Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Owning a Tank

Rate this topic


Mammon

Recommended Posts

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.

You need to read what Tenure said. It's very relevant in this context. He basically said that the government monopoly on force justified governmental decisions on the appropriateness of certain weaponry. If the government has no monopoly on force or on the tools to exercise force then what good is it to have a government and not just a bunch of agencies from which we could pick and choose as a means of defending ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sanjavalen,

You mention property rights, and how people aren't 'trusted' with rights, but instead, that they are implicit in being a human. Well, that's only half-true, in that, for rights to exist in any meaningful form, there actually has to be a government to protect those rights. Men are justified to have their rights, but it is meaningless if it isn't backed by a retaliatory force (since the only way to violate a right is through initiating force). Now, if you look back at what I said, I didn't say men are trusted with rights, I said:

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.

[bold added]

The point is, that we accept the right to the use of force is only proper when used by the government, to protect the civilians within it. But that is not to say one can't own a weapon for self-defence. However, that self-defence has to be within the constraints of the law. One needs to be able to prove in an objective court of law, that the level of force used was appropriate to the situation. One doesn't oversteps one's bounds, or one enters into the field of vigilantism. Why even have a government, if we trust people with weapons so deadly, so sophisticated, that it far outstrips the weaponry of any likely mugger?

Now, granted, as I said, if most criminals started driving around in Panzers attacking people, you would be justified in owning and using a tank to defend yourself - however, when that much force is necessary, one is not living in a normal society but instead in a military zone, and we are really stepping outside the bounds of law and the whole point becomes null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why even have a government, if we trust people with weapons so deadly, so sophisticated, that it far outstrips the weaponry of any likely mugger?

No one is proposing that in an Objectivist society it would be legal to roam the streets with some kind of armored vigilante force. What some of us are proposing is that it is perfectly acceptable to collect and enjoy military vehicles or weapons. There are many more reasons to own weapons or vehicles than defense against muggers. Why is this the only one that garners your approval?

We now that right now there are many private owners of fully functional tanks, and artillery pieces. They are not causing havoc of any sort.

Why are you so keen to make a harmless and enjoyable hobby illegal, when we already have direct evidence that it works out just fine?

Edited by Scott_Connery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More fundamental are the principles involved.

First, we have peolpe arguing that it is rightful for the government to use force against an individual because this individual has the means of challenging the government's monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. This is the view expressed by those people arguing that the police has no anti-tank weaponry and other similar arguments.

This view contradicts the principle that the initiation of force is forbidden to the government, as well as to individuals. To avoid the interference from any other considerations, let us assume that one man owns a fully functional tank and ammunition for it. he keeps it on acres of his own land and never loads the gun. If the government used force to take this man's property, on the excuse that he could use it to challenge the monopoly on the use of force, this government is initiating force.

Second, the view that owning weapons is allowed by the government as a result of the individuals need to defend himself. This is the idea being defended when it is argued that you don't "need" a bazooka to defend your home, or that when criminals are driving panzers, only then is it ok to own a tank.

This view is flawed because it inverts the direction rights "flow". Every individual has the right to defend himself by force. This right is not constrained to "proportionality", an individual has every right to blow a guy away with a bazooka if he invades his property and threatens him with violence of any sort. It is the individual who delegates his right to use retaliatory force in "non emergency" situations to the government, not the government who grants the individual a limited right to defend himself.

Third, the view that certain things present an inherent threat. This is the idea that certain things, such as nuclear material, biological hazards or large amounts of conventional explosives represent a threat to others by simply being there. The metaphor between a gun and a bomb where the bomb is like a gun pointed in every direction is an example of this argument.

This view has some merit, but also some issues. First, it is evident that a nuke, a stockpile of nerve gas or a large amount of explosives is a risk to people nearby. But is it a threat?

The gun metaphor plasters over a very significant distinction: to point a gun at someone indicates intent, precisely because the gun can be targeted. This is the reason (or at least a major part of the reason) why pointing a gun is a threat. With a bomb, although it is "pointed at every direction", you cannot assume that the owner intends to point it in any direction. To assume otherwise would mean you would have to consider a man with a holstered firearm to be threatening anyone who happens to cross the weapon's line of fire.

The intent to use force is a necessary component of a threat. Simply having the means to threaten is not a threat in itself.

