How much firepower should citizens be able to have?

[glockman19]

How much firepower should citizens be able to have?

As much as they can afford or want to have.

 

[Surat]

We have plenty of thick skin. You are picking an absolutely silly argument having joined the board days ago.

call em as I see 'em

Private ownership of WMD is silly beyond belief. Heinlein didn't even go that far in his writing.

 

[Gameface_XD]

The only problem I see with private ownership of nukes is that it in no way is an effective defensive tool, nor a means by which one could overthrow the government while still leaving a livable world behind.

The whole reason the US keeps so many nuclear weapons is a defense against other nuclear nations. Under the "mutual destruction theory" a nuclear weapon is the only defense (right now) against another nuclear weapon. If the government were to turn tyrant, what defense would you have against a nuclear device?

None. I think that was part of my point. Even if I had a nuclear device, how would I defend against the government if it was going to use nuclear weapons against it's people. Mutually assured destruction involves two parties which have a large enough physical distance that if one had nuclear weapons and one didn't then the one who had them would be able to destroy the one who didn't without destroying themselves. There is no practical way for the government and it's citizens to usefully deploy nuclear weapons against each other, that would be mutually assured suicide. Where would we target our weapons?

 

[ubermensch]

Honestly, I don't think there is much a nuke can do that a determined group of people with small arms and improvised explosives can't do.

A nuke can wipe out a city, but even a band of people with machetes can wipe out the population of a country.

 

[ozwyn]

Anything an army is expected to field in a modern war.

That rules out terror weapons (WMD's) because they are a logistical nightmare.

Nukes are not just expensive, delivery systems are often toxic, high maintenance affairs.

The question itself is a problem, since it plays into the hands of gun grabbers who think just because WMD's may not be reasonable for private citizens to own, neither should handguns be considered reasonable, or semi-automatic weapons.

I think you can argue the right to bear arms refers to small arms up to battlefield munitions. Looking historically you have to include artillery and naval weapons as a possible "max limit" given how merchant ships could be armed.

WMD's are not generally deployed as battlefield weapons. (exception - some chemical weapons are in fact deployed all the time and legal. Tear gas and other agents desires to incapacitate are clear examples)

my simplest answer may be this: a citizen should be able to own enough firepower to remain a citizen and not a subject, serf or slave. That means the "max" firepower is not fixed, but fluid and evolves with the times.

 

[Werewolf]

The only problem I see with private ownership of nukes is that it in no way is an effective defensive tool,

Really?

I submit that a nuke is the ultimate defensive tool. The very nature of a nuke and the possibility of attacking someone that has one who may use his in return makes them both an offensive as well as the ultimate defensive tool. Google MAD re: the Cold War

Nukes aren't the ultimate offensive tool as both chemical and biological weapons can kill more people (just not as quickly) but as a defensive tool there is none better than the nuke. The threat that you might use yours prevents others from using theirs and if that isn't defense then what is?

And just to keep this on topic if the intent of the 2nd is to make it possible for a people to overcome governmental tyranny what better way than for the people to have nukes and threaten to vaporize a government that steps too far out of line whenever it happens and start all over with a fresh and hopefully cowed group of pols?

Of course the reality is far different. There's enough idiots, morons and just plain evil people in the world that making nukes readily available would probably assure the destruction of the human race and - in the short run at least - most species on the planet.

You can trust me though - I'd only use one iONLY if I had to. Really! Trust me. Give me your NUKES.

 

[quatin]

None. I think that was part of my point. Even if I had a nuclear device, how would I defend against the government if it was going to use nuclear weapons against it's people. Mutually assured destruction involves two parties which have a large enough physical distance that if one had nuclear weapons and one didn't then the one who had them would be able to destroy the one who didn't without destroying themselves. There is no practical way for the government and it's citizens to usefully deploy nuclear weapons against each other, that would be mutually assured suicide. Where would we target our weapons?

Use smaller nukes. They're called "tactical nukes". Also, hydrogen bombs.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yup. The horse is still dead.

Art