Government inevitably becomes corrupt and the more powerful the government the more rapidly this occurs. As Jefferson observed "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." If I must choose between anarchy and tyranny I will chose anarchy. The real reason for the second amendment is to assure the people can defend themselves against an oppressive government. This means equal footing when it comes to weapons.

This is puzzling and perhaps someone can help me figure out what happened. I read an interesting post by someone I did not recognize "rbuck[something]". While I was drafting a response (in Word) I accidentally closed the tab. Now I cannot find the post of rbuck.

Below is my partial answer:

Good discussion, rbuck. I have some comments.

First paragraph, "...own or possess something...". This is (to me) the hinge point. I think that if 'something' is a gun, the definition of who should be able to own it is “everyone” and then some exclusionary criteria applied: insane, felon, baby, etc. If the ‘something’ is a WMD, then I think the definition of ‘someone’ is “very few people” and the criteria are inclusionary (and level for all entities): possesses a Level 4 lab, has degree in nuclear physics, etc.

Second paragraph, “…[drugs are] rarely used as a weapon…”. I would restate this more as ‘rarely does damage to anyone other than the individual using it’. I agree with the points you make, but think that it is important to not allow future interpreters of the law to say that self-inflicted damage constitutes use as a weapon.

Third paragraph. As many people have noted, the disparity between weapons the people have and weapons the State has is a lot different now than in the 18th century, and our modern interpretations need to take that into account. However, since WWI, people have considered themselves patriots of their land and I think that the ability for a citizen army to keep their own people subdued is questionable, however large the discrepancy of armament. It is the willingness of civilians to fight back that is the key, and the possession of arms may be key to that willingness. I have seen video of people standing down armed military and tanks (both Russian) with their bare hands, but I think that raises the bar pretty high.

(there was more to rbuck's post, but this is as far as I got)

Jan

H--l, YES!!--Man has the right to self-defense. And
that is the purpose of government;self-defense and
retribution. And the citizen for whom this suppos-
edly exists has the right to have a weapon (at least,
at his own expense) to defend himself.

Not real sure if the alternative to the question posed is to own weapons collectively, but...
Just as one can own a car but is not allowed to mow down pedestrians, one should be allowed to own weapons - it's what is done with those weapons that becomes the philosophical part of the question: Whether that weapon is used to negate the individual rights of others or to protect yours from being taken.

I would say yes, excepting only WMDs.

But I don't think it's practically possible for individuals to outspend the federal government while still having an army that can defend the country. So I'd propose that we reverse the post-Civil-War "federalization" of the state militias (or at least make any federal call-up voluntary) while encouraging the large states to break up into smaller ones, thus re-creating locally-controlled (or at least state controlled) militias all over the country which together have the feds outgunned.

That's the way the founders set it up, and that's the way it should have stayed. And if it results in some successful secessions, that's a feature, not a bug.

Of course. If you can afford a fighter jet, buy it. As a citizen, you are buying it for the armed services already. If not, where are they getting the money to buy one?

The question should be reversed given the explicit wording of the Second Amendment. The real question should be does the government have a right to restrict such? The clear and unconditional answer is no.

I am not an objectivist by any way, shape or form. However I believe you have a right to defend yourself against whatever can be thrown at you. Does that mean a machine gun or a Nuke? I believe there have to be limits for all and we don't need to get into that gangster mode like in the 20's and 30's with Tommy Guns and such. As for nukes, well it seems as if all the bad actors in the world want one and if the opposition has one, then they want one also. If Iran gets one, bet on the Saudi's wanting one also. BOOM!!! the nuclear club just grew by 2 and those stupid Bast**ds are stupid enough to use them. Also if they use them, bet on India or the loonies in Pakistan to use their's also.

The basic premise of your question is flawed.....It assumes that someone has any say whatsoever over what rights we have as individuals, and what rights we don't have. The confusion over this comes from the "Bill of rights" in the Constitution.....People assume our rights therefore arise from this document...they don't. Our rights are god given. The constitution only enumerates the powers that the federal government has. The bill of rights was added later to specify specific rights that the feds could never infringe upon. There was a lot of argument at the time suggesting that the bill of rights not be added because people would then become confused as to where their rights came from....and this is what has happened. .

