Where do we draw the line?

utbagpiper said:

I think you too frequently seize upon a turn-of-the-phrase to make an offender over naught. In such discussion one might just as well write "I believe evidence suggests such activity creates an infringement to others' rights....." as to write "I'd not want to see...".

We all get it. Individual opinions and even super-majority decisions matter not a bit to anarchists who like to think themselves islands unaffected by and not affecting any around them except through mutually voluntary interactions. It's a nice theory. Here in the real world, WMDs aren't real good at recognizing where your property ends and you're neighbor's property, life, and liberty begin. So dealing with reality rather than anarchists theories....

Click to expand...

This is an absurd group of statements. This has nothing to do with anarchist theory or the fact that I'm an anarchist. (Further, you once again can't help but paint a picture of my views that is far from reality when I haven't even began to mention what my actual views might be.) What someone doesn't want and what someone believes they can justifiably prohibit are two completely different topics. That much is obvious. It is absurd to say we might as well consider them the same in this sort of conversation, and the distinction is hardly unimportant.

I have literally had someone tell me "I don't want to see" firearms in public, perfectly matching your specific words above. Is that just the same as them saying they believe they may justifiably prohibit firearms in public, or would I be correct to point out the distinction and say that their feelings and personal desires don't justify prohibitions? Obviously the latter.

Stop trying to force criticisms of my anarchism into every conversation.

utbagpiper said:

(emphasis added)

Perhaps not. But the inability to "bear" such an arm against any aggressor without grossly infringing the most basic and important of rights of many innocent persons does place such an item beyond the scope of the 2A, which is the topic of this thread.

Click to expand...

"I was arguing with a gun control supporter and the main argument they chose was the "where do you draw the line?". This person stated that if people have the right to have a rifle or hand gun shouldn't they also be allowed to have rocket launchers, fighter jets, or even nukes. Any thoughts?"
The OP does not mention the constitution or the second amendment thereof. You are incorrect.

utbagpiper said:

I would submit this is one of those real-world cases where anarchist/libertarian theory

Click to expand...

So says the one who has belligerently refused to learn libertarian theory, and following two references by two different members noting a prominent libertarian arguing against maintenance of nuclear armaments, which directly contradicts your implications. Are you trying to have a dishonest discussion, or does it just come naturally?

When most of us think of weapons of mass destruction, we think of nuclear bombs, or nerve gas, or biological agents. So it was surprising to see accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charged with using a weapon of mass destruction after he and his brother allegedly detonated a bomb made from a pressure cooker.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2013/04/29/974/

Click to expand...

Hmm....the government holds itself as the only arbiter of what a WMD is.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion: noun: weapon of mass destruction; plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Click to expand...

chemical weapon (CW) is a munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on human beings.

Click to expand...

biological weapon: biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants.

Click to expand...

radiological weapon or radiological dispersion device (RDD) is any weapon that is designed to spread radioactive material with the intent to kill and cause disruption.

Click to expand...

georg jetson said:

The "line" question is easier to answer. In a free Republic, the government cannot posses that which is illegal to the citizen. Now let them decide how much they want to weaken the military.

Click to expand...

+1 As pointed out by Stealthy and Citizen and great theorist like Rothbard there is no right to poison and kill innocents. Since individuals are the only ones that have rights, and government has granted powers and no rights there is no moral justification for governments to own these weapons.

If the key here is risk imposed, then we should probably consider that the line we're drawing, logically, must extend well beyond the realm of weaponry. From nuclear power generation to swimming pools, the world is full of risks.

It should also be noted that the risk imposed by possessing and the risk imposed by using a particular type of weaponry may be materially different, and thus, if the key is the risk imposed, the two may need to be prohibited or not separately.

There are easily imaginable scenarios where a person qualified to store nuclear weaponry safely may be able to do so without imposing significant risk on another. If risk imposed is the key factor, then risk imposed would probably not be able to justify blanket prohibitions on the storage of nuclear weaponry. (You might say that, since we can conclude that, in one case, prohibition would not be justified with the given criteria, we may conclude that the contradiction that it may always be justified with the given criteria must be false)

Careful now, if we are to consider that the character of the person possessing is to be factored into the risk calculation, which is perhaps a legitimate consideration, we must tread very carefully, and think long and hard before attempting to draw conclusions. It would be vital to get the method correct, as an improper method could very easily be abused, and in fact, is today.

