to libertarians: should individuals be allowed to own...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Should individuals be allowed to own nukes?

[anotherone]

Should individuals be allowed to own nukes?

ha! Then gov would *really* fear the people.

Maybe we should have a max of 1 megaton yield per household.

[integrity]

individuals already "own" the Newnited States, so yes, they already own NUKES. NO its not OK in my opinion.

[Original_Intent]

I believe in Utah there is actually a law on the books that says individuals have a right to own nukes. :eek:

[kylejack]

Nah, the right to bear arms refers to firearms, in my opinion.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Nah, the right to bear arms refers to firearms, in my opinion.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy, it's only a contract with the people. I'm talking about broad libertarian philosophy here. We don't need the 2nd amendment in order to have the right to bare arms imo it's a natural right.

[conner_condor]

Should individuals be allowed to own nukes?

I think all guns no matter what, from a M60 down should be allowed to be owned by civilians without special permits.Any caliber larger than 50 also should be allowed.

[kylejack]

Oh, I see what you're asking now. Anybody who creates a weapon within range of me that would pose an imminent threat to my health or property does not have the right to do that, in my opinion. The mere act of creating a nuclear weapon is equivalent with pointing a gun at me, because activation of the weapon in both cases harms me.

[conner_condor]

Nah, the right to bear arms refers to firearms, in my opinion.
Agree.A rocket launcher would be border line though. You can hold them like a gun so maybe yes,We should be able to own them also. I thought Iraq was quite free compared to us when it came to their gun laws.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think all guns no matter what, from a M60 down should be allowed to be owned by civilians without special permits.Any caliber larger than 50 also should be allowed.

I also think so. Libertarianism is nothing but "managed anarchism" imo. preserve individual liberty and organize battles in wartime.

[Maverick]

Think about it this way. If it were legal for citizens to own them, they still wouldn't come cheap. You could probably expect to pay like $200 million for one, so it's not likely that the average joe would have himself a nuke.

[conner_condor]

Think about it this way. If it were legal for citizens to own them, they still wouldn't come cheap. You could probably expect to pay like $200 million for one, so it's not likely that the average joe would have himself a nuke.

If we can raise millions for RP we could buy one in a few years.We will take turns keeping it at each others homes.:D

[constituent]

yes.

[Liberty4life]

no we should not, nor should any other country, but a few tanks in my backyard would make me feel better, let them try to take my tanks from my cold dead, er let them cut me out of my cold tank, dead

[murrayrothbard]

I would say no. The legitimate use of armaments in libertarian theory is purely defensive. This requires that your weapon must be capable of being targeted at some specific aggressing individual. A nuclear weapon by its very nature is designed to inflict indiscrimanate mass devastation.

[FreeTraveler]

Oh, I see what you're asking now. Anybody who creates a weapon within range of me that would pose an imminent threat to my health or property does not have the right to do that, in my opinion. The mere act of creating a nuclear weapon is equivalent with pointing a gun at me, because activation of the weapon in both cases harms me.

+1

I think this answers the question exactly right. As far as conventional weapons, anything big enough to damage my house if it explodes at my neighbor's is also a threat to my well-being, and I'm taking that neighbor to court.

Unless the lots are REALLY big, that rules out personal weapons much bigger than a bunker-buster, I'd say. :D

[navi]

I say in theory, yes. Only if somehow they are able to keep the nuke somewhere where it doesn't pose a direct threat to the liberties of others around them.

I see this question as a hyperbole used to scare people into accepting strict forms of gun control. Honestly, do you think any company that makes nukes will sell it to a rich civilian when there is a risk of them destroying a whole population, including those working at the company, by purposely detonating it? Or even by accidental detonation due to improper storage facilities?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Oh, I see what you're asking now. Anybody who creates a weapon within range of me that would pose an imminent threat to my health or property does not have the right to do that, in my opinion. The mere act of creating a nuclear weapon is equivalent with pointing a gun at me, because activation of the weapon in both cases harms me.

then take him out.

[Mr. Coolidge]

Yeah, I've done some thinking about this one before, and I don't think they should be held by individuals as other arms are, since their use unavoidably harms or kills others, or destroys others' property, in effect violating the rights of others. Tanks, on the other hand, could in some cases be operated without any violation of others' rights; not in cities, but in wide, open areas like rural Nebraska, for instance. So I suppose armored tank regulations could be done locally.
Of course, all this talk about the "regulation" of arms does make one kind of...uncomfortable, I guess. :(

[Maverick]

I say in theory, yes. Only if somehow they are able to keep the nuke somewhere where it doesn't pose a direct threat to the liberties of others around them.

I see this question as a hyperbole used to scare people into accepting strict forms of gun control. Honestly, do you think any company that makes nukes will sell it to a rich civilian when there is a risk of them destroying a whole population, including those working at the company, by purposely detonating it? Or even by accidental detonation due to improper storage facilities?

