ESR has an article on his concern for legislation banning private nuclear weapons.
SIGH!
Even taking the most expansive view of the 2nd amendment, there are certain restrictions on weapons ownership that should be in place. I wouldn't mind a short sighted man with a shotgun for home defense. I would mind somebody short sighted driving a tank around the neighborhood without corrective lenses. He would not be "well regulated".
The more powerful the weapon, the more dangerous you can be with it if you aren't careful, the more restrictive ownership of that weapon can be in a legitimate pro-liberty reading of the 2nd amendment (discussions like this are the reason why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist). There is no more powerful weapon than a WMD and a nuke is in the first rank of risky weapons.
The policy of the United States is that there are only a few states that are stable and trustworthy enough that their possession of nukes doesn't scare the pants off us. Our policy with the NPT treaty is that even a stable, free nation like Canada shouldn't have nukes. With this reality, private nukes are off the table. When you have an individual who is more trustworthy and competent than a national political system filled with checks and balances and who actually wants a private nuke actually exists, wake me up. Until then, talking about private nukes is just libertarian bait to make libertarians look extremist and foolish.
ESR fell for the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by TMLutas at February 3, 2004 01:11 PM