[492] in libertarians
Re: ACLU and Guns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Corcoran)
Fri Dec 9 11:50:16 1994
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 11:44:57 EST
From: tjic@ICD.teradyne.com (Travis Corcoran)
To: vimrich@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9412090107.AA15327@dennis-connor.MIT.EDU> (message from Vernon Imrich on Thu, 08 Dec 1994 20:07:32 EST)
> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 20:07:32 EST
> From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
>
>
> >> Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds
> >> of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on
> >> handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
> >
> >Notice that the argument is not that "the Constitution clearly says
> ><X>", but "if the Constitution says <Y>, we wouldn't be able to ban
> >handguns, Uzis, or semi-auto rfiles, so we must assume that it says
> ><X>".
>
> "If the first amendment protects ALL speech, then what about kiddie porn?"
> (classic cry of speech detractors).
As a general note, I'd like to keep the headers in quoted mail, so we
can see who's opinions are being debated. [ for example, I find it
useful to know that above we have Vernon commenting on my previous
disagreement with a position paper of the ACLU... ]. I keep the
"From" header in all quoted mail I send, and qould encourage others to
do so. Of course, in the libertarian near-utopia of this mailing
list, anyone who disagrees is free to send mail with out the
headers... ;)
> >> then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD
> >> missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles
> >> and M-16s, are arms.
> >
> >One could indeed argue this. In Switzerland it has been argued and
> >won. Swiss milita units have RPGs, machine guns, mortars, etc.
>
> Actually there is a principled way to set such limits, set in the
> Miller case (1939?). "[any weapon] that can be considered part of
> the normal militia use" (from memory so I may have miffed that a bit).
Your paraphrase is pretty close to the one I had in mind. ( I
couldn't remember the name of the case, so I left it out ).
> In any case, no single soldier has control over a tank, plane, nuke,
> or a machine gun nest.
OK, OK, OK, wrong.
> Thus, the "personal right" can be limited on that same basis as
> what is avialable for "personal use"
OK.
> Thus, the law would stop at fully auto weapons, rpgs and hand
> grenades on this principle. Any arm reasonably requiring more than
> one person to use could be restricted, IN PRINCIPLE, as a start.
I'd argue that it would go from sling-shots to fully-auto
weapons/rpgs/grenades *INCLUDE*, but probably not beyond. Take a look
at a modern infantry soldier:
main weapon
M-16 (modified [ 3 round burst] full-auto),
or
SAW ( Squad Automatic Weapon- a full auto machinegun),
or
LAW ( Light Anti-tank Weapon: a poster-tube sized rocket that can take
out an APC (Armored Personel Carrier / light tank ) or throw a tread
off an MBT ( Main Battle Tank),
and
a few frag or WP grenades.
My understanding of the 2nd ammendment as it currently exists would
allow an individual to own any of these devices. When I'm in certain
states of mind I believe for a few minutes that people should be
allowed to own whatever they want ( read the short story "The
Ungoverned" by Vernor Vinge for an example of nuke and fighter-bomber
-owning individuals and corporations defeating an invading army) but
I'm not arguing that the 2nd ammend as it stands allows this.
> Furthermore, the limitation/registration of some arms might be
> allowed on the basis of endangerment. That is, storing grenades
> or rpgs is different than mere guns and ammo. The mere fact that
> you have them presents a reasonable danger to neighboring property
> in that they are explosive devises. Proper certification and
> handling would be reasonable, as well as proof of storage methods.
Sounds reasonable.
> The same could be said of people who want to own radioactive
> materials of any kind. Anything that by its very nature presents
> a threat (as if gun to a head) to people nearby. Indeed, this
> argument could be used against nuke and other bomb ownership
> under ANY circumstances. A bomb is a permanently loaded weapon
> aimed at everyone within its blast radius. Your right to own
> weapons is not a right to point them at innocent bystanders.
Well said.
--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) TJIC@icd.teradyne.com
opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