The government cannot simply forbid people from owning things because it makes maintaining a monopoly on the use of force easier (the reductio for this would be total disarmament). The government cannot legitimately constrain people to owning only the things they "need" to defend themselves. The government can't simply declare that owning something is a threat in itself - a threat has a necessary volitional component. Where does that leave us?

If the owner of the tank is actually training his gun on other people's houses or telling them he will blow them up if they don't comply with some wish of his - this is an objective crime, and no one here would argue about it. In my opinion, the problem of owning hazardous materials or military grade weapons has more in common with drunk driving than with pointing guns at people.

As with drunk driving, someone who has a backyard culture of ebola or a basement nuclear warhead may not have the intent to cause harm to others - but the likely outcome of his acts may nonetheless be the violation of other's life and property. It is not the driving that is a crime, though the driving itself creates a risk, but doing it in a condition where one is not reasonably expected to be capable of containing the results of one's actions on other's lives and property.

The fundamental issues, in my view, are:

Is the owner in control of the risk posed to other's lives and property?

1000kg of TNT is perfectly under control in the middle of a few acres of land, it is unlikely that it could be kept in a town house with any amount of safeguards. Fissile nuclear material is perfectly under control inside a nuclear powerplant's reactor, it would require the same level of containment if an individual wanted to keep the same amount is his home.

Is the owner threatening anyone with this material?

Threats may be overt or implicit, if in any way the item in question is used to threaten or intimidate anyone, that is a crime. Of course this applies to the baseball bat in the exact same way it applies to the grenade launcher.

To sum it up, the government must stop you from threatening other's lives and property intentionally or puting them at risk by negligence, imprudence or incompetence. It must not, however, violate your property rights because someone feels threatened or because someone does not think you "need" or "have a legitimate use" for it.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No one is proposing that in an Objectivist society it would be legal to roam the streets with some kind of armored vigilante force. What some of us are proposing is that it is perfectly acceptable to collect and enjoy military vehicles or weapons. There are many more reasons to own weapons or vehicles than defense against muggers. Why is this the only one that garners your approval?

We now that right now there are many private owners of fully functional tanks, and artillery pieces. They are not causing havoc of any sort.

Why are you so keen to make a harmless and enjoyable hobby illegal, when we already have direct evidence that it works out just fine?

I think it's kind of rude that I never really responded to this. I concede, I don't have an answer for why these things would be illegal outside of city bounds - perhaps they shouldn't be - but my thinking was very much city based. That is, a comissioned tank could not be owned in the city, simply because of its destructive power.

I think this is very much one of those issues which stems from the "Thought Control Part II" essay, basically the whole issue of Reasonable-Doubt, when applied to the law when considering censhorship of actions.

For example, an Objectivist city would hold it illegal to run around the streets naked displaying your genitals to every eye around you, as this would be considered a kind of harrassment, since it is reasonable to assume, beyond doubt, that this would highly disturb or upset most people.

But, as I say, for now, I have no answer, but I certainly feel it would be dangerous to allow the ownership of tanks and such things within city limits. Even the ownership of a Sub-Machine gun.

My view is that citizens should not carry anything more powerful than the average policeman carries. I was not, and am not stating, that the ownership of an SMG implies starting up a vigilante force. I merely meant that, the proper use of force is that by the government, or in personal self-defence, in proportion to the situation. The carrying of an SMG, then, implies the willingness to use force out of proportion to most situations.

That said, I'm not so sure stock-piling weapons, with the express purpose and justification, and proof, that they would be kept in your house, should be illegal. Guns keep their value extraordinarily well, and are, especially considering the nature of currency, a better thing to stockpile than gold. One should be allowed to stock-pile them for trading purposes, but then I suppose some provision could be set up for this, just as one is allowed to produce nuclear waste, provided it is on a secure Nuclear facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

I stumbled across this and I had to share it. I know it is a bit off topic, but I thought you all might enjoy it.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=74223

Ha ha ha! What kind of stupid people call the cops after seeing a tank on a trailer?! Morons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of owning weapons is primarily self-defense, then the weapons themselves must be capable of doing that. Area effects weapons (bombs, mines, poison gas - in the extremity nukes) and heavy military weapons cannot by their nature be used to defend oneself or one's property exclusively. Even if "aimed" at a criminal, their use would in invariably harm otherwise innocent people. The nature of the weapons themselves makes such effects unavoidable. All of that is without considering the question of why would any rational person wanting to protect himself want or need weapons that by definition can't be used to do just that? Consequently, I see no reason why ownership of such weapons can't be banned or regulated. In this instance, the right of an individual to own property is balanced by the nature of the particular type of "property" in question, itself and the context within which the right is asserted.