Without defining "weaponry" this question is nonsensical at best, a rhetorical trap at worst. And once one attempts to define "weaponry" the sky is the limit - fire arms, axes, knives, hammers, hypodermic needles, knitting needles, plant extracts and an endless list of other items can and have been used as weaponry.

"Private citizens" suffers from similar lack of definition, as does "should be allowed" - allowed by whom?

This is not a philosophical question, it is a political one.

I'm going to ask a question for another perspective...

Let's say I own a nuke, does my neighbor have the right to know?

If I were the neighbor, would I want to know?

I would love to claim the right to own any type of weaponry, but I think that this should fall under the 10th Amendment.

Presumably you are asking if I can have a nuke. I can't see any philosophical reason why not.

There might be some practical considerations about my using it and some concerns about what might happen if someone takes it from me.

From Wiki "...A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
If this is an acceptable definition, then anything from sticks and stones to aircraft carriers and nuclear devices would be weapons. I think the focus of the question needs to be narrowed.

No, not "any weaponry". The purpose of having a government is to bring force under objective control - the opposite of anarchy where everyone has to defend themselves and therefore must scramble to personally stay one better than the criminal elements.

We retain the right to reasonable personal arms under that system, because no reasonably constituted government can actually be hanging around as our protector all the time (and any government that was able to do that would become our oppressor itself in no time flat).

What "reasonable" is has to be defined by that objective legal system, including the votes of the population (the ones doing the delegating), and I don't think the precise position of the "line" can be defined in advance of the actual conditions in the country. Personally I would definitely include handguns but exclude automatics of any kind, but I haven't done enough research to be sure.

At the extreme end: you have the right to self defence, but you do not have the right to pre-emptively point your guns at someone else, as the act of pointing a weapon is initiating physical force against them. So indiscriminate weapons of mass killing (e.g. bombs, missiles, biological and chemical weapons) - which are effectively pointed at everyone within their radius of operation - are never properly under the control of private individuals.

I should be able to own any weaponry I want to protect myself from other people or my own government or other governments that violate my rights. The purpose of the second amendment was to limit government's power to take my weapons away while allowing IT to have them.

Ben Carson was right a few weeks ago- if the jews had guns, it would have been a LOT less likely Hitler could have done the holocaust.

Take our weapons away and governments historically just become more and more unfair and controlling.

See the book Ayn Rand Answers – The Best of Her Q&A by Robert Mayhew. Regarding gun control, Ayn Rand says, “I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it’s not of primary importance.”

Ayn Rand’s general position, as best I can determine from the two quotes below (from The Virtue of Selfishness), is that individuals have the right of self-defense, that in a free society they delegate this right to the government, and that the method by which this right is implemented can properly be determined by a majority vote. I take this to mean that citizens in an Objectivist country can adopt laws setting limits on the types of weapons that citizens can own.

“There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.”

“A free nation – a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its
Citizens – has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense). The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere.”

H--l, YES! Man has the u

Peter Schwartz addressed this subject, in part, in the November 15, 1980 issue of the Intellectual Activist titled "Guns and Knee-jerkism". (You can purchase a copy of this issue at the Ayn Rand Institute eStore: https://estore.aynrand.org/p/799/the-...

Schwartz states: "People have the right of self-defense and, therefore, the right to own guns. And the less adequate is the state's police protection, the more crucial that right becomes. (This does not, of course, mean that anyone ought to be permitted to carry any weapons he wishes. The government should certainly intervene when there is evidence that there exists a threat to innocent people -- for example, when someone carries a howitzer down the street, or when a minor or a convicted violent felon tries to buy a gun. But a gun in the hands of a normal adult does not in itself constitute a threat, and the government has no right to step in.)”

Whether or not any particular weapon represents an objective threat would depend on the following: (1) how safe is the weapon in the hands of a normal adult; that is, how easily it is controlled by the individual, and/or (2) how destructive is the weapon when used.

Most small arms require a very deliberate procedure for loading, arming and firing the weapon. And, even if a round is accidentally discharged after going through this procedure, the danger, though potentially serious, is limited.

A grenade, on the other hand, has no built in safety mechanisms and can cause great harm to anyone nearby if it is detonated.

