Rhetoric question...why should machine guns be okay, but not nukes?

[ksnecktieman]

Hugh dam right? Your post indicates that you know where to draw the line? Your previous posts have shown us all that you sneer at the second amendment, and think the gun control laws in this country are acceptable. So if you have the power to draw the line? Where do you put it. What will you allow, and not allow. to whom will you allow it?

I am asking for your opinion, and your reasoning, on what you wil allow some of the rest of us to own.

Will you allow the next person in line to decide what you can own, five years from now?

My opinion is written below.

 

[squarooticus]

I most certainly did not make up the term "free government".

I stand corrected. I still consider the term to be an oxymoron. Furthermore, it's imprecise: governments are not free, people are. But your point is taken.

I am not saying that free government is libertarianism, I am saying that free government provides a better environment for personal liberties than any other form of government which has yet been conceived.

This assertion has been challenged on numerous occasions, most notably by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his book "Democracy: The God That Failed." In this book, he very convincingly illustrates that total government (that is, the intrusion of government into what is properly the private affairs of individuals) has legitimacy only in democracies. Seemingly everything is regulated, from where and how you may install lights and outlets in your house, to how much MSG may be in foods you buy, to how and what you must educate your children, etc. Tax burdens in the western world are about 50%, and show no signs of going down.

Monarchies, by contrast, historically recognized the separation between private and public affairs: the phrase "A man's home is his castle" actually had literal meaning under most monarchies, and was recognized as being the natural law by both nobles and peasants. Few monarchies ever managed to increase tax burdens beyond 5-8%, and those that did didn't last long.

One of the primary problems with democracy is that it gives people the illusion that they are in control, and thus creates a self-perpetuating legitimacy for a government of such absurdly intrusive character that were some despot to have unilaterally established all of these rules, he would have been marched out into the street by a mob of millions, drawn, quartered, and been burned in a plasma fire to make sure his very essence never infected any other living thing again!

Never mind how we got here: just look at what things look like now and tell me I'm insane to think that the level of control exercised over my life and your life by people who have absolutely no business controlling us is absurd.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[hugh damright]

Is it your assertion that you prefer monarchy over free government and that at the same time you have respect for the Second Amendment??

 

[Wakejefe]

Yes

If you have the money you should be able to buy one.

Nukes dont kill people, people who detonate nukes kill people.

Regardless of the inanimate object (pistol, FA, howitzer, etc), they do not have a mind of their own.

Regards,
Jefe

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

NOT SO FAST, hugh damright!

Before I begin, know that the word "people" is the plural of "person". "Person" is one who is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. No such distinction is applicable to any collection of persons(people). Rights exist only at the personal level.

Centinel #1 (Antifederalist)

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.

This is hardly a "Collective". "...the people(plural of "person") are the sovereign...

Federal Farmer #1 (Antifederalist)

There are three different forms of free government under which the United States may exist as one nation; and now is, perhaps, the time to determine to which we will direct our views.

If there are THREE forms of "free government" it certainly cannot be construed to be A collective!

Brutis #1 (Antifederalist) (With the term "free government" used in full context)

In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people(plural of "person") do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.

In every free government, the people(plural of "person") must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people(plural of "person") are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people(plural of "person") ; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people(plural of "person") , the people(plural of "person") do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people(plural of "person"), without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.

This passage is more concerned with the advantages of a republican form of government over a democratic form of government and not at all any treatise on "collective" government.

From Law.com Use of the term "free government" today (Same as in the 1780's)

privileges and immunities
n. the fundamental rights that people(individuals) enjoy in free governments, protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article IV: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States," and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution's 14th Amendment (1868): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The definition of "privileges and immunities" was first spelled out by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington in 1823: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities which the state governments could limit has long been in dispute, with the U.S. Supreme Court gradually tipping toward protecting the individual rights of citizens against state statutes that might impinge on constitutional rights.(Text in italics is mine.)

hugh damright (Collectivist) His definition of "Free Government":

Free government is a form of government where sovereignty resides in the body of Citizens. They are not ruled by a King or an Aristocracy, they are ruled only by laws which are consented to by the majority or by their representatives. And it is this form of government which the Second Amendment is intended to secure.