The right of collectors to own non-functioning military vehicles and the like is not the same thing as owning fully active modern weaponry.

There are a number of instances in which the law properly punishes people for actions that do not explicitly involve a violation of someone else's rights. Conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are recognized as crimes even though the conspiracy may not yet have come to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of owning weapons is primarily self-defense, then the weapons themselves must be capable of doing that. Area effects weapons (bombs, mines, poison gas - in the extremity nukes) and heavy military weapons cannot by their nature be used to defend oneself or one's property exclusively. Even if "aimed" at a criminal, their use would in invariably harm otherwise innocent people. The nature of the weapons themselves makes such effects unavoidable. All of that is without considering the question of why would any rational person wanting to protect himself want or need weapons that by definition can't be used to do just that? Consequently, I see no reason why ownership of such weapons can't be banned or regulated. In this instance, the right of an individual to own property is balanced by the nature of the particular type of "property" in question, itself and the context within which the right is asserted.

The right of collectors to own non-functioning military vehicles and the like is not the same thing as owning fully active modern weaponry.

There are a number of instances in which the law properly punishes people for actions that do not explicitly involve a violation of someone else's rights. Conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are recognized as crimes even though the conspiracy may not yet have come to fruition.

This is good argument. What if you shoot a bazooka at a robber and missed (because it's kind of difficult to heat a moving man with a huge flying missle) and then hit your neighbors house, killing his three kids. Who is to blame in that situation for the deaths of the children?

Also, if you do have a fully functioning tank and say, some local hoodlums decided to take it out for a joy ride and go blow some peoples cars up, who is to blame in the situation? The owner may not have intended it to be used in that it was built to be used, but it ended up being used in that way nonetheless. Who's to blame for the property damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of owning weapons is primarily self-defense, then the weapons themselves must be capable of doing that. Area effects weapons (bombs, mines, poison gas - in the extremity nukes) and heavy military weapons cannot by their nature be used to defend oneself or one's property exclusively. Even if "aimed" at a criminal, their use would in invariably harm otherwise innocent people.

I think it would really depend on the threat. You can certainly use AOE weapons to defend yourself if the threat possess similar levels of firepower or is sizable. Admittedly this is unlikely short of a foreign invasion on US soil or the government suddenly went tyrannical.

Also, if you do have a fully functioning tank and say, some local hoodlums decided to take it out for a joy ride and go blow some peoples cars up, who is to blame in the situation? The owner may not have intended it to be used in that it was built to be used, but it ended up being used in that way nonetheless. Who's to blame for the property damage?

What if someone stole your kitchen knife and butchered your neighbors? What if someone stole your car and ran over an old lady? What if someone stole your gun and shot up a college campus?

Obviously the moral responsibility would lie with the hoodlum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of owning weapons is primarily self-defense, then the weapons themselves must be capable of doing that.

Except the right to own property is not derived from whether other people think you need it or not. To be perfectly clear: the government does not get to decide what people need or don't need. The only thing the government can do is determine whether someone is violating other people's rights.

This is good argument.

No, it is a terrible argument since it uses a needs based theory of property in place of the proper rights based theory of property.

What if you shoot a bazooka at a robber and missed (because it's kind of difficult to heat a moving man with a huge flying missle) and then hit your neighbors house, killing his three kids. Who is to blame in that situation for the deaths of the children?

You are, of course. The fact that you have a right to own a huge flying missile does not mean you are exempt from the consequences of acting foolishly.

Also, if you do have a fully functioning tank and say, some local hoodlums decided to take it out for a joy ride and go blow some peoples cars up, who is to blame in the situation?

The criminals, of course. This argument, if granted, could be used to forbid anything.

"What if someone takes your car and runs over old ladies on the sidewalk? Forbid cars!"

"What if someome takes your matchbox and sets fire to a children's hospital? Forbid matches!"

"What if someone takes your toast and force feeds it to a gluten intolerant person? Forbid bread!"