Whether or not we can justify blanket prohibitions, of course, doesn't change that it may still be in the world's interest to pursue nuclear disarmament.

georg jetson said:

The "line" question is easier to answer. In a free Republic, the government cannot posses that which is illegal to the citizen. Now let them decide how much they want to weaken the military.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

That is the best answer so far.

Click to expand...

So all y'all are coming from a "principle" or theory that gives only two acceptable answers:

1-Legalize WMD possession by private parties; or,

2-Eliminate WMDs from the US military stores leaving the nation without sufficient deterrent to a Nuclear attack by Russia, China, or North Korea?!?!?!?


Any principle that yields only those two completely asinine results is either grossly in error, or being grossly misapplied. I'll keep looking for a realistic and workable answer, thank you.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

"I was arguing with a gun control supporter and the main argument they chose was the "where do you draw the line?". This person stated that if people have the right to have a rifle or hand gun shouldn't they also be allowed to have rocket launchers, fighter jets, or even nukes. Any thoughts?"

Click to expand...

Yes. Rocket launchers, fighter jets, cannon, and ships-of-war might all well be covered by the 2A as these items can be brought to bear against specific targets without grossly infringing the rights of innocents. Nukes and other WMDs cross an obvious line.

There may well be another rational line that could be drawn between individual weapons and crew served weapons. I don't think I accept that line, but I recognize it as a possibility.

Of course, some like to draw lines based on cosmetic features, rate of fire, or some ill-defined notion of how "powerful" a particular firearm is. Obviously, we all here not only reject such a line entirely, but we also recognize that most who make it don't object to semi-auto sportster model guns nearly so much as they object to all guns, and especially to all guns that might be suitable for defensive purposes. We recognize that their attacks on "assault rifles" are merely the first of many assaults on our RKBA.

In contrast, only those driven by some slavish or dogmatic devotion to a religious principle masquerading as socio-political theory actually think that keeping WMDs out of private hands has any real-word bearing on our RKBA.

stealthyeliminator said:

The OP does not mention the constitution or the second amendment thereof. You are incorrect.

Click to expand...

99 times out of a hundred, when someone in this nation questions the RKBA, they are talking about the 2A, whether that is explicitly mentioned or not. When speaking of a right to bear arms, we speak only of natural rights, or of federal or State constitutional provisions recognizing such a right. However, when someone questions whether such a right even exists, he is almost never discussing natural rights, but is (at least implicitly) questioning the intent and meaning of the second amendment. You can concede all this as self evident, or you can looking for nits to pick for fear I might actually not be wrong on some subject.

stealthyeliminator said:

So says the one who has belligerently refused to learn libertarian theory, and following two references by two different members noting a prominent libertarian arguing against maintenance of nuclear armaments, which directly contradicts your implications. Are you trying to have a dishonest discussion, or does it just come naturally?

Click to expand...

--Moderator deleted personal insult--

I'm far more familiar with libertarian theory than you'd like to think. Such was my youthful political rebellion as even in my youth I couldn't be a liberal. That I do not accept mere references to others words, but expect anarchists to actually defend and explain their theories here, in their own words, doesn't change that. Your and your merry band's inability to explain the most basic workings of conflict resolution within the confines of anarchy theory is evidence that you've given the theories far too little thought yourself. My experience is that most anarchists are simply the types who chafe at any limits on their conduct. They are adolescents who never really grew up. I keep waiting for someone to prove me wrong by being able to thoughtfully, maturely, and civilly answer the most basic of questions rather than acting like an Inquisitor confronted with heresy.

I'm also hoping that eventually, the anarchists will stop imposing anarchy on the forum by allowing discussions to take place outside an anarchist context. The context of our constitutional republic is quite acceptable to most gun owners and it is tiresome to have every thread hijacked by anarchists rhetoric and word games and your ilk taking offense when someone doesn't conform to your notion of perfect anarchy society.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

Reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. Improperly employing reductio ad absurdum may be fallacious, but reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argumentation technique.

Click to expand...

It is a legitimate technique only when such reduction is reasonable. Otherwise, it is a fallacy, or just being unpleasant and trying to prove one is technically correct rather than concede an opponent may be materially correct within the context at hand.

But you knew all this. Which means you are simply trying to prove you are technically correct rather than ignore or even concede I might have been materially correct. Expected and within character it seems.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

This is an absurd group of statements. This has nothing to do with anarchist theory or the fact that I'm an anarchist.

Click to expand...

