gun ownership

[ALAMPALLAM VENKATACHALAM]

This is a response to Sumantara's comments and an addition to Gautam Swarup's clarification.

Sumantara- You talk about Nuclear weapon ownership. The principle is if holds it is a threat to your neighbours because of radiation spillage, then it is a violation of the rights. If you extend the same to intellectual property rights like energy sources whatever be the type, nuclear, Friction, oil, gas, shale oil, then the person who discovers it is the owner of it, No body including the government has a right to it. 
If any person discovers any product or technology then metaphysically he should benefit from it. He may keep it or exchange it with others as dictated by the standard of Man as a rational human being. If for example he has discovered a vaccine or a new mode of energy producing energy( nuclear, friction, static electricity, extracting oil) he gets to keep it. Nobody including the government has a right to his intellectual property.
Which leads to the next question asked what kind of man would be able to produce WMD on his own? Perhaps one like Dr.Ferris in AS who got a government grant to produce it. Finally he was the first one to be consumed by it towards the end of the  novel.
If the crime rate has risen and there is a real perceived threat, any body can own a gun  for his own protection as has stated by Gautam Swarup. 

Guns are individual weapons for individual protection within the ownership capacity of individuals.

It may be nigh impossible for anybody to own a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.

Dr. A.K.Venkatachalam

[DRakvenkat]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:27:59 PM UTC+5:30, DRakvenkat wrote:

This is a response to Sumantara's comments and an addition to Gautam Swarup's clarification.

Sumantara-

Gun owner ship by responsible individuals, well trained in handling these weapons and stored safely is within their individual rights. 

Each man should act in his rational self interest and each man is the proper beneficiary of his own thought and action. 

To understand this, you have to place yourself in the position of an individual in a society who has good reason to perceive a threat to his life and liberty. 

Gun ownership can also be for other purposes like hunting, hobby, sports and off course most importantly self defense.  

Then you extend this same line of thought to ownership of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Please imagine how it is going to be possible for an individual to develop nuclear weapons and the motive for its use.

 

You talk about Nuclear weapon ownership and its control. The principle involved here is, if it is a threat to your neighbours because of radiation spillage ( which it will be necessarily) , then it is a violation of their rights.

 

Burt if you extend the same to intellectual property rights like energy sources whatever be the type, nuclear, friction, oil, gas, shale oil, then the person who discovers it is the owner of it, No body including the government has a right to it. 

If any person discovers any product or technology then metaphysically he should benefit from it. He may keep it or exchange it with others as dictated by the standard of Man as a rational human being. ( Creation of values and exchange of values). If for example he has discovered a vaccine or a new mode of energy( nuclear, friction, static electricity, extracting oil from shale etc), he gets to keep it. Nobody including the government has a right to his intellectual property.
Which leads to the next question asked what kind of man would be able to produce WMD on his own? Perhaps one like Dr.Ferris in Atlas Shrugged who got a government grant to produce it. Finally he was the first one to be consumed by it towards the end of the  novel.
If the crime rate has risen and there is a real perceived threat, any body can own a gun for his own protection as has stated here by Gautam Swarup. 

Guns are individual weapons for individual protection within the ownership capacity of individuals. The principle here is the individual's right to life and liberty. If he rightfully on the basis of evidence feels a threat perception to his life, then he has the right to take whatever measures within his power to safeguard it. 

What is the position of the law in this regard? 

It is well known the Supreme court of America has upheld the right to gun ownership.It can be defended on the grounds of protection of individual rights. 

Dr. A.K.Venkatachalam
www.kneeindia.com