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area effects weapons (bombs, mines, poison gas - in the extremity nukes) and heavy military weapons cannot by their nature be used to defend oneself or one's property exclusively. Even if "aimed" at a criminal, their use would in invariably harm otherwise innocent people.
Without the correct context, this statement is clearly false. A bomb is not per se a threat, since a man with a small bomb living 20 miles from anyone else is absolutely no threat to someone else. Thus it's not the nature of the weapon, it's the relationship between the weapon and the physical context. The correct conceptual hierarchy is to prohibit threats, period, and then focus on what particular things are threats. For which reason, a given amount of a certain explosive in downtown Manhattan is a threat, and the same thing on a Montana ranch is not. Don't fall into the trap of intrinsicism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the correct context, this statement is clearly false. A bomb is not per se a threat, since a man with a small bomb living 20 miles from anyone else is absolutely no threat to someone else. Thus it's not the nature of the weapon, it's the relationship between the weapon and the physical context. The correct conceptual hierarchy is to prohibit threats, period, and then focus on what particular things are threats. For which reason, a given amount of a certain explosive in downtown Manhattan is a threat, and the same thing on a Montana ranch is not. Don't fall into the trap of intrinsicism.

The context is important, agreed. The portability of the weapon is part of that. A person with a certain amount of explosive in Montana can certainly move it to downtown Manhattan far more easily and covertly than he could a tank. Certain types of weapons e.g. bioweapons, could be threats no matter where they are located. It is thus both the nature of the weapon and the physical context which matter, and this is the essence of defining a threat and prohibiting them. That is the correct conceptual approach.

Except the right to own property is not derived from whether other people think you need it or not. To be perfectly clear: the government does not get to decide what people need or don't need. The only thing the government can do is determine whether someone is violating other people's rights

I think you're treating an abstract principle as a concrete and ignoring the full context. Rights exist within a social context and because we live in a society. The government's responsibility for protectng rights depends on certain conditions. There is a difference between my wanting to own a car or anything that in the ordinary course of action "might" cause harm or that could be misused and my wanting to own something that cannot be used for anything except to cause harm, and that will cause harm to innocent people, even if used properly. What is "reasonable" becomes the defining criteria within the context in how the abstract principle is applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the right to own property is not derived from whether other people think you need it or not. To be perfectly clear: the government does not get to decide what people need or don't need. The only thing the government can do is determine whether someone is violating other people's rights.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Is this not really the end of this argument? :confused:

There is a difference between my wanting to own a car or anything that in the ordinary course of action "might" cause harm or that could be misused and my wanting to own something that cannot be used for anything except to cause harm, and that will cause harm to innocent people, even if used properly.

So let's say I live on 1000 acres of property out in the Colorado wilderness and I like to roam around my property in a tank. Perhaps I drive it down to my lake to go fishing. Maybe I like to take my nephews for a ride in it. Maybe I like to put potted plants all over it and use it for decor. :P How is that causing harm to anyone? A tank certainly CAN be used for purposes other than to harm people or property.

Neither you nor the government should have the right to tell me that I cannot own something because you cannot find a reason for me to have it. The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is an old topic, but it deals with some issues I've studied a fair amount...use of force and civilian ownership of weapons.

I can't speak for anyone in the UK, but only in regards to the US. However, the Second Amendment, which is there to protect our right to keep and bear arms, was there not just for protecting our home in the event of burglary, but also against a hostile military force. As such, it was probably their intent to allow civilian ownership of things like tanks, heavy artillery, mortars, and the ammunition for these weapons. How better to fight a hostile force than with the best weapons available.

What most weapon control laws boil down to is trying to maintain a balance (if even that) between my rights to defend myself against all hostile threats and the "common good" of all by not having civilian ownership of weapons more significant than small arms (and plenty want to take those away too). Instead, it should be about punishing those who use property in a manner which threatens or harms other individuals. Nothing more. If I point my pistol at someone without just cause, I've committed aggravated assault and should be charged and punished accordingly. The same would be true of military weaponry.

As for things like weapons of mass destruction, I personally see them in the same light. I don't like it, but just because I don't like have a right doesn't mean I should deny others their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for things like weapons of mass destruction, I personally see them in the same light. I don't like it, but just because I don't like have a right doesn't mean I should deny others their rights.
I agree, but they don't have the right to threaten my existence. That's where you draw the line: others don't have a right to threaten you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But their mere existence isn't necessarily a threat. It's the use of them (either through use or through direct threat) that is the wrong, not necessarily the possession of them.

