Your neighbor has tort rights with his property rights. It is not my job to be responsible for my neighbors feeling of security or safety, only for my negligence in my actions.

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.

To do otherwise puts success in self defense in the realm of the big, strong and those practiced in martial arts.
Separately, it would be far superior if the weapons the military had were spread among the citizens and states, not centralized.

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. .

Thank you, Mamaemma.

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?

I am honored to be your friend, K.
All the best!
Maritimus

Private Citizens stopped owning these weapons (like cannons) not because of laws, but because of costs. A simple cannon of that time was expensive, but still within the budget for any rich individuals to own and occasionally shoot. A modern high caliber Howitzer would cost ~$3.6 million, not counting the shells (guessing 5-10 thousand a pop)?

Military ships of that time were not much different than the Merchant ships (in complexity and cost). But if a private citizen were to build and launch a USS Iowa Battleship, it would cost ~$1,500 million. And that doesn't count the cost to staff it, keep it running, armament, and the fuel it guzzles.

According to the constitution and its history, anyone can buy any of these weapons if they have the cash floating around. But Modern Day interpretations interpret "Arms" as anything a soldier could carry. Such as a Rifle, Handgun, SMG's, Heavy or Light Machine Guns, Grenades, Explosives, Mines, Bladed Weapons (of various sizes), Shotguns (of all lengths), Mortars, and more I'm probably forgetting.

Many already do regardless of the myriad of laws, both state as well as federal. The bad guys will always have the weapons they desire regardless of how many asinine laws are passed! Truth be told!

My philosophical answer: YES! -- But with a few caveats... We have to see where the limits of the premise fail to make sense.

Let's say I discovered my next door neighbor exercised their 2A Right to secure a 'NBC' weapon. I would argue that if my neighbor also were inclined to talk about how proud he would be if his children were to sacrifice themselves in jihad... I would then feel perfectly justified, sending MY agents onto their property on a mission to prosecute their 'liberty' (with extreme prejudice). In other words, if I can't trust them with some 'unlimited' category of arms, I'd have to kill them.

Would I opt for the 1st strike if I learned they had acquired say a 50cal BMG? Probably not. But if he came onto my property brandishing even a little Springfield in a threatining manner, I'd deploy my Claymores in one of the various killzones protecting my perimeter.

However, since my neighbors are good people and I don't think about betrayals and no heightened state of alarm exists along our fence(line aka border).

And since we don't live in an arid climate, I've never even considered the restorative effort required if he decided to sow salt.

-- In Liberty!

Any weapon is an interesting way to frame the question. Should a person who can afford to and, is able to procure such a weapon, capable for instance of destroying the earth (hypothetically of course) be allowed to own that weapon? Of course the answer should be a resounding NO!

The argument if framed around the venerable 2nd Amendment leaves a certain amount of leeway however reasonable people would push back hard on extremes, especially in light of the concept of the 2nd amendment when put forward after the revolution.

Weapons that a well regulated, civilian militia were "REQUIRED" to have and maintain were limited to the type of firearm (musket - rifled perhaps), so many rounds of ammunition and other goods required to keep a militiaman in the field for a period of time.

This, I believe limits the 2nd amendment to something that is "reasonable" and would preclude many weapons that would not fit that particular model. It is not carte blanche' license to own and use any weapon that one feels compelled to acquire.

People shouldn't be "allowed" at all. No one or thing should have the power to "allow". Once you cede that point, herb, you have given away your freedom.

yes, it was a bad word choice, I concede

Ahhh, biological weapons, now that's an interesting thought....

excellent point. bad word choice

You make excellent points. I should have said "individuals" and I should not have said "allowed." thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, Martimus, I take your points. I am bemused that I said the word "allowed." clearly brainwashed. Thank you, my friend :)

Under a proper government the people give up the use of retaliatory (not a present danger) force, but not self defense. This is true under Rand and Locke.

If a government is not a proper government then you can use force in a revolution. Locke and the Founders were explicit on this point and it is implicit in Atlas Shrugged.

Under a proper government there is going to be very little interest in owning a rocket launcher, for example, except by historians.

More important than the types of weapons we can own in case of revolution was the Founders idea that we should not have a standing army. While taking this literally right now would not make sense, it also does not make sense to have police with military weapons nor to have our military still occupying countries 70 years after WWII.

Uranium bomb--yes. Plutonium bomb--no.

I do see your point and that is where I believe that we should be able to police ourselves (not the government) to prevent that neighbor from possessing something as dangerous as nukes or bio weapons.

The claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms is actually quite true.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” does indeed not GRANT the right, it acknowledges It’s existence!

The amendment can therefore be seen as re-enforcing an existing right by stating the need for militia being a particular reason for not infringing upon it. Other potential infringements are not addressed but they would nevertheless be just that, infringements.

“Someday, my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings.”

Francisco, in Atlas Shrugged.>>>>>

I came across this opinion by the Supreme Court.

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Therefore, you could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!
There are some who say that,” OK, you have the right to bear arms but at the time the amendment was written, there were only muskets etc. The Founding Fathers did not envision the modern weaponry of today and only were addressing the right to bear the arms that existed at that time.”
Well of course the weapons were what they were, but the Amendment was written in the context of the citizens being armed at the same level of weaponry as the Government. By that comparison, I see the Amendment as granting us the right to stockpile some tanks, a couple of F-111”s and a maybe a “Ship-of-the-Line.”

In that case, your question speaks to the wellspring of individual rights. Your use of the verb "allowed" implies an authoritarian basis and begs the question "allowed by whom?". Historically, these rights have been "authorized" as coming from:

1) God (authoritarian)
2) Man (authoritarian)
3) Inheritable from our nature as human beings (Natural law)

Since we no longer live in a state of nature (pre-civilization), these rights must be viewed within the context of the politico-economic system in which they are to be applied. In the beginning of America when the Federal Government was viewed as a creation of the States (individual colonies) and the States were the People, the "right to bear arms" as necessary to the survival of citizens and country was not questioned. Today, of course, that relationship of Individuals to States to Federal Government has been destroyed by an a small group of Marxists leading an army of brainwashed useful idiots. Their answer to your question would be that the private citizen should not be allowed any weapons whatsoever. My answer is whatever weapons that would be necessary to keep me, my family ,my neighbors, and my country safe.

I contend that the bad guys already have them.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

Hello, K,
It seems to me that it is important to accurately define terms in the key part of your question: "...citizens be allowed to own any weaponry...".
Philosophy deals with individual humans. Citizenship has no significance in that context.
As others have pointed out, almost anything can be used as a weapon.
"Allowing" implies an authority to infringe on liberty of living, i.e. restricting freedom of action.
Owning means freedom of action in using, consuming and disposing of property.
I think that Objectivist philosophy accepts the necessity of a government of limited powers for a successful and perpetual thriving of large groups of individuals.
In my view, the only area where government may interfere with the freedom of an individual is as a reaction to the individual's actions. So, a government has good reason to impose rational rules about minimizing the risks to other from the fact that an individual's property exists. That does not include the right of the government to take the individual's property out of existence on a whim, so to speak.
What I am trying conclude is that only actions on the part of the individuals can cause a reaction from others, including the government in "others". The individuals must not initiate the use of force.
Does this make sense to you?