we are all for gun rights and against prohibitions against them, even the automatics and assault rifles. How do we answer the objection in regard to greater weapons such as tanks, missiles, nukes, etc.? These are not items that most people have. Should they be restricted? Are there any laws that specifically deal with them? Does a consistent libertarian say that the average joe has a right to those weapons, or do we draw the line somewhere? Is there even a way to purchase weapons like that? Thanks for your input!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Equal force

In this case, I believe that civilians should have equal force to their police & military. A tank isn't a danger--not really--because a modern M1 Abrams tank costs something like $8M and isn't something the military is keen to sell to private citizens. It's really out of reach of just about everyone. Not just because of government regulations or tax issues, but because a tank is expensive to manufacture and expensive to operate.

Anyways, I guess the point is that I believe that civilians should have the right to own anything that can cause damage within 50 feet or less. That means that, yes, nuclear weapons are off the table--because their accidental detonation essentially spells a death sentence for anyone nearby. A rifle's accidental firing at most affects a single narrow direction. A shotgun's accidental firing does the same, but usually less lethally (at range). We do have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that somewhere is in the realm of indiscriminate collateral damage.

Then again, that's also why I think the government shouldn't have drones.

The whole point is to have

The whole point is to have the ability to fight fire with fire. Nukes aren't going to be used against an individual or small community. The risk with nukes is that they will be used against a nation or region; thus nations will want to arm themselves to counter that threat. When the day comes when tanks are routinely rolling up to front doors (and I think that day might be here) then sure, why shouldn't a family or community have access to a tank to fight back if they can afford them. When did we tell the police force, our employees, that it was okay for them to militarize against the citizens. The second amendment did not forsee the weapons we have today...I believe the spirit of it was to arm citizens to their best ability to counter tyranny on whatever level.

Thanks for all your thoughts,

Thanks for all your thoughts, everyone! I foresee this being a common objection to be raised by gun-controllers and others. It's important to be on our game and anticipate arguments!

obviously, no person should

obviously, no person should have nuclear weapons...that kinda goes without saying. Nobody has a need to defend themselves and kill 10's of thousands in the process.

But yes...if one has millions of $$$ in pocket change to spend, tanks, missiles, bazookas, etc. should be able to be owned privately.

but in real terms...when some idiot brings it up, just laugh and say it's a strawman argument and dismiss the question.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

imo

this question is (typically) just used as way to get a row out of overly emotional people so they will accept some degree of state regulation in an argument. don't play their game. if you do, you give them the illusion of legitimacy.

the thing to remember is that, you've got to call them out immediately when they start trying to force you to answer to their never ending illogical hypothetical situations. reduce everything to logic and motive (or human action.)

force them to use logic and they'll disarm their own arguments.

I tell them that I think I

I tell them that I think I should have them, but any weapon with a bore over 1/2 inch is classified as a destructive device and has been regulated by the feds since nineteen-thirty-something.

Likewise, explosive ordnance is classified as destructive devices.
They are actually legal to transfer and use under federal law but they are highly regulated. For instance, they might be used to cause avalanches or rock slides in certain areas to alleviate hazardous conditions.

I'm pretty sure nukes would have some other regulatory hurdles to clear and it would be pretty hard to get one legally. But really, that's an asinine question. Of course I don't want a nuke. <-what I tell them, not directed at the original poster.

Some states have banned destructive devices for transfer to civilians.

There's more to this, but that's a start.

Oh yeah, I also find nuclear weapons to be immoral, even in defense, as they destroy without discrimination, both guilty & innocent humans and nature.

Problem with a nuke...

...or other WMD is that it isn't really usable in defense against tyranny, since it is an automatic death sentence to mass numbers of innocents at the same time, if it is ever used, which deprives them of their rights of Life and Liberty. Small arms and even tanks, etc. can be used in a targeted fashion without this automatic death sentence that a nuke is tainted with.

I agree with the other comment below...governments shouldn't have them either; but that genie's already out of the bottle, I'm afraid. Kind of needed as a deterrent, unfortunately.

agree...while we have our

agree...while we have our rights, our rights end where someone else's begins.

We have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves, but there is no way an individual could fire off a nuke without killing thousands of innocent people.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Ask

The swedes...

affordability?

how many people do you know who can afford a tank, a jet, a nuke, etc?
yes people should have whatever they want to have as long as they don't harm others or their property, we are the last line of defense for this nation... if the government fails, we are supposed to just hand our nation over? i don't think so.

also, if 1 person or 1 group of people have access to the most powerful items in the world, does that sound like a recipe for freedom for the others? to me it sounds like a recipe for enslavement.

if 1 person had the power to fly, we would say they had a "superpower". if everyone had the power to fly, what would we call it? is it even a "power" if everyone can do it?

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Nukes should not be owned

by any individual or any govt. Sadly, some genius decided to split the atom and make the first nuke opening Pandora's box, so they are here to stay. Individuals should be allowed to own tanks, and in fact they are, they can own fighter jets too. The beauty about owning them is they are controlled by the free market, and only those who have the means to afford them can buy them. A criminal is not going to dish out however many millions it costs for a fighter jet or however many hundreds of thousands it costs for a tank. But, a criminal will steal a tank from the military like the guy seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8 He broke the law and got what he deserved.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James