Now, if it's difficult to contain, then I see no issue with requiring expensive storage systems to prevent accidental release of a WMD. And that cost would go a long way toward cutting down on people having something like that just for fun.

The fact is, criminals and those who are criminally minded will still get their hands on stuff like this. Laws and regulation only regulate the law abiding, who are the people you have to worry about least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But their mere existence isn't necessarily a threat. It's the use of them (either through use or through direct threat) that is the wrong, not necessarily the possession of them.
The problem isn't ownership, rather it's presence and viability as weapons. Thus my owning a silo of sarin isn't a threat, the silo of sarin is the threat. And a silo of sarin isn't an intrinsic threat, it's only a threat in the context of other people. Supposing for example I owned Australia and nobody lived there, then my silo of sarin in the midst of Australia isn't a threat. It is a threat in New York City.

Threats, which are a form of the initiation of force, do have to be judged, meaning that you have to look at the facts to determine whether there is sufficient reason to see some action (like the keeping of a silo of sarin in the middle of Manhattan) is a threat. It is not only not required that you wait for the terrorist to kill millions before concluding that he had something bad in mind (he was initiating force), you really should not wait that long. Similarly, if a guy is brandishing a weapon in your direction, you ought to take that threat seriously. Sure, he can say "I didn't plan to actually pull the trigger", but there's no way that you can be sure of that. That's why it's right for you to stop the threatener's actions. The judgment of the line between innocent and threatening actions has to do with the nature of the weapon.

Now, if it's difficult to contain, then I see no issue with requiring expensive storage systems to prevent accidental release of a WMD. And that cost would go a long way toward cutting down on people having something like that just for fun.
That's a plausible restriction. Thus the distinction between a functioning tank and a non-functioning tank is important; a WMD which was in a failsafe container (whatever that would be) would also resolve the problem. The problem is not limited to accidental firing, it of course also includes intentional firing. Technically speaking, this prohibits the private possession of H-bombs, simply because it is impossible to guarantee their security. But if there were such a thing as an inviolable stasis field, then in principle a man could have an H-bomb in Manhattan, though he could never do anything with it.
The fact is, criminals and those who are criminally minded will still get their hands on stuff like this. Laws and regulation only regulate the law abiding, who are the people you have to worry about least.
Well, they are most effective against the law-abiding. However, if the individual possession of H-bombs were legally allowed, then there would be no basis at all in a law-governed society for stopping a terrorist with an H-bomb, and that would be a real problem. Passing a law doesn't solve the whole problem, it still has to be enforced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't ownership, rather it's presence and viability as weapons. Thus my owning a silo of sarin isn't a threat, the silo of sarin is the threat. And a silo of sarin isn't an intrinsic threat, it's only a threat in the context of other people. Supposing for example I owned Australia and nobody lived there, then my silo of sarin in the midst of Australia isn't a threat. It is a threat in New York City.

Hence my suggestion about containment systems. Another reasonable restriction would be X acreage required for storage, hence eliminating the potential of accidental release of something as nasty as Sarin or VX.

Threats, which are a form of the initiation of force, do have to be judged, meaning that you have to look at the facts to determine whether there is sufficient reason to see some action (like the keeping of a silo of sarin in the middle of Manhattan) is a threat. It is not only not required that you wait for the terrorist to kill millions before concluding that he had something bad in mind (he was initiating force), you really should not wait that long. Similarly, if a guy is brandishing a weapon in your direction, you ought to take that threat seriously. Sure, he can say "I didn't plan to actually pull the trigger", but there's no way that you can be sure of that. That's why it's right for you to stop the threatener's actions. The judgment of the line between innocent and threatening actions has to do with the nature of the weapon.

This is where I got into trouble. Your example of a guy waving a gun in my direction is what I refer to as a "direct threat". In other words, the threat is implied through direct actions, rather than a verbal threat directed at me. The same would be true of owning a functioning tank. So long as it's operation is not directed at any individual in a threatening manner, I see no problem here. How would one operate it without the potential for threat? Well, the X acreage requirement would probably be sufficient. Leaving that area, without special permission (like using the tank in a Veteran's Day or July 4th parade for example)

That's a plausible restriction. Thus the distinction between a functioning tank and a non-functioning tank is important; a WMD which was in a failsafe container (whatever that would be) would also resolve the problem. The problem is not limited to accidental firing, it of course also includes intentional firing. Technically speaking, this prohibits the private possession of H-bombs, simply because it is impossible to guarantee their security. But if there were such a thing as an inviolable stasis field, then in principle a man could have an H-bomb in Manhattan, though he could never do anything with it.