Seems that "free government" means a government where the rights and freedoms of the individual are paramount, not those of any supposed "body of Citizens", not those of a king, oligarchy, or other NON-REPRESENTATIVE from of government, and certainly not of a "collective". And, THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, not any form of government. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon or relative to any form of government. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms of each and every individual came with the inception of the human race LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before there was any form of government. We could be living in a monarchy and we would still have the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms and we could have something similar to the Second Amendment as an agreement with our king(or queen) as a condition of allowing him(or her) to rule.

Woody

There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

 

[Igloodude]

We're all about preventing tyranny here, right? No one person can tell everyone what to do? A single voter cannot make policy, only elected representatives (or their appointees) can?

Why then, would you give a single individual the power to remove that government? That's what privately-held WMDs do. Any other weapon - truckloads of automatic rifles, tanks, artillery, battleships, MOABs - can do large amounts of damage, but individual use of them does not truly threaten civil society or its government. One citizen with a nuke can, and I cede certain amounts of sovereignty to a democratic majority, but I cede nothing to a single neighbor.

 

[squarooticus]

@hugh damright:

Is it your assertion that you prefer monarchy over free government and that at the same time you have respect for the Second Amendment??

The first part of your statement is correct insofar as history supports the notion that monarchy is much less intrusive in the private lives and liberties of individuals than democracy has been. As far as I am concerned, this is self-evident, but I invite you to investigate further to either verify or refute this claim. Hoppe's book is a good place to start.

The second part of your statement is not correct. I have repeatedly said that the constitution means nothing and the 2nd amendment is worth Jack Schidt. The constitution is a pretty piece of paper that has almost no bearing on how the federal government conducts its affairs today. The American experiment has failed miserably, as evidenced by the situation we are in today, and the only thing holding it together is the shared momentum of people who neither know what liberty is nor care enough to distract them from their day-to-day pleasures.

@Igloodude:

We're all about preventing tyranny here, right? No one person can tell everyone what to do? A single voter cannot make policy, only elected representatives (or their appointees) can?

Yes, we're talking about preventing tyranny here. Including tyranny of the majority. Only if everyone is armed equally can we prevent the most powerful from imposing their will on the weakest. The .45 long colt was long known as the "great equalizer". Well, I argue that this title applies to all arms, and only with the private ownership of force can we restore liberty to all men and women and reinforce the right of every person to life, liberty, and property.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[hugh damright]

This thread really brings out the anarchists and monarchists. My ignore list has tripled in size, so if I seem to be ignoring anyone, I probably am.

The thing is ... if we ask why personal machine guns are OK and personal nukes are not, the question seems to assume that personal semiauto guns are OK and personal nukes are not. I'd call that solid ground, common sense, rational, sane, etc.

I tend to think that this question, this question of where machine guns fit in, may be one of those things that is properly left up to each State to decide for itself, such that machine guns might be banned in one State and perfectly legal in another ... I don't see why people need to argue about what values to force on every State against their will.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think Hugh damright told me he is ignoring me, so would someone tell me where they would like to draw this line?

The thing is ... if we ask why personal machine guns are OK and personal nukes are not, the question seems to assume that personal semiauto guns are OK and personal nukes are not. I'd call that solid ground, common sense, rational, sane, etc.

What do you consider reasonable? How about anyone else? Someone has to decide, if we permit and approve of limitations, where do you want the line drawn on allowed, and not allowed? And you have to realize that we will have a new set of politicians in a few years, that will want to modify it.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

Silly thread.

You can't use a nuke on only one person.

duh.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Why then, would you give a single individual the power to remove that government? That’s what privately-held WMDs do.…

They do no such thing. In the United States, it would take dozens if not hundreds of nukes to destroy just the federal government, but it would only take a handful of rifles to paralyze it.

