We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

An reader solicits some support

Crazed Samizdata reader Peter Barker has written in with a proposal that we felt needed to be shared:

I was involved in an interesting discussion with a self claimed libertarian the other day. We were doing the rounds on the usual ideas about gun control and the right to arm bears. This guy was up for the idea of unrestricted possession or firearms but was advancing the idea that a legal caliber limit (?) might be placed on personal weapons.

This got me thinking in my radical way. When the “founding fathers” drew up the American constitution (and all its subsequent amendments) and gave American citizens the right to bear arms they did so to enable the citizens to defend themselves not only from hostile people but also (and mainly) from hostile governments (like their own…). The general idea being, I suppose, that if the “government” attempted to impose unconstitutional means upon the populace then they could resist effectively – as they did against the British.

So move this ideal forward a few centuries. Now if the government think you shouldn’t be doing something – they send round a semi-armoured swat squad, a few APCs and have a helicopter with missiles in reserve. If the neighbourhood ain’t so quiet they send in the national guard with the whole cacophony of modern warfare. Now of course if the local citizens objected to this and “tool up” to resist effectively, well, the administration will just calls them “unlawful combatants” and your civil rights are history. Remember those mad mullahs – the Branch Davidians of Waco (We Ain’t Commin’ Out) as an excellent example.

So how to square the circle? American citizens are supposed to be able to effectively defend themselves from government aggression. This can only mean one thing. The right to bear arms must translate (in new speak) into the right to own an effectively deterrent against anyone attempting to arbitrarily impose their will.

Which leads me to conclude one thing. I want a tank and a nuclear bomb [Ed: only one?]. As much as I’d like a Sukhoi 29 (or the new 31) the running costs are too high – there are some fiscal limits to my imagination. So, libertarians, who’ll support me?

Oh! that many…. Hmmmm.

Peter did not say if he takes cash, cheques, gold or credit cards for this worthy cause.

Comments are closed.