Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!cbrma.UUCP!karl
From: karl@cbrma.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: Private Arsenals
Message-ID: <12240765833.25.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sun, 21-Sep-86 15:34:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12240765833.25.MCGREW
Posted: Sun Sep 21 15:34:58 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Sep-86 22:22:15 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 28
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA writes:
>In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any
>restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting
>nuclear weapons.  This points up a crucial flaw in anti-gun-control
>arguments: where do you draw the line between permissible and
>impermissible weapons?  There are two options:

Indeed, this points to an even greater flaw in pro-control arguments:
Why is your line better than my line?  Or Keith's line?  Or HCI's or
the NRA's line?

>OPTION 1: No restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons
>Having a
>dozen or so governments that can "push the button" is bad enough, but
>if thousands of private citizens had their own nuclear devices...

Right, "thousands," uh-huh.  Do you have any idea of either the cost
or the difficulty of constructing such a weapon?  Lessee, I should
have saved up enough by, oh, about the year 2127...

>This raises the general question: which weapons should private
>individuals be permitted to own?

What are your qualifications to be making such a decision for me?
---
Karl Kleinpaste
-------