| o_O.Q said: you need nukes, battleships and tanks to defend america against which country? lol iraq? syria? iran? russia? those countries wouldn't have any problems with america if america didn't mess with them first but i'm digressing
" if you feel that the United States should maintain an organized and sophisticated military force"
well i don't there's no need for it but that's irrelevent
"and to have a reasonable discussion about which weapons should fall under that umbrella. "
well fine do that... how do you assess, therefore, which weapons are inappropriate for civilians use? if its by the lethality of the weapon in question then you should bans knives then hand guns then rifles but i'm jumping the gun here lets hear the criteria you propose |
Nukes are and (almost) always have been a deterrent, not a defense. And, well, Russia has nukes. So if there was any conceivable reason to have nuclear weapons, that would be it. I don't like them but I certainly don't think I would feel safer if the US gov't decided we don't need any of these things and decommissioned all of them.
You honestly don't think the United States needs an organized and sophisticated military? You think everyone in the world would just be really cool with us if we hypothetically had no military at all? Certainly the country has made its own enemies in the past and will continue to do so, but I don't see why that would stop being the case if we had no means to defend ourselves. With battleships I was speaking somewhat figuratively, but we do have a large active navy and not for no reason.
There's no objective way to measure a weapon's "lethality." I think we have to rely on common sense to the greatest extent we can. In other words, we start with the most 'common sense' agreement possible and work backwards from there: American citizens should be allowed to arm themselves; however, they should not be allowed to possess nuclear warheads. So, why not? What makes a nuclear bomb a "special" kind of weapon that exempts it from protection under the second amendment? What other weapons, if any, should be similarly exempted?
I think we can start by categorizing a weapon's defensive merits versus its aggressive merits. Again, this cannot be objectively measured. We have to rely on our better judgement. Obviously a nuclear bomb is an 'aggressive' weapon: it puts tremendous destructive and deadly power in the hands of a single person. Most importantly, it cannot be quickly deployed. Speed is of critical importance to a defensive weapon, because the aggressor will always have time on their side. A handgun also gives deadly force to an individual, but it also gives a very fast defense to a victim. It is a strong defensive weapon. Regular household implements such as knives and baseball bats are also defensive, being available at a moment's notice within the home.
If the aggressor is armed with a handgun, a nuclear warhead will not help you. You need a weapon that you can use as quickly as the aggressor can use their weapon despite not expecting to have to use it at that moment. Now we have some terms and can start to narrow things down in a realistic way without talking about absurd things like defending your family with a bunker-buster. A sniper rifle is an aggressive weapon. It isn't something you can pull out of your pocket or use effectively at close ranger. A rocket-propelled grenade is an aggressive weapon. Shotguns and rifles are defensive weapons. They are big and intimidating, and can be pulled out of a hall closet or from under a counter as easily as a baseball bat. They are highly effective at close range and are better at hurting a few people very badly than they are at hurting dozens of people indiscriminately.
Sound reasonable so far?
