Owning a Tank

[Thales]

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

You've got to love that guy! All of the p.c. education vilifying guns and he builds his own tank!!! Beautiful.

[gags]

I don't admit this in public, but I play paintball at the field that the guy with the tank mentions in the video. The place is a riot.

[flyboy2160]

..... 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.......

The hostile military force "they" were worrried about was the one from a tyrannical U.S. govenrment. The Second Amendment would have to be rewritten to not allow the citizens to own the weapons to oppose the

the U.S. government or the intent of the Founding Fathers would have to be ignored. I'm not in favor of either.

.....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......

These weapons were allowed in private hands.

I've long advocated applying a basic principle of tort law to this case: an injunction against an activity that could cause irreparable harm. Granted, for instance, against your 10-foot-away neighbor filling his open topped swimming pool with gasoline. But not granted if he fills it in the middle of his 2-mile-on-a-side ranch.

This is going to be a controversial subject, especially given the irrational, bizarre, "competive government" position of the Libertarians, but I'm with the Founding Fathers: the citizens should have arms as a check against the potential tyranny of their government.

LOLOLOLOLOL So, what was that used tank website again?

[Mammon]

http://shizzville.com/stolen-tank-san-diego-war-fun-all

See, if someone had one of these parked in there backyards, what are the chances of this happening again?

[Tom K.]

The hostile military force "they" were worrried about was the one from a tyrannical U.S. govenrment. The Second Amendment would have to be rewritten to not allow the citizens to own the weapons to oppose the

the U.S. government or the intent of the Founding Fathers would have to be ignored. I'm not in favor of either.

Yes, that was a primary motivation, but since the Founding Fathers also had issues with a standing army, they intended for citizen soldiers to fight hostile foreign invaders as well. Even with a standing army, they couldn't fathom the American people sitting at home and not defending their nation.

These weapons were allowed in private hands.

I've long advocated applying a basic principle of tort law to this case: an injunction against an activity that could cause irreparable harm. Granted, for instance, against your 10-foot-away neighbor filling his open topped swimming pool with gasoline. But not granted if he fills it in the middle of his 2-mile-on-a-side ranch.

This is going to be a controversial subject, especially given the irrational, bizarre, "competive government" position of the Libertarians, but I'm with the Founding Fathers: the citizens should have arms as a check against the potential tyranny of their government.

LOLOLOLOLOL So, what was that used tank website again?

I'm well aware of who owned what, hence why I mention their intent. I only say probably simply because I wasn't there

However, simply defending one's right to have arms against a potentially tyrannical US government is short sighted. There are plenty who would argue that the US government won't become tyrannical. Sure, they're deluded, but they also outnumber us. Laying out other situations, which I'm sure the Founding Fathers envisioned as well, is simply a tool I use when discussing matters like this.

[gags]

You've got to love that guy! All of the p.c. education vilifying guns and he builds his own tank!!! Beautiful.

If you're really interested in armoured fighting vehicles (particularly the WWII variety), the place to go is the Army Ordnance Museum in Aberdeen MD.

http://www.ordmusfound.org/

[horvay]

There are two parts to this argument that MUST be outlined to go any further with this:

1) The philosophical side

2) The science of law side

Once we can agree on the philosophical part of this, and prove that whatever the philosophical conclusion is, is practical-- then we can move it to the science of law to implement more of the details of it.

The philosophical side

Let us first look at the two extremes: a butter knife, and a nuke. Obviously, it would be morally wrong to restrict the butter knife, while probably not for the nuke.

Man has a right to wealth; that is, he has a right to own material products. The only way one man's right to what he owns should be restricted, is if he violates another's rights through physical compulsion.

Is a butter knife threatening to someone while spreading butter on bread? No. Is it threatening to hold it up to someone else's neck? Of course. This presumes that a threat is a form of physical compulsion and can be handled by the government.

Now the same with a nuke. Is there any way to use a nuke, and not have it be a threat to someone? No. Having a nuke within a certain radius is just like holding a gun to someone. I sure wouldn't piss off the guy who has a nuke in his basement.

So our philosophical answer is simply: if an object is being used as threat, or more abstractly, a form of physical compulsion, then it is within the government's domain to seize it.

The science of law side

I am not a lawyer, and do not study law. But hey, most law students in colleges today just study common law anyways, and thats hardly a good example

I agree with San's way of determining a threat, but I'd like it make it more general. If one is in the area of blast of another's weapon, then it can be considered a threat. One being in the "area of blast" in this case means, if the weapon were to go off (or be used), if one would be effected by it physically, then one is in the "area of blast" (AOB).

So with a butter knife, one is only in the AOB if it is being held up to them. For a nuke, one is in the AOB within a huge radius, and therefore should almost always be against the law. That is, unless there is previous agreement, ie, "sure, house your nuke next to my house, I don't care."

Tanks

If a tank had its weapon removed, the question would be easy, since it would have no direct AOB. If it does have a weapon, then its AOB would be where ever it is pointing. So if the tank kept it's gun low (at the ground) or if the owner made a deal with his neighbor, then it should be perfectly legal.

