[501] in libertarians
Re: [vimrich@MIT.EDU: ACLU and Guns]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Corcoran)
Mon Dec 12 13:42:56 1994
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 13:39:11 EST
From: tjic@ICD.teradyne.com (Travis Corcoran)
To: damartin@ampere.mit.edu
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9412120433.AA05685@ampere.mit.edu> (damartin@ampere.mit.edu)
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 23:33:33 -0500
> From: damartin@ampere.mit.edu
>
> >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).
>
> The way I usually look at it is that some weapons are useful
> for overthrowing one's own government, and others are useful for
> attacking other countries. Some are useful for both. Weapons which are
> useful only for attacking other nations, like atmoic weapons, wouldn't
> be useful in overthrowing a tyrannical state, and thus I would support
> restrictions on them.
I'm not sure I can subscribe to this. It seems to me that a tactical
nuke could be quite useful to take out an army unit that is convoying
towards a city to attack rebels. Or to take out an AFB that is
launching planes to bomb rebels.
Given that one could fit two normal sized countries that are warring
with each other with in the boundaries of the US, I don't see the
distinction between two sovereign nations fighting, and one nation and
one citizen militia fighting a civil war.
An example of two nations which could fit with in the boundaires of
the US: The Confederate States of America, and the 1862 version of the
United States of America....
--
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!"
