Owning a Tank

[Mammon]

A very interesting debate has just popped up in chat about whether or not you have the right to own a tank. West and I bother said no, and sanjavalen said yes. He can explain his reasoning here for everyone to review. West and I based part of our arguments on this article (released by the ARI?) --

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5133

Defining the Right of Self-Defense by Gun

First, the robber hit Willie Lee Hill more than fifty times with a can of soda, knocking him unconscious. Later, the 93-year-old victim awakened, covered with blood, to find his 24-year-old assailant ransacking the bedroom. When Hill pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from near his bed, the robber lunged at him. Hill stopped his attacker with a single bullet to the throat. “I got what I deserved,” the robber told police afterward.

That episode happened in Arkansas last July, but similar acts of self-defense occur by the thousands all across America every year. Overwhelming historical evidence and common sense demonstrate that guns--often called the “great equalizer,” for obvious reasons--are a powerful method of self-defense in the precious minutes before police can arrive.

In the District of Columbia, however, citizens may not lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense, even in the home. The Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in D.C. v. Heller, which is expected to determine whether such a blanket ban violates the Second Amendment. But regardless of how the Court may interpret the Constitution, citizens deserve a legal right to own a handgun for self-defense.

As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, governments are created to protect our individual rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The right of self-defense is included and implied in the right to life. In forming a government, citizens delegate the task of defending themselves to the police. But to delegate is not to surrender. Each citizen retains the ultimate right to defend himself in emergencies when his appointed agents, the police, are not available to help.

But what constitutes an emergency? What acts of self-defense are permissible in such a situation? And what tools may private citizens own for emergency self-defense? The law’s task is to furnish objective answers to such questions, so that citizens may defend their lives without taking the law into their own hands.

An emergency, properly defined, arises from an objective threat of imminent bodily harm. The victim must summon police, if possible. An emergency ends when the threat ends, or as soon as police arrive and take charge. During that narrow emergency interval, a victim may defend himself, but only with the least degree of force necessary under the circumstances to repel his attacker. A victim who explodes in vengeance, using excessive force, exposes himself to criminal liability along with his assailant.

Many objects commonly owned for peaceful purposes can be pressed into service for emergency self-defense. But unlike kitchen knives or baseball bats, handguns have no peaceful purpose--they are designed to kill people. The same lethal power that makes handguns the most practical means of self-defense against robbers, rapists, and murderers, also makes handguns an essential tool of government force. Handguns are deadly force and nothing but--a fact that gives rise to legitimate concerns over their private ownership in a civilized society.

These concerns can be resolved only by laws carefully drawn to confine private use of handguns to emergency self-defense, as defined by objective law. Such laws must also prohibit all conduct by which handguns might present an objective threat to others, whether by intent or negligence.

Contrary to an often expressed worry, therefore, a right to keep and bear arms in no way implies that citizens may stockpile weaponry according to their arbitrary preferences. Cannons, tanks, and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use in a private emergency, and their very presence is a threat to peaceful neighbors.

If handguns are confined to emergency self-defense, no legitimate purpose is served by an outright ban such as the District of Columbia enacted. Even if such laws actually deprived criminals of guns (which they don’t), they would infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right in emergencies to repel attackers who are wielding knives, clubs, fists--or cans of soda.

With the aid of his handgun, Willie Lee Hill survived that violent home invasion last July. Self-defense was his right, as it is ours. A proper legal system recognizes and protects that right, by permitting private ownership of handguns under appropriate limits.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

[sanjavalen]

I'm going to bed.

But first:

Thats my main response

[Zip]

Ooh, you're just baiting me now aren't you...

[pvtmorriscsa]

I just wanted to point out that it is not illegal to own “tanks”. They are however very expensive, and of course the weapons are inert.

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

Furthermore if one is willing to spend the time, toil, treasure, and privacy Federal law does allow for the private ownership of some pretty hardcore firepower.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html

[Zip]

In spite of the fact that the right to own pretty much anything is a given condition of an ideal government the danger posed to the general population by ownership of technologically advanced weapons systems is such that they should be controlled.

I am not referring to small arms or personal weapons, including automatic weapons but things such as Tanks, artillery pieces attack helicopters etc.

[Mammon]

In spite of the fact that the right to own pretty much anything is a given condition of an ideal government the danger posed to the general population by ownership of technologically advanced weapons systems is such that they should be controlled.

I am not referring to small arms or personal weapons, including automatic weapons but things such as Tanks, artillery pieces attack helicopters etc.

