Unrealistic given the cost of developing one (let alone launch+guidance systems), but I wouldn’t have a problem with this, no.
These are inanimate objects. Curiously people kill themselves by hanging, electrocution, drug overdose or carbon monoxide poisoning respectively all the time without these devices.
Why shouldn’t they?
Like the devil convincing you he doesn’t exist, beware a government telling you that you don’t “need” a particular weapon.
Being unrealistic isn’t necessarily applicable in a hypothetical situation. The argument was made that a private citizen should have rights to possess the same weaponry as the United States military and government, so I followed the logic to propose the flaw.
Like you can decide how much to pay in taxes, what health plan you will have, whether a hypothetical underage daughter could obtain birth control or an abortion without your knowledge? I’m not arguing the government knows best, but saying that you will decide what is best is a futile argument in the public forum.
Also, I’d say beware of a government telling you that you don’t need weapons, but minimal regulation does not indicate imminent persecution or enslavement by a tryannical government.
You need study up on the word “rights”. The military and the police do have more rights than other people. They may have privileges and special authorizations, but they don’t have special rights.
Rights, privileges, authorizations, permissions, whatever you feel the need to call it - we allow certain agents to act in certain ways and possess certain items that the regular private citizen cannot, and this is authorized and enforced by a code of law.
Like I said, learn what a “right” is.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind giving up the argument in semantics and focus on the content of my words? Clearly the point came across that we allow agents of the state to carry weapons the average citizen does not, and I have discussed multiple times why the argument that “any weapon available to the state should be available to private citizens” falls flat on its face.
And…I’m genuinely not seeing the flaw.
Malum in se vs malum prohibitum.
Not to deviate too much, but GW explicitly stated his mistrust of standing armies, a concern I happen to share.
When my weapons are in my own dwelling and paid for with my own money I would think a so-called “free” society would wish to respect my right to handle my own private property.
The price tag, scarce ammo, and poor mobility of a howitzer makes that kind of illogical.
Rights and Privileges are not the same thing. Privileges can be taken away, rights can only be unjustly denied.
I never said the military would lead the charge on Washington. That was a different poster.
Let’s stay on this tangent of nuclear weapons for a second. Every time I tell people that I believe private citizens should be able to possess the same weapons as the military and police, they always bring up the nuclear weapon argument.
What flaw in the logic did you expose? The only thing you brought up was nuclear weapons. Another poster responded about the infeasibility of private citizens owning nuclear weapons due to cost, materials, knowledge, guidance systems, launch platforms, etc. I pointed out that if I had the means and resources to acquire a nuclear weapon, the laws of this country could not stop me.
I imagine with a nuke your liberty would definitely nullify their authority to infringe on it.
You say you’re not arguing that government knows best but then you say that they should restrict ownership of certain firearms. Which is it? I know what’s best for me, not the government. I’m not saying what’s best for you. If you don’t want to own a firearm, fine, that’s your choice. But how do you have the right to say what firearm I can and cannot own? Ben Franklin warned us about this whole “giving up essential liberty for temporary safety” stuff. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers were very wary of standing armies. I highly doubt they would have supported agents of the state possessing weapons that private citizens could not.
But you are still avoiding the point that someone could legally own one, slap it on a truck, drive it somewhere, and raise Hell. Unlikely, certainly, but this is the logical extension of the argument, so please address whether you think an ordinary citizen should be able to own something this powerful used for maximizing casualties?