If a person owned a nuke, and had 100s of square miles of land, then he too could own a nuke.

So basically, the argument comes down to an analysis of threat. And if I had to chose now how to implement this, I'd use the concept of AOB to assess the threat, and the legality of owning any piece of equipment capable of harm.

Any thoughts?

[horvay]

One being in the "area of blast" in this case means, if the weapon were to go off (or be used), if one would be effected by it physically, then one is in the "area of blast" (AOB).

I forgot to mention that having any property in another's AOB, without previous consent, would also constitute a threat.

[Zip]

I just wanted to say that after another discussion about this in the chat with sanjavalen I have reversed my position. I now understand that any prohibition against ownership on the grounds of what might, could or may happen is nothing less than the first breath of the nanny state.

To prohibit based on conjecture is to institute the idea of thought crime, or rather thought crime by proxy in which the state thinks that you might think to initiate violence with X, Y or Z just because you have it.

[Scott_Connery]

Now the same with a nuke. Is there any way to use a nuke, and not have it be a threat to someone? No. Having a nuke within a certain radius is just like holding a gun to someone. I sure wouldn't piss off the guy who has a nuke in his basement.

Yes there is a way to use a nuke without threatening anyone. The main proposed use (and the only currently available way to make space travel affordable) is nuclear powered space-craft. Project Orion

[Greebo]

Yes there is a way to use a nuke without threatening anyone. The main proposed use (and the only currently available way to make space travel affordable) is nuclear powered space-craft. Project Orion

I think you're using the term "nuke" in a different context.

A "nuke" in the context provided means a nuclear detonation device. A nuclear detonation would be, I believe, useless for space travel.

A nuclear reaction, however, such as is used in submarines, sounds like what you mean.

And yet I'm not sure how a nuclear reactor would make space travel feasible either - nuclear reactors generate heat, which are converted to steam, which is converted to electricity, which turns the propellers on a sub. This would not work on a space craft to generate thrust.

[horvay]

Yes there is a way to use a nuke without threatening anyone. The main proposed use (and the only currently available way to make space travel affordable) is nuclear powered space-craft. Project Orion

That would be wrapped up in a contract however, and if its a single person's property, then just having enough space is enough. I was talking about in a city or suburban area here.

[Zip]

I think you're using the term "nuke" in a different context.

A "nuke" in the context provided means a nuclear detonation device. A nuclear detonation would be, I believe, useless for space travel.

A nuclear reaction, however, such as is used in submarines, sounds like what you mean.

And yet I'm not sure how a nuclear reactor would make space travel feasible either - nuclear reactors generate heat, which are converted to steam, which is converted to electricity, which turns the propellers on a sub. This would not work on a space craft to generate thrust.

Actually there is the idea that directed nuclear explosions could be used as propulsion for a spacecraft.

[Greebo]

Actually there is the idea that directed nuclear explosions could be used as propulsion for a spacecraft.

Well, ok, its an idea.

I'd have to seriously question it, however. Its not much different from the idea of controlled detonations of dynamite being used for the same purpose. Sure, it works in a combustion engine, but because the recurring explosive cycle is translated to torque.

In travel through an empty medium, such an explosive thrust would have to be used directly as thrust, and so one would need a way of containing that thrust and releasing it in a regulated fashion, so as not to cause whiplash from the massive jolts of acceleration.

Not the most feasible idea, I think. Still, obviously I could be wrong.

[Inspector]

Actually there is the idea that directed nuclear explosions could be used as propulsion for a spacecraft.

This.

[Scott_Connery]

I know it sounds a little crazy, but with a big ship and little nukes, the jolts would be fairly managable. The upside is that nearly half of the crafts total launch weight ends up in orbit. With conventional chemical rockets the best you get is 3 or 4% of the start weight in orbit.

This means that dollars per pound in orbit figure is drastically cheaper.

[Greebo]

I know it sounds a little crazy, but with a big ship and little nukes, the jolts would be fairly managable. The upside is that nearly half of the crafts total launch weight ends up in orbit. With conventional chemical rockets the best you get is 3 or 4% of the start weight in orbit.

This means that dollars per pound in orbit figure is drastically cheaper.

Ok for short trips, I can see it. I dunno about for launch vehicles, mind you. Do YOU want nuclear radiation being released into the atmosphere, well, *anywhere*, to provide liftoff? I dunno about you, but I think I have a right not to get radiated by fallout.

[Zip]

Ok for short trips, I can see it. I dunno about for launch vehicles, mind you. Do YOU want nuclear radiation being released into the atmosphere, well, *anywhere*, to provide liftoff? I dunno about you, but I think I have a right not to get radiated by fallout.

As far as I know this idea is proposed for propulsion once a craft is already in space, not as a means of achieving orbit.

[Scott_Connery]

The wikipedia article I linked to talks about how it was planned from the get go as a launch vehicle. It also talks about ways to mitigate radiation to quite manageable levels.