That's my angle of looking at it too. There isn't too much of a reason to own any of these weapons unless you plan on blowing something up with them or collecting them (in that case, a museum could own it), or if you want to reverse engineer it or something. I think in the government can restrict who gets them and why, for the sake of everyones safety.

[sanjavalen]

Okay, done with my first job, so I have a bit of time to expound on this.

What is the principle we're dealing with here? It is not the right to "self defense" - that would be ridiculous. It is the right to the ownership of property free of government interference.

The ONLY time which a government has any right to regulate what you are doing with your property is if and when you are initiating the use of force with it or threatening other people with it. There is no limitation to owning a tank - even one with a fully operational cannon - by this facet of government as a class.

Tanks, cannon, bazookas, etc., are all dangerous weapons. So are guns. There is no "balancing of rights" going on where, on the one hand, the people around you have some nebulous "right" to strip you of property that they do not think you have "legitimate" use for, balanced only by your right to have neighbor-approved weapons for defense in the event of an emergency.

Your neighbors - and the government - have NO RIGHT to regulate what kind of private property you obtain, UNTIL such a time as you threaten them with it.

Thus, I can own a gun, but I cannot point it at my neighbor. I can own a tank, but I cannot point the cannon at anyone else's property (problematic if you want to store it in suburbia, but hey, go buy a ranch.) I can own explosives, but I cannot have them anywhere where the explosion might harm other people or property - an explosive being liked a gun pointed in every direction to the extent of its effects.

This addresses the strawman arguments of "what about nuclear/biological weapons?" in that the effects of those cannot readily be contained in any conceivable bit of property, no one can purchase them. The only entity that could would be the government, who would have the resources to have specialized containment areas, and who are under audit not to move them anywhere except in times of war.

I really think this entire dispute is ridiculous. No capitalist government retains the right to regulate what kind of property you may or may not own - its only concern is the use of force (or the threat) on its citizens. If owning a tank is somehow "proof" that I intend to use it to harm my neighbors, then having fists is "proof" that I intend to assault them.

Edited March 20, 2008 by sanjavalen

[mrocktor]

entire post

Bravo.

[D'kian]

This addresses the strawman arguments of "what about nuclear/biological weapons?" in that the effects of those cannot readily be contained in any conceivable bit of property, no one can purchase them. The only entity that could would be the government, who would have the resources to have specialized containment areas, and who are under audit not to move them anywhere except in times of war.

Chemical weapons are not that hard to make. I won't go into details, but mustard gas can be made with itmes found in the average home. any halfway decent chemist can manage to make nerve agents from items he can order from chemical suppy houses.

So, can I make mustard gas in my basement and keep it there legally? Should I be able to?

[Zip]

Tank rounds contain large amounts of explosives. Thereby making them a danger and subject to restrictions by your own admission.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Zip

[sanjavalen]

Tank rounds contain large amounts of explosives. Thereby making them a danger and subject to restrictions by your own admission.

Yes. Tank rounds.

So?

[LiberTodd]

Tank rounds contain large amounts of explosives. Thereby making them a danger and subject to restrictions by your own admission.

I hate to tell you but pretty much any vehicle that runs on petrol can create a pretty sizable explosion under the right circumstances. A lot of the things you can buy at a hardware supply store are explodable too.

I would love to own a tank and I plan on it if I ever get rich. The UK musician Aphex Twin supposedly owns a tank as well as a nuclear submarine (well it's not actually nuclear but it was designed to carry nukes, you know what I mean.) I just think it would be so fun to drive around in, especially for my job (I deliver pizzas ). There was a monster truck for sale around here before, I almost bought it but I was about $5k short .

[Scott_Connery]

I don't understand where a just government derives the authority to strip a private citizen of property that is not being used to threaten anyone comes from.

Tanks can be, and are right this moment, being stored safely. From an Objectivist point of view, you cannot say it scares me that person A owns, operates, and safely stores a potentially dangerous item. Take it away from him!

You can say person A violated my rights or made an objective, and verifiable, threat. Punish him!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

A very interesting debate has just popped up in chat about whether or not you have the right to own a tank. West and I bother said no, and sanjavalen said yes. He can explain his reasoning here for everyone to review. West and I based part of our arguments on this article (released by the ARI?) --

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5133

You evidently did not see the notice at the bottom of the page which clearly said:

Excerpts are limited to 200 words, so long as the source and link are provided to the original article. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. See our terms of use for details.