It has quite a bit to do with your anarchist views since those views color your entire perception of the world. Any hint that another's opinion might impose something unwanted on you results in a visceral and impolite reaction.

stealthyeliminator said:

I have literally had someone tell me "I don't want to see" firearms in public, perfectly matching your specific words above. Is that just the same as them saying they believe they may justifiably prohibit firearms in public, or would I be correct to point out the distinction and say that their feelings and personal desires don't justify prohibitions? Obviously the latter.

Click to expand...

Understanding meaning requires taking context into account. I once literally heard a man tell another man he was going to kill him. Within context, this was not a reportable crime or even threat of violence, but an expression of fondness between two very dear friends. Not my chosen form of expression. But for them it obviously worked. I had to explain this to my then teenage daughter. I didn't realize men old enough to presume to carry guns in public would have such a challenge with the concept.

Do you really presume that obviously pro-RKBA posters on this forum, such as since9, are as flippant about enumerated rights as someone who doesn't want to see your firearm in public? He used a turn of the phrase whose meaning and intent was obvious given the context for any willing to look at totality of context rather than looking to take offense and be peeved that someone else isn't singing anarchist kumbaya with you.

stealthyeliminator said:

Stop trying to force criticisms of my anarchism into every conversation.

Click to expand...

Then stop being an unpleasant, impolite jerk about how you address others when your anarchist sensibilities get ruffled.

What do his or my feelings have to do with something? Perhaps quite a bit:

As our patron saint wrote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

As the Declaration of Independence declares, "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes ...."

Mature and civil men maintain and manifest a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" rather than acting like puerile adolescents who'd like to pretend they are living on an island, unaffected by others and not affecting others in the least.

Men who live in the real world recognize that at some point, the opinions of others do matter. If 200 million of our fellow citizens want to outlaw OC, odds are good that attempting to OC is going to bring unpleasant penalties. In the extreme case, I expect that 200 million fellow citizens could revoke the 2nd amendment, stack the courts, and do whatever they wanted to legally. And our screaming about "natural rights" won't matter a bit. Might will make right. Even if a man is absolutely correct, being a jerk about it may be a very bad long-term strategy.

To quote your favorite member, "Welcome to OCDO!! Open Carry Dot Org. As the homepage explains, OCOD is "....[A]n organization whose raison d’etre is promotion of open carry." See that there, the promotion of open carry. Not merely being unpleasant, or doing something because it is our right and to heck with others' feelings. But the promotion of open carry. Every individual has his individual reason for OCing. But as a group, this site exists to promote and normalize OC, to gain social and political acceptance. In other words, to persuade others to change their opinions to match ours in this regard. How can we change or influence what we don't care about?

Further, note rule "(9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity, or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE! " (emphasis added) The anarchists' constant sniping and attacking of those who do not share their political views on a million and one things not related to RKBA/OC is inappropriate to say the least. Give it a rest.

Mature and civil men recognize the difference between explicitly enumerated rights where there can be no disagreement among honest and informed men, and those areas where honest men can legitimately disagree about what is a right or what isn't a right. Attacking RKBA or even OC of firearms is in an entirely different category than is private ownership of nukes.

Mature men recognize that arguments stand for themselves rather than being valid based on who makes them. In post 10 I brought up the issue of the inability to use WMDs without infringing the rights of others and you ignore the point, nit picking about corpses. A bit later, Citizen quotes Rothbard to the precisely same point and you start fawning. Get over the personalities and deal with issues. Note that even as Walking Wolf and I have some serious personality issues, I give him credit for well explained position in my post 10. He may not like me in the least. But when he is right about an argument, he is right and I give credit where it is due.

You don't want me attacking your cute little political theories that have never proven workable in a modern, diverse society? Then start showing some civility and maturity in how you bring those theories to bear. We all support RKBA and OC here. That does NOT require that we all support imposing anarchy on society.

Now, do you want to continue this little exercise in nitpicking exactly how OC supporters express beliefs about WMDs or who is being more rude than the other? Or shall we go back to discussing the actual subject at hand which is how to address gun grabbers who throw out private ownership of nukes as if that issue materially affected individual RKBA of firearms?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

So all y'all are coming from a "principle" or theory that gives only two acceptable answers:

1-Legalize WMD possession by private parties; or,

2-Eliminate WMDs from the US military stores leaving the nation without sufficient deterrent to a Nuclear attack by Russia, China, or North Korea?!?!?!?


Any principle that yields only those two completely asinine results is either grossly in error, or being grossly misapplied. I'll keep looking for a realistic and workable answer, thank you.

Charles

Click to expand...

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is owning nuclear arms, battle tanks, war ships, space arms, fighter planes, etc. Part of exercising any right is always within the limits that others are not unintentionally harmed by the exercise there of. So if I own a nuke, then part of my owning it includes making sure that it does not leak, does not explode without intention, etc.

