Need versus Want In America

[TheEgg]

How about this answer?

"I am a member of the un-organized militia. As a result I NEED to be armed to the same level as the average soldier in the military. This includes full-auto shoulder arms, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, semi-auto handguns, etc. Only in this way can I fulfill my obligations to my country and my fellow Americans by being prepared in case the militia is required."

The way I answer such questions is as follows:

I have an inherent right as a human being to defend myself, and I have the derivative right to arm myself in any way I see fit to exercise that right. Period.

 

[Baba Louie]

I WANT to live in a FREE STATE.
Therefore I NEED to have the tools at hand enabling that WANT to occur.

I WILL live in a free state.

Hunting did you say? Only to be used for hunting tyrants, despots and other nefarious ner-do-wells who have no rightful place in THE Land of the Free.

Personally, (and maybe this is sour grapes talking) tho' I find full auto a lot of fun, I do think it a waste of ammunition and prefer the single well aimed shot concept of "Gun Control", but as in all things, YMMV.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One person's assault weapon is another person's defense weapon.

 

[ctdonath]

"I am a member of the un-organized militia...

Excellent point. Probably the best one.

Enhance it with: "Congress has unilaterally declared me a member of the US militia, per US Code, Title 10 section 311(a). As such, it is my duty to equip and train myself for domestic defense with an M16 machinegun, M24 sniper rifle, etc."

And perhaps embellished with "Since Congress has tasked me with protecting you, why do you insist on limiting my ability to do so?"

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One person's assault weapon is another person's curio, relic or ornament.

 

[iapetus]

Here comes the nuke red herring again.

Question is whether the one raising it is willing to discuss it.

It comes back to Cooper's Four Rules, generalized.

I read another good bit of reasoning on this issue (at Guncite, I think), this time based on the libertarian "non initiation of violence" principle:

A gun can be used without harming anyone (e.g. hunting/target shooting), or in legitimate defence against a person who is unjustly harming/threatening to harm (i.e. initiating violence against) you.

A nuke, on the other hand, is indescriminate, and cannot be used without instantly harming (initiating violence against) anyone within several miles of ground zero, and potentially harming anyone who is ever within tens or hundreds of miles, for many years to come.


In short, a nuke cannot be used without attacking innocents; a gun can. Therefor while it is quite right to say "a gun is merely a tool; there's nothing inherently bad about it", the same cannot be said about nukes.


That said, both that and the "4 rules" argument are based on principles that, while I would say are completely sound, are not laws or part of the (or a) constitution.

I'm not sure if you could square a prohibition on owning or using nukes with the 2nd Amemndment. (Except perhaps by invoking the "Right not to be Nuked" protected by the Ninth Amendment).

But then, while I strongly approve of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't actually apply to me, so I don't see a fundamental need to base my opinions on the ownership of nukes on it.