If we are going to be taking Objectivism seriously, then we ought also to be taking property rights and intellectual property rights seriously -- unless you acquired rights to cut and paste that article to wherever you saw fit, you ought not to have reproduced it without permission.

But this does relate to the topic. If people cannot be trusted not to swipe things off the Internet just because they are there, then how could we possibly trust our neighbor who has a loaded tank or a loaded nuke? If someone points a gun at me, I can run for cover, but that is not really possible against a tank or a nuke, so I think it is best to keep these out of the hands of neighbors who believe that it would be cool to have one.

[sanjavalen]

Its not about "trust." I don't need your permission or trust to own anything, I merely have a requirement to not threaten you with it.

If you're scared, don't move near anyone who owns a tank.

Edited March 21, 2008 by sanjavalen

[Clawg]

The question should not be "What should we allow people to own in order to give them the ability to defend their lives?", the question should be "What type and amount of weaponry would endanger the monopoly of force of the state?" because that is the only case when the state may disarm you besides emergencies and the case where you are initiating force.

The use & deployment needs strict rules, yes, but not the ownership. If the police is unable to stop you with / in your weapon in a reasonable amount of time then that weaponry should not be legal. The last time I checked the police does not have anti-tank weapons, so a tank should not be legal.

When the police eventually has spaceships and laser cannons, then tanks should be legal.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Clawg

[Tenure]

I hate to tell you but pretty much any vehicle that runs on petrol can create a pretty sizable explosion under the right circumstances. A lot of the things you can buy at a hardware supply store are explodable too.

But a car isn't designed to explode and, contrary to what Hollywood might like to portray, the petrol tank of a car is actually incredibly difficult to destroy under normal conditions (normal conditions being crashing on a motorway, suburban street or countryside; normal conditions not including conducting a drive-by shooting in a high-octane speed-chase). Cars really don't just crash and explode.

As the article linked above rightly points out, rights are there essentially to protect men from force. The carrying of any weapon implies the explicit potential to use it to attack another man, whether in self-defence or not. It is simply not reasonable to assume a man is carrying a handgun to do some plumbing, or storing a fully-operational tank in his house to mow the lawn. These are items which are especially designed to be used for force. Let us clarify this point first.

A kitchen knife is not to be used for force against another man - it is used for chopping food products. However, taken out of the kitchen and carried on the street, in an easily reachable manner, it is completely unreasonable to assume this man is going outside to chop onions. This is not to assume he definitely is going to kill someone, only that the law must be considered, and the legality of whether something which could easily be used as a weapon may be carried in public, especially, whether it would be appropriate for self-defence. I think Rationalbiker can back me up here on how, in situations like this, we entrust the police, and wider, the entire justice system, with the right to reasonably assess a threat to rights, or a very potential one (in terms of a threat) and to act accordingly.

Now, I understand what you guys are saying, that a potential isn't the same as an actual. But that isn't the point I'm making. I'm not saying that all weapons and the carrying of any potential or actual weapon should be banned in public. I'm saying that one of the responsibilities of an Objective law system is to decide, given that a weapon is used only for force, and that in a certain context, normally non-lethal items can become weapons and can reasonably be assumed to only be used in a forceful manner.... given this, they must decide what is and isn't legal.

I mean, the law has to adapt to each new invention, just as patent laws had to adapt to include digital rights. The point of that adaption was not to say that digital rights were different to print-rights; it was to say that the rights of manufacturers still apply in this field, and apply in the prescribed ways. What remained essentially the same was the right of a man to his property.

The same is true with guns, bombs and potential weapons. By-laws have to be set out to cover all manner of weapons and military hardware, new laws being created as new situations arise. However, the principle remains the same: that when something becomes a weapon, either through creation or context, laws have to be set out to govern what is and isn't appropriate use of that force.

Obviously, the principle exists that no man may initiate force, but when it comes to self-defence, the law needs to state that he can only use force appropriate to the context. When it comes to simply owning a weapon or military-grade hardware as defence against a future threat, it has to be decided, given the context, whether a man is going to use that weapon for defending himself, or for actually initiating force.

To close with an example, and to come back to your tank: there is no way a man can own a fully-operational tank (in terms of its weaponry). A tank can in no reasonable way be said to be used for anything other than force. Depending on the variant, it can be used to mow down civilians or to break through buildings and vehicles. Until criminals start regularly driving tanks around on a regular basis, it cannot be said that the keeping of a tank is reasonable preparation for defence against an assailant.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Tenure

[sanjavalen]

The government has no business determining what "legitimate" use you have for any kind of property. Its only concern is actual, not potential, uses of force (including threats.) Targeting, not ownership, is the essence of what a threat is.