Dude, but everyone knows that Bill Gates already has a giant nuclear arsenal. He's going to use them to take over the world from his secret underground lair :eek:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm really a voluntaryist but I don't want to talk about that a lot because I don't want to discourage people from voting for Ron Paul :) but hey, Kyle, if you feel threatened, sneak into his dwelling and kill him. Whatever makes you feel safer, eh?

[TheIndependent]

Should individuals be allowed to own nukes?

Didn't Ron Paul already clarify the libertarian line very clearly on this during the Stossel interview? Or was it the Newsweek interview? I forget.

[noxagol]

Yes. Who is the government to tell me what I can and cannot own and where do they get this power from? Certainly not the people because I cannot tell you what you can and cannot own.

Now, I don't think they should exist in the first place.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Didn't Ron Paul already clarify the libertarian line very clearly on this during the Stossel interview? Or was it the Newsweek interview? I forget.

It was Newsweek with Howard Fineman: http://www.newsweek.com/id/73850

Basically, he says that even building a "500-ton bomb" constitutes a "clear and present danger" to those around you and that since the Constitution doesn't define what weapons are covered laws delineating that are okay but should be done locally. Also, he says that a "single-shot pistol" can kill you just as easily as a machine gun.

[Andrew-Austin]

No, thats absolutely absurd.

[kylejack]

I'm really a voluntaryist but I don't want to talk about that a lot because I don't want to discourage people from voting for Ron Paul :) but hey, Kyle, if you feel threatened, sneak into his dwelling and kill him. Whatever makes you feel safer, eh?
If he assembled such a bomb, I would.

[Chicago Joe]

This is a tough question. Considering the nature of a bomb & it's devastating qualities, I'd be inclined to see restrictions placed on ownership of bombs/missiles, including those of nuclear build.

I'd probably take the position that they constitute a threat to the radius of explosion as well as the potential lasting radiation effects such a detonation would leave on the environment must be considered.

On one hand, since nuclear devices cause radiation, and radiation spreads with the wind and lasts quite awhile, I tend to think that a nuclear device constitutes too much of a threat to the private property & liberty of others.


So... I'd probably argue against the ownership of Nuclear weaponry due to their potential lasting impact on the environment due to a detonation. However, I'd argue that conventional bombs/rockets and the like would be legitimate, given that an individual owns enough private property (and perhaps then-some) to encompass the detonation radius of such a device.

Reminds me of that film Rocket Farmer, or something of the sort, where the man builds a Rocket to fly into the atmosphere in his barn.



But then consider when the constitution was written... before the time of aircraft or massive tactical devices that are capable of instantly killing millions of people. Suppose the biggest arms in their day? A battleship? Cannon? Hard to compare either a battleship or cannon to a nuclear bomb.

E: expanding on the idea, I thought perhaps the only thing reminiscent of what a nuclear bomb would be in the hayday, is a standing army or an armada of ships. Would a private citizen be allowed to own a private army or navy? Don't think so.

[Bradley in DC]

No. For any combination of reasons from Murray Rothbard to the common law.

[AlexMerced]

THe act of ownership of property is right, so yeah, you can own a nuke and the price would skyrocket ifit was available to the public to probably a couple billion to deter everyone have a nuke.

Though companies also have the right not to sell you a nuke, and if you hurt someone with the nuke you would pay consequencesif you still alive.


it's not a favorable or likely situation. Though philosophically the government is supposed to protect your rights not prevent unfavorable situation within your rights.

Though I'm sure state laws and common sense would prevent this from happening, and it already happen in the black market, at least we'd know who has the nukes

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't remember where I read this, but one of the Founders wrote something about the 2nd amendment referring to the common arms carried by the military. In other words, the private citizen can own whatever the government would issue to a combat troop. Large caliber high capacity machine guns, sniper rifles, handguns, silencers, grenade & rocket launchers, etc. If they can carry it, so can we.That would obviously exclude tanks, nukes, ICBMs, cruise missiles, large bombs, etc.

I suppose one could own an armored personnel carrier, aircraft carrier, jet fighter, B-52, or nuclear sub as long as they are converted for commercial, research or recreational purposes.

[AlexMerced]

I don't remember where I read this, but one of the Founders wrote something about the 2nd amendment referring to the common arms carried by the military. In other words, the private citizen can own whatever the government would issue to a combat troop. Large caliber high capacity machine guns, sniper rifles, handguns, silencers, grenade & rocket launchers, etc. If they can carry it, so can we.That would obviously exclude tanks, nukes, ICBMs, cruise missiles, large bombs, etc.

