A USA founded upon the most libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment: that the personal possession of weapons is held to be indispensible to a free republic; the state is to keep only the bare minimum standing forces and rely on an armed citizenry for internal and external security. I see something like this:[ul][]The national standard for firearms is “shall issue”- any person not specifically disqualified has a right as a citizen to possess firearms and other weapons.[]By constitutional amendment, a national program of military training like in Switzerland or Israel becomes a duty of citizenship. By law the total size of the standing army cannot exceed a certain small percentage of the citizen reserves. The citizen reserve cannot be sent abroad except by a formal declaration of war ratified by a public plebiscite. Service arms are either provided by the government or available at heavily subsidized prices or else tax deductions are offered.[]Basic firearms knowledge and safety is taught in all grade schools. At the high school level the focus is on marksmanship and knowledge of the laws governing the use of force.[]The penalties for misuse of firearms are Draconian:for lesser felonies, the punishment is doubled or tripled if a firearm was used. For attempted murder and up commited with firearms, life without parole or death.[]All professional civil law enforcement officers must be voted into office, the way county sheriffs are. For large cities, officers are voted for at the precinct level. If additional forces are needed, qualified volunteers can be deputized. The distinction is that volunteers are unpayed; only elected officers can receive a salary (other than a stipend for direct expenses). In the event of natural disaster or civil unrest, following a declaration of a state of emergency the general populace can be mobilized as a posse comitatus []The possesion of heavy military ordinance cannot be flatly banned but can be heavily regulated and monitored. For example to possess artillery shells you need the equivalent of a demolitions expert license.A national register matches every legal firearm in the nation to a qualified owner. A constitutional-level guarantee is in place forbidding that register from ever being used for a blanket confiscation.[/ul]
The Libertarians would hate it. Requiring military service and a national registration system would be Socialistic infringements upon Freedom.
Who gets to decide who a “common enemy” is, in case of war?
If enough of the armed populace decides that they can’t agree on who the “common enemy” is, will the people that agree to use their weapons as they’ve been directed now be facing two enemies, one from without and one from within?
If it is decided that we will come together to fight in self-defense, please define self-defense in a way that would satisfy a great majority of gun owners.
As I understand libertarianism, you’re right. But then libertarianism tends to doubt that there should be much or any government at all. I don’t know what name to put to what I’m thinking of- not a small or nonexistent government, but more the idea that as a check against government power it cannot possess large standing professional armed forces, either civil or military. In balance and by subsequent necessity, the armed populace has a duty of citizenship to use it’s arms in support of civil order and the common defense. “Gun republic” is the best phrase I could come up with.
This reminds me slightly of the book version of Starship Troopers - a society I actually wouldn’t mind seeing tried. I haven’t decided if I would want to live there but the concept always interested me.
It wouldn’t work. It might have in the 18th or even 19th century, but from the 20th onwards we’ve lived in the world of total warfare. You can’t call up an army to fight Hitler or Stalin on a whim.
Why bother? They’re not exactly cheap.
No it obviously wouldn’t work. Modern war is a highly specialized and sophisticated enterprise which requires trained specialists not amateurs. Of course given the geography of the US it probably would be able to survive without a serious military perhaps relying on nuclear deterrence in the highly unlikely event of a serious invasion threat. But any country which faces a serious military threat certainly needs a standing army to defend itself.
BTW I am curious about the rules on heavy military weapons. Would there be any limit at all on a private army? What about tanks? Bombers? Aircraft carriers? Could a bunch of corporations get together and build a private army without any government restrictions?For a Libertarian take on the gun republic, with none of the OP’s Socialist trappings: The Probability Broach (Graphic version)
With a little training and equipment the Taliban was successful in turning back the forces of the Soviet Union. True that their country was pretty much destroyed by the occupation and what followed. So unless you want to turn the clock back to say 1820, we should keep a professional army.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:1, topic:508308”]
[li]The national standard for firearms is “shall issue”- any person not specifically disqualified has a right as a citizen to possess firearms and other weapons.[/li][/quote]
We mostly have that anyway, and if the 2nd becomes incorporated “shall issue” inasmuch as there is no prohibition on ownership will be universal. So that’s not shocking or innovative in and of itself.
[QUOTE]
[li]By constitutional amendment, a national program of military training like in Switzerland or Israel becomes a duty of citizenship. By law the total size of the standing army cannot exceed a certain small percentage of the citizen reserves. The citizen reserve cannot be sent abroad except by a formal declaration of war ratified by a public plebiscite. Service arms are either provided by the government or available at heavily subsidized prices or else tax deductions are offered.[/li][/QUOTE]
I have no real issue about the declaration of war, although what constitutes one is a matter of debate. I do, however, have a problem with compulsory service and the idea that “direct democracy” (i.e., a plebiscite) is an appropriate way to conduct foreign policy. I don’t see this proposal as workable, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and say OK if an amendment can be passed.