The government does not have the right to regulate what kinds of property I own. It certainly does not have to vet any kind of property for it to have "legitimate" uses.

People keep claiming that the government has the right to regulate what kind of property an individual may own, without support. It is very clear that in any rational, capitalist government the only legitimate activities would be related to responding to the use of force - either actual threats, assaults, the breaking of contractual agreement.

When I buy a tank, I am not initiating force on anyone, nor breaking a contractual agreement, nor claiming that the state no longer has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. To claim that the state has the right to regulate who may and may not own certain weapons based on how frightful they are to you invents duties for the government that it does not legitimately have.

Edited March 21, 2008 by sanjavalen

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Its not about "trust." I don't need your permission or trust to own anything, I merely have a requirement to not threaten you with it.

If you're scared, don't move near anyone who owns a tank.

Yeah, well, I get email notification of replies, and you originally said:

OK Tom, let me point a gun [at] you and lets see how effective running for cover is.

What a ridiculous non-argument.

So, in a moment of frustration over an argument, you hypothetically pulled out your loaded gun and pointed it at me. Had that happened in real time and you really pointed a loaded gun at me, I would have the right to take you down by force.

The same goes for owning a loaded tank. If you point it in my direction, I would have the right to take you down by force.

It's not an issue of potential versus actual, since you would have actually pointed a loaded weapon in my direction, which would lead to me taking the appropriate action of taking you out by force. Since the government is my agent of retaliatory force, they would have the authority to go in with guns loaded and take your loaded weapons away from you.

The point is that if you can't be trusted with a loaded computer not to give implied threats over the Internet in frustration, then how in the world could your neighbors trust you with a bee-bee gun, let alone a tank? If you get frustrated over them, and you point your weapons at them, they have the right to self-defense, and that would include disarming you and possibly throwing you in jail. In most states, including Texas, where I live, brandishing a weapon is a legal offense. And you most certainly brandished your weapon at me, hypothetically.

That's why you can't be trusted with a loaded tank.

[LiberTodd]

Well maybe not a fully-operational tank but I don't see why one can't own an unarmed armored vehicle.

[DavidOdden]

The government has no business determining what "legitimate" use you have for any kind of property. Its only concern is actual, not potential, uses of force (including threats.) Targeting, not ownership, is the essence of what a threat is.

This discussion (on both sides) ought to address the question of what constitutes an objective threat. Earlier (post 7) you said "I can own explosives, but I cannot have them anywhere where the explosion might harm other people or property - an explosive being liked a gun pointed in every direction to the extent of its effects." Are you retracting that and removing that limitation? If not, then I don't understand your notion of "targeting". I live in an ordinary residential area, where I could kill a number of people and destroy maybe a million dollar's worth of property (Ohio property values are low, so that's a substantial figure) if I had 20 lbs of mercury fulminate in the garage. I wouldn't actually be "targeting" anyone by storing explosives, not even if I had a home H-bomb. I'd just be having my property, with no proven intent to use it against anyone. The only position I can see you taking that's consistent with your present statement "the only legitimate activities would be related to responding to the use of force - either actual threats, assaults, ..." is that your previous statement about explosives, including home nukes, was simply in error.

You cannot appeal to the notion of implicit threat to ban nerve gas, bio-weapons and explosives -- of any type -- in the vicinity of others, and then require that threats be "actual", reducing to overt verbal statements that you plan to use the weapons. So what do you say constitutes a "threat"?

[adrock3215]

When I buy a tank, I am not initiating force on anyone, nor breaking a contractual agreement, nor claiming that the state no longer has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. To claim that the state has the right to regulate who may and may not own certain weapons based on how frightful they are to you invents duties for the government that it does not legitimately have.

You're wrong and I can guarantee you that you will never own a tank.

[Zip]

A lot of people seem to think that the danger posed by a tank, I'm talking actual physical danger when someone has already decided to initiate force is less than the danger posed by explosives, chemical weapons or even biological weapons, but in many many cases you would be just plain wrong.

Explosives, even the largest explosives have a rather limited range. A tank has a cruising range of 600km or more. Hell, without moving a tank I can engage a target out to 10km, and fire indiscriminately out to 24km.

Chemical and biological weapons have very limited ranges and often require sophisticated delivery apparatus's. they don't work very well in the cold or in the rain. A tank operates about the same regardless of the weather.

