Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [t--st--r] at [netcom.com] (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: ACLU & RKBA
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:14:42 GMT

>In the October 1994 issue of Reason magazine is an interview with
>Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
>...exerpt from "Life, Liberty, & the ACLU", Oct 1994, Reason magazine,
>interviewed by Cathy Young
>     (presented solely for informational purposes; typos mine!)
> 
>REASON: So why doesn't the ACLU challenge gun-control laws on Second
>Amendment grounds?
> 
>STROSSEN: We reexamine our positions when people come forward with new
>arguments...
>
>...What is the civil-liberties argument of those who
>would say we should be opposing all gun control?  What it comes down
>to is the very strong belief that having a gun in your home is
>something that can ultimately fend off the power of a tyrannical
>government.  I find that really unpersuasive in the 20th-century
>context.  Maybe it made sense in the 18th century...

"Anyone who claims that popular struggles are doomed to defeat by modern
military technology must find it literally incredible that France and the
United States suffered defeat in Vietnam; that the Shah no longer rules
Iran; Somosa in Nicaragua; that Portugal was expelled from Angola and
Mozambique; England from Palestine and Ireland; and France from Algeria."

	- Allan Goetlieb

"Some gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment's
goal of an armed citizenry to resist foreign invasion and
domestic tyranny is no longer valid in light of advances in
military technology. Former attorney general Ramsey Clark
contended that 'it is no longer realistic to think of an armed
citizenry as a meaningful protection.'
 
>But during World War II, which was fought with essentially
the same types of ground combat weapons that exist today, armed
citizens were considered quite important. After Pearl Harbor the
unorganized militia was called into action. Nazi submarines were
constantly in action off the East Coast. On the West Coast, the
Japanese seized several Alaskan islands, and strategists wondered
if the Japanese might follow up on their dramatic victories in
the Pacific with an invasion of the Alaskan mainland, Hawaii, or
California. Hawaii's governor summoned armed citizens to man
checkpoints and patrol remote beach areas. Maryland's governor
called on 'the Maryland Minute Men,' consisting mainly of
'members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting Clubs and similar
organizations,' for 'repelling invasion forays, parachute raids,
and sabotage uprisings,' as well as for patrolling beaches, water
supplies, and railroads. Over 15,000 volunteers brought their own
weapons to duty. Gun owners in Virginia were also summoned into
home service. Americans everywhere armed themselves in case of
invasion. After the National Guard was federalized for overseas
duty, 'the unorganized militia proved a successful substitute for
the National Guard,' according to a Defense Department study.
Militiamen, providing their own guns, were trained in patrolling,
roadblock techniques, and guerilla warfare. The War Department
distributed a manual recommending that citizens keep 'weapons
which a guerilla in civilian clothes can carry without attracting
attention. They must be easily portable and easily concealed.
First among these is the pistol.' In Europe, lightly armed
civilian guerrillas were even more important; the U.S. government
supplied anti-Nazi partisans with a $1.75 analogue to the zip gun
(a very low quality handgun).
 
"Of course, ordinary citizens are not going to grab their
Saturday night specials and charge into oncoming columns of
tanks. Resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla
war. In the early years of such a war, before guerrillas would be
strong enough to attack the occupying army head on, heavy weapons
would be a detriment, impeding the guerrillas' mobility. As a war
progresses, Mao Zedong explained, the guerrillas would use
ordinary firearms to capture better small arms and eventually
heavy equipment.
 
"The Afghan mujahedeen have been greatly helped by the new
Stinger antiaircraft missiles, but they had already fought the
Soviets to a draw using a locally made version of the outdated
Lee-Enfield rifle. One clear lesson of this century is that a
determined guerrilla army can wear down an occupying force until
the occupiers lose spirit and depart--just what happened in
Ireland in 1920 and Palestine in 1948...
 
"If guns are truly useless in a revolution, it is hard to
explain why dictators as diverse as Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel
Castro, Idi Amin, and the Bulgarian communists have ordered
firearms confiscations upon taking power.
 
"Certainly the militia could not defend against
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but it could keep order at
home after a limited attack. In case of conventional war, the
militia could guard against foreign invasion after the army and
the National Guard were sent into overseas combat. Especially
given the absence of widespread military service, individual
Americans familiar with using their private weapons provide an
important defense resource. Canada already has an Eskimo militia
to protect its northern territories." - David Kopel, "Trust the People"

"To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts
from the state.  It is to reserve final judgement about whether state is
encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom
with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian
reach." - Jeffrey Snyder, "A Nation of Cowards."

>...I would hope that's
>the kind of thing we do through words rather than through guns and
>that, to me, is the function that the First Amendment serves, not the
>Second Amendment.

"Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical
relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a
people ready and willing to use them.  Political theorists as
dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington,
Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the
view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and
that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved
by it.  The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant
that government governs only with the consent of the governed.  As
Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this
political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the
Revolutionary War.  Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this
aspect of republican theory.  Although our conservative pundits
recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their
battle for gun rights is desultory.  The problem here is not a statist
utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the
confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's
problems.  Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits
shared by our conservative and liberal elites.

"One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word.  The
failure of our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems
in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set
forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action.
Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the
assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve
our liberty.  The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as
men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that
can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be
disclosed for the culprits to be shamed.  The people will act, and the
truth shall set us, and keep us, free.

"History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the
view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only
people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their
liberties.  While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the
existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the
balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has
certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in
the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging.  The
camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for
good or ill.  Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to
very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the
propaganda opportunities afforded by film.  And then, of course, there
were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among
intellectuals." - ibid

I don't suppose Ms. Strossen has an e-mail address?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!  Think Universally, Act Selfishly

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; [71034 2711] at [compuserve.com]

Liberty is the Best Policy - [t--st--r] at [netcom.com]