OK, very valid point. Security of something like a nuclear weapon would be an extremely important issue that would have to be sufficiently addressed, if for no other reason that security. In truth, I have no use for weapons of this type and even if legal I wouldn't seek ownership over anything of the type. However, I understand that the founding fathers didn't want the civilian populace (the militia in the Second Amendment) to be out gunned by the government. Hence the problem for me ^_^

Well, they are most effective against the law-abiding. However, if the individual possession of H-bombs were legally allowed, then there would be no basis at all in a law-governed society for stopping a terrorist with an H-bomb, and that would be a real problem. Passing a law doesn't solve the whole problem, it still has to be enforced.

True, passing a law doesn't necessarily solve anything, but enforcement is more problematic than many seem to understand. For example, the owner of a hydrogen bomb isn't likely to carry it around in the back of a pick-up truck. He will, of course, be sneaky about it making it more difficult to capture him. Not only that, but if he's a jihadist, he's just as likely to detonate it than to be arrested.

However, I do see your point. Laws do make it more difficult for the criminal nature (such as terrorists) to get their hands on such weapons. It doesn't, however, make it impossible. It simply means that civilians can't legally match up with the terrorist on this one. Of course, I can't think of any way me owning a nuclear weapon would enable me to defeat a terrorist with one...or really anyone since I wouldn't have any intent to actually use the damn thing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one operate it without the potential for threat? Well, the X acreage requirement would probably be sufficient. Leaving that area, without special permission (like using the tank in a Veteran's Day or July 4th parade for example)

The Danger template for a 105mm Tank Gun is over 20 km.

This whole discussion leads to another question. Do you want the police to be armed with Tanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I got into trouble. Your example of a guy waving a gun in my direction is what I refer to as a "direct threat". In other words, the threat is implied through direct actions, rather than a verbal threat directed at me.
I assume you mean "rather than requiring an explicit verbal threat". If a guy says (credibly) "I'm gonna shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet", I'm not gonna wait for him to produce the piece and aim it at me.
However, I understand that the founding fathers didn't want the civilian populace (the militia in the Second Amendment) to be out gunned by the government. Hence the problem for me ^_^
I think it is a problem, and I really do not know exactly how it should be resolved. The law correctly recognises that men have the right to possess weapons; and the framers did also recognise that it may be right and necessary for men to declare a new government and to resist a tyrant by force, towards which end people should not be totally disarmed and incapable of resisting a dictator. But in fact we don't live in a dictatorship, and it would be a very good thing if the Lunatic Idaho Militia were actually outgunned by the government (especially if the Idaho branch joined forces with the Lunatic Michigan Militia and the Lunatic Texas Militia and so on).

So my take on this overthrowing the government thing is that it is a bad idea for it to be possible to overthrow the government, at least as long as you're not living in a brutal dictatorship. If the situation here changed so that the chief executive became President for Life and was addressed as Glorious Leader, developing the clandestine ability to declare a new government would be a good idea.

Of course, I can't think of any way me owning a nuclear weapon would enable me to defeat a terrorist with one...or really anyone since I wouldn't have any intent to actually use the damn thing ;)
Much appreciated. Lemme tell you, much appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion leads to another question. Do you want the police to be armed with Tanks?

If there were civilian ownership of operational tanks, and a risk that such tanks be used in crime (which unfortunately there would be), then sure.

I assume you mean "rather than requiring an explicit verbal threat". If a guy says (credibly) "I'm gonna shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet", I'm not gonna wait for him to produce the piece and aim it at me.I think it is a problem, and I really do not know exactly how it should be resolved.

Unfortunately, the law requires more than the verbal component of the threat for use of lethal force in most instances. However, many states are pretty open to what form that must take. The pistol being visible and pointed at someone, in most cases is a credible threat by law. Just saying they're going to shoot you crosses the line for many jurisdictions. Of course, I live in a Castle Doctrine state, and I can use force to stop any "forcible felony".