Just like owning a car, boat, gun, grenade, etc.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is owning nuclear arms, battle tanks, war ships, space arms, fighter planes, etc. Part of exercising any right is always within the limits that others are not unintentionally harmed by the exercise there of. So if I own a nuke, then part of my owning it includes making sure that it does not leak, does not explode without intention, etc.

Just like owning a car, boat, gun, grenade, etc.

Click to expand...

Nice theory. But I'm not buying it and neither will the electorate.

We do not advance nor protect, but damage our credibility on RKBA by claiming a "right" to own WMDs. The argument goes the other way too. "So if I recognize your right to own a handgun or even a scary looking rifle for self defense, I have to accept a right for you to keep a nuke in your basement?"

The result of that thought process for 99.9%+ of voters is, "Then to heck with any 'right' to own arms." Nobody is going to sign up for their crazy neighbor to keep a nuke in his basement. An ND from a gun is most often a personal matter. An ND from a nuke?

Time to deal with both physical and political/social realities.

Charles

This thread has reached the point of a massive train wreck, full of personal references.

Last chance.

Sorry for the delay fellas. Here is the quote I promised in Post #37 above.


Murray Rothbard:

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction...We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. (emphasis in the original; footnote to distinction between combatants omitted). Ethics of Liberty, pg 190-191.

Citizen said:

Sorry for the delay fellas. Here is the quote I promised in Post #37 above.


Murray Rothbard:

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction...We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. (emphasis in the original; footnote to distinction between combatants omitted). Ethics of Liberty, pg 190-191.

Click to expand...

Now there is a solid argument!

BTW - cleaned out some of the chaff, hoping the thread can live.

utbagpiper said:

So all y'all are coming from a "principle" or theory that gives only two acceptable answers:

1-Legalize WMD possession by private parties; or,

2-Eliminate WMDs from the US military stores leaving the nation without sufficient deterrent to a Nuclear attack by Russia, China, or North Korea?!?!?!?


Any principle that yields only those two completely asinine results is either grossly in error, or being grossly misapplied. I'll keep looking for a realistic and workable answer, thank you.

Charles

Click to expand...

Some people exercise a willful ignorance of liberty and freedom. Such willful, persistent ignorance can be a red flag to others. Don't let this happen to you OP.

Citizen said:

Sorry for the delay fellas. Here is the quote I promised in Post #37 above.


Murray Rothbard:

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction...We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. (emphasis in the original; footnote to distinction between combatants omitted). Ethics of Liberty, pg 190-191.

Click to expand...

But, but, now someone gets to determine the definition of "WMD". A machine gun could easily fit the description.

Freedom1Man said:

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is owning nuclear arms, battle tanks, war ships, space arms, fighter planes, etc. Part of exercising any right is always within the limits that others are not unintentionally harmed by the exercise there of. So if I own a nuke, then part of my owning it includes making sure that it does not leak, does not explode without intention, etc.

Just like owning a car, boat, gun, grenade, etc.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

+1

Very logically honest argument. It's the only logical conclusion to the idea that one man's rights do not originate from another man/men.

Freedom1Man said:

Part of the right to keep and bear arms is owning nuclear arms, battle tanks, war ships, space arms, fighter planes, etc. Part of exercising any right is always within the limits that others are not unintentionally harmed by the exercise there of. So if I own a nuke, then part of my owning it includes making sure that it does not leak, does not explode without intention, etc.

Just like owning a car, boat, gun, grenade, etc.

Click to expand...

When the ah sn!t happens, how will you unring the bell?

Grapeshot said:

When the ah sn!t happens, how will you unring the bell?

Click to expand...

How do you call back a bullet, an arrow, a bomb, a car with bad brakes, sperm, etc? When the $#!t hits the fan it does not matter. Once the bell tolls it is too late.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for the bell tolls for you. (Not a personal reference)

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

georg jetson said:

Some people exercise a willful ignorance of liberty and freedom.

Click to expand...

Like Rothbard?

Some people exercise a willful ignorance of liberty and freedom when they follow an interpretation of such that is entirely likely to lead to the end of human life on the planet. "Negligent discharges" of nukes might well have a tendency to very quickly escalate to the point of destroying all semblance of modern living if not life itself. "NDs" of biologicals might not even require anyone else to escalate, but could run through the population with disastrous results.

"Liberty and freedom" cannot, logically, include the real risk of ending life as we know it.