December 17, 2012 at 11:27 am #19516tylerboyd49Member
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the libertarian right to self defense, the failure/consequences of “gun-free zones,” etc. But when asked “why does anyone need a gun that fires x rounds/minute if not for mass killings?” the only answer I know of is that taking away assault rifles just simply doesn’t address the root issue. What are thoughts on high power weaponry? We could even take this conversation into the realms of tanks and fighter jets, but a more common/everyday example is what I’m specifically talking about.December 17, 2012 at 11:49 am #19517marcosportilloMember
The question to ask is what is the purpose of the right to bear arms? Why did the founders find it so important to protect this right? Was it so individuals can hunt? Was it so people can have fun playing with their guns? The purpose was to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, not just from criminals. The 2nd amendment is a natural right for individuals to defend themselves with weaponry that could be used by those from whom they need protection. The government has an insane amount of firepower. In turn, the private citizenry has a right to much of the same firepower. Assault rifles, I would argue, are the common weapons of use by soldiers and as such citizens must protect their right to own them.December 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm #19518joconnorMember
D.C. and its spawn kill many times more innocent men, women and children than private individuals do. Disarm them. You’re 150 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist. If you insist on living in fear, at least have rational ones.December 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm #19519tylerboyd49Member
What about weapons that are almost exclusively of an offensive nature that would not be used in the case of an imminent threat? Nuclear bombs, sniper rifles, fighter jets, land mines?, silencers on guns?December 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm #19520marcosportilloMember
I doubt any common civilian would be able to procure nuclear bombs, fighter jets, tanks, etc. I guess if taken to its logical conclusion many of these types would also fall under individuals rights to have, but they would probably be owned by private security/military organizations.
Silencers (with licenses) and sniper rifles are allowed currently and, I think, would still fall under an individual’s right to bear arms.
Like I said, when it comes to the right to bear arms, the purpose is the citizenry’s ability to defend itself against a tyrannical government. Under this reasoning, private ownership of what you’d consider “offensive” weapons should be allowed. The extreme ones such as Nuclear bombs and such, I don’t think would be owned by individuals anyways because of the costs. But in any case, I think many of these extreme weapons of mass destruction would be outlawed, and frankly, the government shouldn’t be allowed to own them either. There is a huge difference between assault weapons and nukes.December 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm #19521swalsh81Member
The second amendment tells us its purpose. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
It was not to hunt and it was not even specifically for individual self defense. It was for the defense of society against all those who would dismantle a free state. The militia, for all intensive purposes, at the time of the writing was the military but made up of every male civilian with a gun. (over generalization but you get my point)
The second amendment was there for individuals and groups to protect their freedom. This would include the right to life and self protection. To restrict the second amendment to a set of weapons inferior to set of weapons used by the state is, in a way, the restriction of the ability of individuals to protect their freedoms from the institution that has, throughout history, been the greatest destroyer of freedom and liberty.December 19, 2012 at 9:53 pm #19522joconnorMember
To review, under the last few administrations it has been common place for the government to spy on everything, monitor all financial transactions, be able to disappear or kill anyone with “due process” which amounts to someone somewhere claims to have thought about it deeply, and now they’re trying to eliminate the instruments by which a single individual could put up a meaningful resistance (no comment on whether or not this is a good idea). I’m sure this is all an unfortunate coincidence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.