A howitzer requires a very definite procedure for loading, arming and firing, but it is very destructive.

So, I would argue that there should be no conditions set on the ownership and use of small arms, subject to the two conditions above, and, like Schwartz, I would argue that government should set conditions on their ownership and use of more destruction weapons like grenades, howitzers, etc..

I would like to add that the government cannot properly ban any weapon. They can only set proper objective conditions of their ownership and use, subject to the two general conditions I mentioned above.

In an organized society there will always be a practical need to connect the ability to own or possess something with the capability and responsibility necessary to wield it properly. The amount of "responsibility" is directly proportional to the capacity for the misuse of something to cause harm. Even though hammers have been used to attack and kill people, they are not weapons of mass destruction, therefore I can walk into any Home Depot and buy a dozen no questions asked. I for one am glad this does not apply to shoulder fired missiles or nukes. We regulate prescription drugs and automobiles based on the premise that being a trained doctor or licensed driver demonstrates the necessary level of capability and responsibility. As easy as it is to grasp this concept, it is difficult to implement with respect to guns.

One point of difficulty is that guns (like drugs) are subject to criminal misuse and no amount of gun control (drug control) up to and including confiscation will do anything to stem the criminal use of guns. Unlike drugs (which are rarely used as a weapon and have no practical application in self defense), the removal of legal guns leaves the law abiding more vulnerable. Something which has been demonstrated over and over. There is more violent crime in areas where legal gun ownership or possession is limited. On the other hand, I would argue that a policy that makes acquiring and owning guns too easy will eventually put more deadly force in the hands of people who are incapable of acting responsibly. Like drugs, gun violence is more of a socioeconomic problem than a "hammer" problem.

The other conundrum for many gun owners is the belief that the Second Amendment was drafted to prevent a rogue administration from being able to easily subdue and suppress rebellion. So the very people who would be trusted to "regulating the militia" are the ones who need to be kept in check. While armed revolt may sound far fetched to most of us, it certainly was not to our founders. There are many examples throughout history where the populace was disarmed as a dictator rose to power, Hitler, Pol Pot.... A man with a deer rifle in a bell tower is no match for Seal-Team-Six, but a largely armed populace is still a significant deterrent. I think our founders were smart enough to envision this as a last resort and more valuable as a deterrent than a practical tactic for reform.

A "Freakonomics" cost benefit analysis of guns VS cars it might be interesting, number of deaths, number of lives saved, impact on global stability and economy, pollution and global warming, quality of life, mobility, sense of security..............

On one side of the argument we want to believes that all people are intrinsically good, want to work, and if only given the chance will contribute in a positive way to society, but are not responsible enough to be trusted with a gun; and the other side believes income inequality is the motivator necessary for most people be to be productive, that the more comfortable the safety net the more people we will catch, but everyone can own a gun. Who really has more faith in mankind?

People should be allowed to own anything short of weapons of mass destruction. If the person is rational, that person would have a rational reason for ownership; if that person is irrational there is likely no way to keep that person from ownership of an irrational object. Any time anything is banned, all that happens is that a black market springs up, providing the banned object to the public at an overpriced state. Evidence of that is legion, from liquor to porno, to automatic weapons.

I thought this was a well established difference between Libertarians and OBJ's.

Libs believe you have the right to own anything, OBJ's hold an "objective" limit to civilian application.

The argument I remember is that military arsenals are the most heavily fortified places on earth - fortification no civilian, however wealthy, could duplicate.

The fact you own a nuke makes you a danger to everyone around you. Not by your action necessarily, but by the actions of those who would steal it from you.

I believe the official OBJ stand is that just as gov't has a monopoly on the initiation of force - so too does it have a monopoly on national defense.

Can't remember which essay - but I know I remember this.

In theory, yes. But not everyone is responsible enough to handle the limited power of a simple firearm let alone one with devastating power. I really am okay with the current licensing of explosives and destructive devices and I think there are MORE than enough laws on firearms in general.

I heard someone make the argument that you could not have a nuclear bomb in your backyard. It's an extreme example, but it makes the point that you can't put your neighbors at risk with your weaponry. Interested in what other people think.