[527] in libertarians
ACLU, Guns, Nukes, & Liberty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph C. Baxter)
Thu Dec 22 23:12:40 1994
Date: 22 Dec 94 23:08:14 EST
From: "Joseph C. Baxter" <74352.3634@compuserve.com>
To: Libertarian List <libertarians@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Travis J. I. Corcoran" <TJIC@icd.teradyne.com>,
Rob Ristroph <rgr@MIT.EDU>
I caught this thread a little late and apologize if I have missed the thrust
here. However, my ears pricked up as I ran across this exchange about what
sorts of weaponry we as free citizens ought to be permitted to own. I'd like to
throw out the following for us to chew on:
1. I believe the 2nd to be there as a hedge against government becoming too
powerful and therefore it is in the citizen-actor's interest to ensure that he
and his fellow citizens have the capability to unseat a government should the
need arise.
2. It is my impression that many here believe that if the need should arise to
unseat a government that eviction would have to be served by a civil militia (is
that an oxymoron: civil militia?).
3. In order to facilitate that civil militia citizens need to own every sort of
weapon in the U.S. arsenal from 9MM Berettas to FAEs to Trident D-3 ICBMs.
If premise 1 and 2 are assumed to be valid, then where do I come in? I am a
serviceman *and* I am a Libertarian. We have 2.5M people in uniform and they
are not blindly patriotic little automatons. I find it inconceivable to think
that the Armed Forces of this country would participate in a coup. This is not
a tin-pot, dysfunctional little African country. The individuals in the Armed
Forces are educated and sophisticated. If, perhaps when, the next revolution
comes we won't see the Army, Navy, Air Force, & Marines siding uniformly (tee,
hee, bad pun) with the government. There will be many, if not a majority, of us
who would take up a revolution. Though at such a juncture we would probably see
it not as "revolution" but as defense of the union against an internal agressor.
If you accept that civilians won't have to man the barricades alone then you
should also accept that the Individualist Revolutionary Army would have access
to every sort of weapon known... including FAEs and D-3 ICBMs, their delivery
vehicles, supply, and maintenance elements. What is most important is that we
would have the people on our side, like myself, who can employ those weapons in
the best (which is to say most lethal and destructive) manner possible.
All this does nothing to lessen my belief in and support of our right and the
necessity to bear arms. It does, however, lead me to feel a bit more confident
that no tyrant could come to power in this country without having first defeated
a formidable foe: the American. I am satisfied that there would be little left
for him to rule.
Which brings us to the other issue of contention: If we need to overthrow a
government, what person could possibly *ever* justify the use of nukes? I
cannot think of a single instance where a nuke could be employed in such a way
as not to gravely affect the innocent. A nuke cannot be employed without
uncontrollable fallout: nuke LA and you poison Kansas for a few dozen millenia,
nuke Cambridge and our friends in Europe start finding Plutonium in their
muesli. That applies in every instance, from the low end half-kiloton blast of
our devious B-56 Dial-A-Yield bomb to the multi-megaton yield of a single MIRV
from a Trident D-3. I propose that nukes be recognized as things beyond the
scope of the 2nd. Would one argue sincerely that I should be allowed to own
chemical artillery shells loaded with nerve, blood, choking, or blister agents
under the aegis of the 2nd? No, of course not and I can not think of a rational
argument for the possession of a nuke, big or small, by an individual that is
within the scope of the 2nd.
Well, there ya are.
Joe Baxter