I suppose one could own an armored personnel carrier, aircraft carrier, jet fighter, B-52, or nuclear sub as long as they are converted for commercial, research or recreational purposes.

sounds good to me

[murrayrothbard]

In order for the question to even be relevant you have to assume that there would be a demand for such weapons on the market. Also Walter Block has an article somewhere on this very topic. Don't have a link right now though. From what I can remember he came to a negative conclusion (i.e. nuclear weapons are illegitimate) because they could not be targeted. Also there was something about if the situation was on Jupiter and everyone lived 1000 miles away from evryone else, it would be a different story...;)

[murrayrothbard]

I don't remember where I read this, but one of the Founders wrote something about the 2nd amendment referring to the common arms carried by the military. In other words, the private citizen can own whatever the government would issue to a combat troop. Large caliber high capacity machine guns, sniper rifles, handguns, silencers, grenade & rocket launchers, etc. If they can carry it, so can we.That would obviously exclude tanks, nukes, ICBMs, cruise missiles, large bombs, etc.

I suppose one could own an armored personnel carrier, aircraft carrier, jet fighter, B-52, or nuclear sub as long as they are converted for commercial, research or recreational purposes.

But were they any weapons that existed at the time that fit such a description?

[SeanEdwards]

I think not. In terms of the second amendment, and what weapons free citizens should be able to personally own, I think the standard should follow from the intended role and purpose of a citizen's militia. A militia, to be effective, should be able to combat regular military forces. I think this requirement leads to the conclusion that militia should be able to arm themselves with standard issue military small arms. The militia should be roughly equivalent to light infantry forces in terms of weaponry. So, whatever weapons infantry forces of the national military are using should be available to private citizens. When regular army grunts are issued with personal man portable nuclear bombs, then there could be a case to be made for the militia having the same capability.

[FreeTraveler]

If you deny ownership of ANY weapon to the people, that is allowed to the government, you are circumventing the purpose of the Second Amendment.

[kylejack]

If you deny ownership of ANY weapon to the people, that is allowed to the government, you are circumventing the purpose of the Second Amendment.
Not really. I would say it was intended to protect the right to firearms, not warships.

[FreeTraveler]

Not really. I would say it was intended to protect the right to firearms, not warships.
If the government has weapons the people are denied, the people are powerless in relation to their government. Look at the REASON for the Second Amendment, and tell me that any of the founding fathers believed guns were only for hunting or sport.

[kylejack]

If the government has weapons the people are denied, the people are powerless in relation to their government. Look at the REASON for the Second Amendment, and tell me that any of the founding fathers believed guns were only for hunting or sport.
Not true, the people can fight a nasty guerilla war against a stronger military force. Iraq and Vietnam are good examples. Government has to restrain its response for fear of losing the support of the rest of the populace, which is why the government is not nuking Baghdad. This would be even more true in a local domestic population.

I didn't say guns were only for hunting or sport. It is to protect us from the government. That doesn't mean we need equivalent force, because we have other advantages, like manpower and the government's restraint.

[1000-points-of-fright]

But were they any weapons that existed at the time that fit such a description?

If I interpret you're question correctly... yes. The musket, bayonets, the flintlock pistol, swords. What ever the foot soldier of the era carries into battle, the citizen may own. Just update it for whatever period of time you live in.

If the 2nd amendment is still valid 200 yrs from now, we should be allowed to own hand held particle beam weapons just like the military. If we can afford them.

[SeanEdwards]

If the government has weapons the people are denied, the people are powerless in relation to their government. Look at the REASON for the Second Amendment, and tell me that any of the founding fathers believed guns were only for hunting or sport.

No, not powerless at all. Witness what the Iraqi militias are doing to our forces daily in Iraq.

As long as the mass of the people can arm themselves with contemporary small arms they can never be conquered. Destroyed yes, but never enslaved.

[kylejack]

If I interpret you're question correctly... yes. The musket, bayonets, the flintlock pistol, swords. What ever the foot soldier of the era carries into battle, the citizen may own. Just update it for whatever period of time you live in.

If the 2nd amendment is still valid 200 yrs from now, we should be allowed to own hand held particle beam weapons just like the military. If we can afford them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) ?

;)

[SeanEdwards]

Additionally, I'd like to see the U.S. defense policy to reflect a renewed reliance on citizen's militia for defense. Part of the defense budget should be used to establish voluntary militia training programs. Citizens who choose to participate should be able to receive basic miltiary training. Including being trained on explosive weapons like grenades and man portable anti-vehicle weapons.

Individuals should be free to own in their home standard military issue rifles and pistols. Heavier infantry weapons, RPG equivalent etc, should be distributed around the country in secure bunkers that can be released to militia formations in the event of a defense emergency.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Individuals should be free to own in their home standard military issue rifles and pistols. Heavier infantry weapons, RPG equivalent etc, should be distributed around the country in secure bunkers that can be released to militia formations in the event of a defense emergency.

What happens when the defense emergency involves fighting a tyrannical government and they're the one that have the keys to the secure bunkers?

[SeanEdwards]

What happens when the defense emergency involves fighting a tyrannical government and they're the one that have the keys to the secure bunkers?

That's the point of having them distributed. Give the keys to local officials.