[533] in libertarians
Guns, Nukes, & Liberty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph C. Baxter)
Fri Dec 23 22:20:20 1994
Date: 23 Dec 94 22:16:04 EST
From: "Joseph C. Baxter" <74352.3634@compuserve.com>
To: Libertarian List <libertarians@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Travis J. I. Corcoran" <icd.terdyne.com@compuserve.com>
<> 1. I believe the 2nd to be there as a hedge against government becoming too
<> powerful....
>I'd say that you hit *ONE* of the reasons that the 2nd ammendment is
>there. Another reason is that Americans have the right to own guns
>for whatever-damn-reason-they-please.
Put those two in relation to one another. There is a *significant* difference
between the prime reason for the 2nd's existence and what might be summarized as
"lesser, included" reasons. Whether or not I choose to retain small arms for
sport or sentimental reasons seems much less significant as motive than when
they are considered as an ultimate deterrent to tyranny. Our right to bear arms
is absolute and immutable (or damned well should be, gun control simpletons
aside), *why* we have that right, which is to say, why it was put into the BOR
is another. A Right that exists without motive or rationale wanes toward
indefensibility. We ought to be elucidating to people why the 2nd is there
rather than devolving into childish "is so, is not" argument with people like
those behind the Brady Bill. These are not stupid people, they are intelligent
folks who have been saturated with bad, invalid, irrational information. Let's
treat the illness not the symptoms.
<> 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?).
>I believe that there are realistic scenarios in which militia might
>have to play a role in fighting government forces. I do not believe
>that they are vital in every possible scenario.
True; my intent though was to point out that civilians won't be facing it alone.
<> 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.
<There are [ at least ] two trains of thought here: one saying that
<citizens should be able to own *ANY* weapon they choose, and the other
<saying that citizens should be able to own any weapon short of those
<of mass destruction...
Again, I go back to my argument of rights vis-a-vis motive or rationale. I'd
rather see a dozen citizens with Berettas and a hundred rounds each than a dozen
boomers at sea with a full complement of Tridents. Why? For the same reason
that I am more apprehensive of a nut with a pen knife than a nut with a machete:
a man may be more likely to stick a cop with a pen knife than to split my skull
open with the machete -- a matter of utility. All I could do with the boomers
is to menace the government, use them and I have no home to go home to.
(By the by, did any of you see the DC Park Naz... er, Police shoot the nut in
front of the People's Palace...er,...White House? I can say with authority that
shooting the guy was "justifiable." However, I think that I would have hosed
the guy down with OC Spray (Pepper Spray) first before I punched holes in him.
Frankly, having been sprayed with the stuff in training, I think I would rather
be shot than get a face full of OC .... it's mean, mean, mean stuff. I also
wonder what sort of marksmanship training these yahoos get. If you are going to
shoot a perp then it should be two rounds center mass with the intent that the
perp hits the ground and stays there. They shot him in the freaking leg! How
in the hell can a cop miss the five ring at twelve feet? Oh, well, shoot first,
figure out policy later.)
<> If premise 1 and 2 are assumed to be valid, then where do I come in?
>One does not need a coup to reduce constitutional government. We've
>managed to avoid a coup for over 200 years now, but we've lost most of
>the Bill of Rights. Good meaning servicemen and women are capable of
>standing by why government ever-so-slowly chips away at our freedoms.
>I know this is the case because I know that we've had good people in
>the services over the past few decades, and I've seen some US freedoms
>lost in that period.
No, and neither does one need a shootin' war to reduce unconstitutional
government and restore our liberties. Yes, well-intentioned servicemen are
capable of standing by an effed-up government even while their freedoms are
being abridged. I can also tell you that there are not a few people, not unlike
myself who make a mission of pointing out just how effed-up things are and how
that affects citizens in and out of uniform. There are also not a few people
who are PISSED about just about everything than gooes on inside the Beltway.
<> This is not a tin-pot, dysfunctional little African country. The
<> individuals in the Armed Forces are educated and sophisticated.
>That doesn't mean that they will realize that Constitutional rights
>are slowly being lost, or that they will move to fight an elected
>government. The recent "crime" bill seems a clear affront to the 2nd
>ammendment, but I didn't see any officers streaming out of the bases
>to arrest Clinton or the Congress as "enemies of the
>Constitution...domestic".
No? See Vernon's clipping about the Texas Constitutional Militia. Paying lip
service to the Prez doesn't mean that he has popular support from the military.
We live too comfortably to go wilding over the Crime Bill and shit like that.
Outlaw The Discovery Channel and watch me personnally go for Congressional
Liver-on-a-Stick :) Point is most folks see that as a "don't affect me" or "the
other guy" kinda thing.
This is getting too long. I'll finish the rest on "More Guns, Nukes, & Liberty"
Joe Baxter