[QUOTE]
[li]Basic firearms knowledge and safety is taught in all grade schools. At the high school level the focus is on marksmanship and knowledge of the laws governing the use of force.[/li][/QUOTE]
We should be doing this already instead of filling kids with fear at an early age. I learned how to shoot at Boy Scout camp. There is absolutely no reason why children cannot be taught in that same manner, with draconian controls and dedicated adult supervision.
[QUOTE]
[li]The penalties for misuse of firearms are Draconian:for lesser felonies, the punishment is doubled or tripled if a firearm was used. For attempted murder and up commited with firearms, life without parole or death.[/li][/QUOTE]
Works for me. I’ve always advocated draconian penalties for misuse of firearms, with the exception of genuine accidents, which are exceedingly rare.
[QUOTE]
[li]All professional civil law enforcement officers must be voted into office, the way county sheriffs are. For large cities, officers are voted for at the precinct level. If additional forces are needed, qualified volunteers can be deputized. The distinction is that volunteers are unpayed; only elected officers can receive a salary (other than a stipend for direct expenses). In the event of natural disaster or civil unrest, following a declaration of a state of emergency the general populace can be mobilized as a posse comitatus [/li][/QUOTE]
Are you sure you want to open the door for Billy Bob and his county-wide extended family controlling all aspects of law enforcement? Or for law enforcement at the street level to become a popularity contest? In some places that’s perfectly fine. In others it’s a recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE]
[li]The possesion of heavy military ordinance cannot be flatly banned but can be heavily regulated and monitored. For example to possess artillery shells you need the equivalent of a demolitions expert license.[/li][/QUOTE]
It’s already largely like that, if you can afford artillery pieces and the ammunition for them. I can assure you that the BATF knows exactly who has what with regard to heavy weaponry, a field cannon is a bit hard to hide. The first unauthorized shot will put the owner in jail for years 5 minutes after it is heard.
[quote]
[li]A national register matches every legal firearm in the nation to a qualified owner. A constitutional-level guarantee is in place forbidding that register from ever being used for a blanket confiscation.[/li][/QUOTE]
A Constitutional-level guarantee? You mean like the 18th and 21st Amendments? If it can be changed, it can be changed back. No deal. I’m steadfast in my resistance to registries. I’ll do it if I am legally compelled to, being a law-abiding citizen, but I will certainly never support the creation of one.
In fact, I wonder how corporations would respond to the situation, period. I suspect that “private armies” would become the norm, not the exception.
The Taleban had fuck all to do with the Sovs: the Mujahideen of the 1980s are not Talebans. The Talebans arose later, in the post Soviet withdrawal period when the various Mujahideen groups, which tended to operate on tribal and ethnic bases, fell into civil war. The Mujahideen arguably only were able to bleed the Sovs dry by receiving the support of the USA via Pakistan (with some important cash support from the Gulf petrol monarchies).
One has a reasonable counter-factual as to what happens when an armed populace without outside major power support, even one with quite the fighting tradition, goes up against a modern army with little moral scruples: Chechnya in fighting the Russians. The Russians won.
The fantasy of the American hard right that the c. 18th century popular militia can still achieve what it could achieve then (sometimes) is just that. That doesn’t make popular holding of arms wrong per se, I am indifferent personally to that question (i.e. gun controls and banning of weapons), but it is a dangerous self-deception to think popular militias by themselves can defeat a modern army, or rather a modern army with sufficient ruthlessness to slaughter the militias’ base.
Otherwise, the plebiscite republic proposed strikes me as utterly unworkable for a large geography. For a small nation, in particularly one of a fairly homogeneous ethnic character it might work well enough (although seems likely to be ineffective); for a large geography it will simply break down into factionalism. The voting in of law enforcement officers is something that historically has led to unprofessionalism and corrupt behaviours… why one would opt for such a thing escapes me entirely.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:1, topic:508308”]
[li]All professional civil law enforcement officers must be voted into office, the way county sheriffs are. For large cities, officers are voted for at the precinct level. If additional forces are needed, qualified volunteers can be deputized. The distinction is that volunteers are unpayed; only elected officers can receive a salary (other than a stipend for direct expenses). [/li][/QUOTE]
There are roughly 40,000 police officers in New York City. There are about 70 precincts. I’d hate to see the voting. Especially as there would have to be multiple candidates.
Errr, having a state where everyone is armed sounds more like fascism.
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology. [5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak
I’ll inform the Swiss immediately…
The original question concerns gun ownership “as a duty of citizenship”…duty which to me means obligatory.
Many libertarians would say that forcing someone to serve against their will is an infringement of individual freedoms. I didn’t say I was against guns…I’m just saying if the government forces you to take up arms that’s pretty authoritarian.
IMO people have a right not to have to fight.
Somebody still needs to inform the Swiss.
Which of course has no bearing whatsoever on this particular political theory, in that no mention of corporate attitude or political ideology is being made.
Armed does not always equal right wing.
Whoops, you’re right.
dude, didn’t you see that movie RED DAWN? High school kids can do this. (being sarcastic here)