Reading the 2nd Amendment, I take it to mean that no arm should be withheld from the individual since it would be unconstitutional. I invariably run into the retort: “then individuals should have to be allowed to have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons too”.
The libertarian response might be “damn right!” asserting that there are more instances where countries have used these types of weapons against individuals rather than individuals against other individuals.
Other 2nd Amendment proponents might simply dismiss the argument as rhetoric without giving any rationale as to why one is allowed and not the other.
Usually, arguments against the 2nd Amendment claim that when it was written, arms couldn’t kill more than one or two people in an instant and that the framers didn’t have the foresight to envision our advanced weaponry when they wrote it. I find this argument hard to swallow too.
I really don’t think anyone here would feel comfortable with their next door neighbor owning a nuke, sarin, or anthrax. On the other hand, how does this not go against the 2nd Amendment, and if this should be an exception, why not full-automatic weapons?
I have my own thoughts on this, but I was curious to see what others here would think.
What if your neighbour owns AIDS… in his blood?! Oh, nevermind, that already happens.
Do you know how long and complex is to make a nuke? All the infra-structure that is required? Well, if someone can mine uranium, than build his own super tech centrifuger to proccess the uranium til it reachs a 95% of U-235, then this person deserves his nuke.
Why would anyone waste time, resourses and knowledge on the creation of weapons that are inacurate (in the sense of self defence) and also dangerous, expensive and hard to maintain and fire? Not to mention the possibility on killing him/herlself in the preocess of making, maintaining or firing it.
What would you say to someone who’s doesn’t want to remove restrictions on WMDs for fear of a Sarin attack like they had in Tokyo or a dirty bomb attack like in Russia? I know the fact that they happened is proof restrictions don’t always work, but it’s still a tough sell.
Ok then lets assume they want to kill (other) people.
To get all the necessary equipment is very hard. The people needed to operate/build it and even the material itself to go from raw material into a ready to use bomb is a long and an advanced road. I don’t see how the person(s) is gona avoid going socially suicide as not most people would not feel comfortable with the notion of suppling people with material to a bomb that they have no idea where and when it’s gona go off. Not to mention the neighbors or the target in questions find out they are probobally gona come and ask questions, or shoot you on sight.
Why would anyone want any kind of a Weapon of Mass Destruction? By the very nature of the term–and the nature of the weapon itself–WMDs serve no defensive purpose.
By asking the question “What do libertarians think about owning WMDs?”, of course the answer is going to be: “Yes”. The individuall is free to pursue whatever goals s/he sets for themself so long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of other individuals.
I would like to think that in a truly free society, however, we shall also have freed ourselves of the need for things that serve no constructive purpose. WMDs fit into that category.
There are thousands of ways to kill people. No one has the moral authority to prohibit anyone else from property. The world is not a safe place, which is why we have to be intelligent about our own defense, families and communities.
The development of WMDs is the greatest hope for world peace. Nothing evens up the odds in large scale conflict like WMDs. It is the ulitimate deterent against aggressive states. It opens up the possiblilty for small groups of people, organizations, and small states to be able to effectively defend themselves against aggressive states. In the same way that hand guns make violent crime impractical, WMDs make total war impractical. The fact that the US Federal government restricts domestic gun rights indicates its totalitarian ambitions. The fact that it tries to enforce the nuclear nonproliferation treaty indicates its imperial ambitions.