New to this forum, and while I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, I do question the wisdom of it encompassing all weapons. Now you can argue I'm questioning the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and that's fine, I have no problem with that, as they were just like anyone else, mere mortals capable of the same follies as any man. I do not hold the Founders as being some sort of indisputed sacred fount of wisdom, rather I look at them as revolutionaries with unorthodox ideas that require experimentation to prove out whether these ideas are a more perfect form of governing. And 200+ years is not enough experimentation to make that determination yet, in my opinion.
Anyhow, with that said, the question I would like to pose to the Founding Fathers(and unfortunately I can't) is, "Are Nukes, Biological agents, Aircraft Carriers, the Metalstorm weapon system, man portable artillery, machine guns, or six shooters, what you intended to include when you stated that people had the right to keep and bear arms?"
I would ask this because reality colors our philosophy and it colors the way we perceive things. The Founding Fathers just got done beating the World's Super Power with essentially a rag tag group of men, farmers weapons, a few military grade weapons, and essentially an Ocean. The fact that they accomplished so much with so little I am sure colored their perspective. Further the lack of knowledge about the future of weapons also places them in a perspective that I am unsure that any modern man can appreciate fully.
Natural Rights stem from the idea that an individual has Freedoms until it infringes upon another's Freedoms. Traditionally(and I'm thinking up until about the last 60 to 110 years), the mere ownership of weapons of any class did not infringe upon another's freedom to mow their lawn, or go swimming or farm their fields. Only until you use that weapon either directly by shooting/stabbing them or indirectly by threatening to shoot them does a weapon bearer then become the tyrant denying freedom to another. The principle of gun ownership for citizens was to allow a reciprocal response, an ability to counter if you will, those citizens or governments intent on using force to deny rights.
In the case of Nukes or Biological Agents (taking the most extreme cases for purely devil's advocation
), the nuke/bio-agent itself is not the only weapon gained from ownership. The projection of Fear is a secondary, and very functional weapon at the owner's disposal by being in possession of said device. Is that ability to project fear a legitimate reason to deny private ownership of said weapons?
Granted this can be a slippery slope as one could say a neighbor owning a gun could create the same sense of fear, however in that case I would say it is reasonable that neighbors could react by acquiring their own arms thus ensuring a balance of power and thus constructing a guarantee of rights by virtue of mutual respect and power. Nukes/bio-agents however are not going to secure this mutual respect/power on an individual level. Using a nuke/bio-agent to defend oneself is almost as suicidal as allowing the attacker to use one to assault you with thus an aggressor with these weapons has an advantage irregardless of whether or not the defender also has them.
And here is the crux of why I think WMDs should not be included in the traditional definition of arms. The offensive properties of WMDs are so over bearing and uncontrollable that they cannot serve a defensive purpose without also reasonable consideration that by using them the bearer will be denying the rights of other innocent people. In our current reality (the world in which we live) if the attempt to use such a device in a defensive posture was ever committed, the collateral damage would be so uncontrollable that the user could not use one to eliminate an aggressor without also eliminating or harming non-aggressors, thus making the defender into a tyrant in that he is denying the rights of others(specifically Life in this case) in order to safe guard his own(or at least attempt to do so).
And that is where I think the line can be drawn. Weapons in which there is a level of control that allows the user to inflict harm upon an aggressor with a reasonable assuredness of avoiding harm to innocents are weapons that should be included as protected by fundamental individual rights. Thus I would say that Aircraft carriers, C-130s, M1 tanks are capable of this level of control, as in each case the weapon if used in skilled hands can hit desired targets with no collateral and uncontrollable damage. Nukes, Biological agents and certain chemical compounds become uncontrollable when used, and thus become a threat to other Right imbued individuals by nature of their use.
Put more simply, your right to defend yourself ends when you harm a non-aggressor, which WMDs can reasonably be assumed to do. In the future if conditions to our reality change it could be that situations would arise that these weapons find a theatre in which their controlled use could also be assured to prevent collateral denial of rights. Far fetched, but ship to ship warfare in space might be a theatre in which private ship owners would use nukes as a defensive weapon with reasonable assuredness of not infringing upon other innocents' rights.
And for those that take exception to my use of "reasonable", consider that "reasonable" was used in much of the early law of this country and only through a slow but sure process have the courts and legislature tried to abolish the right's of citizens to use a "reasonable man" judgement while on the jury.