Now, from a purely philosophical point of view, I agree with you completely. The problem is how can you be sure of how credible someone simply saying "I'm going to shoot you" really is? Of course, if he says it, then reaches for something suddenly, all bets are off.

The law correctly recognises that men have the right to possess weapons; and the framers did also recognise that it may be right and necessary for men to declare a new government and to resist a tyrant by force, towards which end people should not be totally disarmed and incapable of resisting a dictator. But in fact we don't live in a dictatorship, and it would be a very good thing if the Lunatic Idaho Militia were actually outgunned by the government (especially if the Idaho branch joined forces with the Lunatic Michigan Militia and the Lunatic Texas Militia and so on).

The thing is, we don't live in a dictatorship now. What's to say that we won't end up that way in another 20 years? The laws of today have a direct impact on the future of this nation. Poor understanding of the ramifications of those plans could be disastrous should laws be enacted that disarm the population to a point where a popular uprising can't overthrow a military force and then a dictator come to power. Now the civilian population is without means to resist.

As for the Lunatic Militias, it's also important to note how small these groups really are. Anything short of nuclear weapons in their possession, most of these people are out gunned (as in more guns possessed by) by a well equipped Boy Scout camp ^_^

So my take on this overthrowing the government thing is that it is a bad idea for it to be possible to overthrow the government, at least as long as you're not living in a brutal dictatorship. If the situation here changed so that the chief executive became President for Life and was addressed as Glorious Leader, developing the clandestine ability to declare a new government would be a good idea.

While I agree with you in principle, like I said, we can't know what the future will hold. If we disarm the populace now, there will be no means to acquire arms when/if a dictator were to ascend to power. Besides which, many believe that an armed populace actually deters a potential dictator from trying to assert himself in that role, as well as foreign invaders. I remember reading that the Japanese in World War II thought it to costly to invade the mainland US, believing that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Granted, I don't have a source for that, so I don't know how true it is...but I don't mind that rumor being spread around the world. Might make it less likely my descendants will ever need to use one in that manner.

Much appreciated. Lemme tell you, much appreciated.

I like things that go bang and boom, but even I have to draw the line somewhere ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kind of rude that I never really responded to this. I concede, I don't have an answer for why these things would be illegal outside of city bounds - perhaps they shouldn't be - but my thinking was very much city based. That is, a comissioned tank could not be owned in the city, simply because of its destructive power.

I don't see why any of my arguments are rural area specific. Are farmers lives less valuable than city dwellers lives?

But, as I say, for now, I have no answer, but I certainly feel it would be dangerous to allow the ownership of tanks and such things within city limits. Even the ownership of a Sub-Machine gun.

My view is that citizens should not carry anything more powerful than the average policeman carries. I was not, and am not stating, that the ownership of an SMG implies starting up a vigilante force. I merely meant that, the proper use of force is that by the government, or in personal self-defence, in proportion to the situation. The carrying of an SMG, then, implies the willingness to use force out of proportion to most situations.

This does not answer my question about the thousands of tanks/armored vehicles/artillery pieces currently owned, or the 10s of thousands of privately owned machine guns in our country. Most of the vehicles and weapons are owned within city limits somewhere. Where is the havoc that might justify restricting their ownership or storage to rural location?

That said, I'm not so sure stock-piling weapons, with the express purpose and justification, and proof, that they would be kept in your house, should be illegal.

This is exactly the opposite of how a free government works. An Objectivist government should default to saying every material object is legal to posess. It might then come up with a handful that could be outlawed, although I'm not sure off-hand what these would be.

It does not look at anything from the point of view of figuring out reasons why a thing should be legal to own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not answer my question about the thousands of tanks/armored vehicles/artillery pieces currently owned, or the 10s of thousands of privately owned machine guns in our country. Most of the vehicles and weapons are owned within city limits somewhere.

Are these tanks/armored vehicles equiped with main guns that operate? The ones I have seen are all "demilled" (made inoperable) or in calibers where ammunition is no longer available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these tanks/armored vehicles equiped with main guns that operate? The ones I have seen are all "demilled" (made inoperable) or in calibers where ammunition is no longer available.

Some of them are, some of them aren't. To have a functioning tank gun or artillery piece, you have to pay a $200 National Firearms Act tax to purchase a "Destructive Device"

There may also be difficulty importing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...