~G. Fink

 

[Lucky]

ksnecktieman

That's just it, some people seem not to realize that it's not the specifics of anti-gun arguments that is wrong, but the principles! So really, if an anti says "I'm OK with bolt-action hunting rifles but not semi-autos." It's really the same thing as Hugh saying, "It's OK to have semi-auto rifles, but not machine guns." or "It's OK to have 1 pound of explosive but not 10." of "It's OK to have 100 cartridges, but not 1000."

Is there a problem with nuclear proliferation? Yes, of course there is. But using the anti mentality of 'ban it' shows that they're really NO different than any other anti, simply having slightly different comfort levels. And once they start banning, they do not stop until they have banned everything.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Lawfully owned weapons are no threat to a just government. Illegal weapons are a threat to any government.

That said, for obvious reasons, it will always be more difficult to lawfully own and use nuclear explosives than conventional firearms.

~G. Fink

 

[TGT]

I think this thread is rather silly myself. It's OK if it's what you want to talk about.

But, I can't believe that our all time official thread locker moderator of all Cyber Space hasn't locked it yet. That's all that I'm monitoring and find interesting.

....carry on.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The so-called nuclear-weapons paradox illustrates the entire debate on the right to arms. If we allow that nuclear arms may be outlawed, then we must logically allow that single-shot, small-bore rifles may also be outlawed.

Again, even though the scales are vastly different, the principle is exactly the same.

~G. Fink

 

[romma]

Who says I don't want a Nuke?

 

[hugh damright]

That's just it, some people seem not to realize that it's not the specifics of anti-gun arguments that is wrong, but the principles!

What principles? There is no principle which says that individuals have a right to alter or to abolish government, or a right to nukes, or anything of that nature. There is no principle which says that a pointy stick, a rifle, and a nuclear bomb must be treated the same. The Bill of Rights declares principles of free government and federal government, not principles of absurdity.

 

[Fosbery]

^That is completely incorrect. I know that and I don't even live in the country

 

[LDL707]

Wow. What a can of worms I seemed to have opened up.

Response to follow...after I hack through the last few days' responses.

 

[Sistema1927]

There is no principle which says that individuals have a right to alter or to abolish government...

I guess that those guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence had it all wrong then. They seemed to think that it was not only a right but a responsibility to alter or abolish bad governments.

Thanks for setting me straight. I wouldn't want Thomas Jefferson's ignorance to cloud my thinking.

 

[Gordon Fink]

There is no principle which says that a pointy stick, a rifle, and a nuclear bomb must be treated the same.…

Why shouldn’t they be treated the same? Don’t fire a rifle indiscriminately in a populated area, and don’t detonate a nuke indiscriminately in a populated area.

~G. Fink

 

[ksnecktieman]

I know that hugh is not interested in facts, but consider this quote, it comes from the second paragragh of the Declaration of Independence.



"that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,

 

[Gordon Fink]

I doubt that he isn’t interested in the facts. Like many others, he just has trouble seeing through his emotional reaction to the thought of nuclear warfare.

~G. Fink

 

[hugh damright]

I guess that those guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence had it all wrong then. They seemed to think that it was not only a right but a responsibility to alter or abolish bad governments.

A collective right, not an individual right. How could you not know that? :banghead:

 

[hugh damright]

I am a foreigner, but that seems completely incorrect to me.

I do not believe that it is possible that I am "completely incorrect" in my assertion that a BOR declares principles of free government. I have read the original Bills of Rights of the original States, and in most instances they declare principles of free government. When Madison proposed the USBOR to Congress, he said that one of the things they do is to "lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government".

Take, for example, the idea of framing a legislative body in a free government. The principles involved would be things of this nature (from the Maryland and Pennsylvania State Constitutions):

"That the right in the people to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty, and the foundation of all free government;"

"That freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any other court or judicature."

"That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance."

I see these principles in the US First Amendment when it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech" ... and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I see principles of free government.

Another principle of free government regards the proper defense. As Virginia put it in 1776:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. "

And I see these principles in the US Second Amendment when it says that "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State", and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I do not believe that it is possible that I am "completely incorrect" in my assertion that a Bill of Rights declares principles of free government.