Ah, but when Johnny Rambo goes on his rampage in an M1A2SEP who is going to stop him? The majority of US cities do not have any military hardware available that could take out a tank. As we have seen before in videos, the people who do get their hands on these things often create millions of dollars worth of damage and threaten the lives of every person in their path. And, in each one of those videoed cases there were no functional armaments on the tank/dozer and the guy was left to run his course. Wacko #1 with his vial of anthrax or whatever can be shot dead rather easily.

Someone said earlier that the moment I point my tanks gun at you I have initiated a threat. That just isn't so. I have multi-barreled grenade discharger's at my disposal that throw grenades in all directions, how's that for indiscriminate. I can also play with the commanders override, in effect letting my gunner acquire, lase and pull the trigger on a target while holding the gun out of coincidence (not pointed at the 'target') until I release the override at which point the gun slews onto the target and fires automatically. Hell, with a class 3 laser (used in the laser range finder) I can severely damage your eyesight and you wouldn't even notice it.

[sanjavalen]

Yeah, well, I get email notification of replies, and you originally said:

So, in a moment of frustration over an argument, you hypothetically pulled out your loaded gun and pointed it at me. Had that happened in real time and you really pointed a loaded gun at me, I would have the right to take you down by force.

The same goes for owning a loaded tank. If you point it in my direction, I would have the right to take you down by force.

It's not an issue of potential versus actual, since you would have actually pointed a loaded weapon in my direction, which would lead to me taking the appropriate action of taking you out by force. Since the government is my agent of retaliatory force, they would have the authority to go in with guns loaded and take your loaded weapons away from you.

The point is that if you can't be trusted with a loaded computer not to give implied threats over the Internet in frustration, then how in the world could your neighbors trust you with a bee-bee gun, let alone a tank? If you get frustrated over them, and you point your weapons at them, they have the right to self-defense, and that would include disarming you and possibly throwing you in jail. In most states, including Texas, where I live, brandishing a weapon is a legal offense. And you most certainly brandished your weapon at me, hypothetically.

That's why you can't be trusted with a loaded tank.

Actually, the point was that its silly to say you can 'run for cover' if someone pulls a loaded gun on you with the intent to harm you.

I realized it could be construed as a threat and decided to change it.

And, again, individuals are not "trusted" with property rights - property is not a privilege, to be taken away when people are not "trusted" with it.

This discussion (on both sides) ought to address the question of what constitutes an objective threat. Earlier (post 7) you said "I can own explosives, but I cannot have them anywhere where the explosion might harm other people or property - an explosive being liked a gun pointed in every direction to the extent of its effects." Are you retracting that and removing that limitation? If not, then I don't understand your notion of "targeting". I live in an ordinary residential area, where I could kill a number of people and destroy maybe a million dollar's worth of property (Ohio property values are low, so that's a substantial figure) if I had 20 lbs of mercury fulminate in the garage. I wouldn't actually be "targeting" anyone by storing explosives, not even if I had a home H-bomb. I'd just be having my property, with no proven intent to use it against anyone. The only position I can see you taking that's consistent with your present statement "the only legitimate activities would be related to responding to the use of force - either actual threats, assaults, ..." is that your previous statement about explosives, including home nukes, was simply in error.

You cannot appeal to the notion of implicit threat to ban nerve gas, bio-weapons and explosives -- of any type -- in the vicinity of others, and then require that threats be "actual", reducing to overt verbal statements that you plan to use the weapons. So what do you say constitutes a "threat"?

Can I point a gun at you? Even if I argue after the fact that it was unloaded and therefore "no threat"?

No, obviously not. I also can't leave a machine gun nest on my front porch pointed at your front porch - the threat there is obvious as well.

Similarly, an explosive stored in a place is (as I said) like a gun pointed in every direction up to the extent of its effects. So the principle stands.

[DavidOdden]

Can I point a gun at you? Even if I argue after the fact that it was unloaded and therefore "no threat"?

No, obviously not. I also can't leave a machine gun nest on my front porch pointed at your front porch - the threat there is obvious as well.

Similarly, an explosive stored in a place is (as I said) like a gun pointed in every direction up to the extent of its effects. So the principle stands.

Since you take "threat" to refer not just to actual threat but to implicit threat, then a cannon is equally well a threat, when it is "within range" of others. In short, it seems to me that your position reduces to outlawing possession of certain functioning weapons, given a certain proximity to other people and property. I can have my 20 lbs of mercury fulminate on my ranch if I'm far enough away that it can't do anyone any harm, and the minute I move it within range of other people and property, it's jail city for me.