If the only morally acceptable use of force is retaliatory, then how does one morally justify outlawing, banning, regulating guns/magazines/ammo at all? If I own a 6 round revolver, or double automatic machine guns on a swivel with 10,000 round ammo belt - what difference does it make if I am harming no one? What gives the populace or government claiming to represent them any right what so ever to initiate force against me? Nothing does. Understandably, explosive weapons may threaten harm to neighbors by their mere existence on your property. But even that must be investigated and the threat to others' right to life proven valid before they retaliate with force to disarm you. While the Founding Fathers were not referring to machine guns with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps the more important takeaway is the fundamental right to bear arms to protect oneself from not just criminals, but a tyrannical government. How are citizens supposed to protect themselves against a government? With comparable weapons, of course. I see absolutely nothing to justify regulating, registering, or banning certain/any types of guns. If the only moral use of force is retaliatory, then it is just that - a crime or valid threat of a crime must be present in order to act with force. And if we as individuals are to maintain the ability to defend against a militarized tyrannical government, we must be free to exploit the best products from the best minds to make that retaliation in self-defense plausible.
