Weapons THeory 101

Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 17:32:47 -0500

Michael M. Butler wrote:
> Michael:
> >I personally think that the numbers show that
> >extropian posters, those who are active participants, tend to be pro-gun
> >to a far greater degree than the population as a whole, so I think that
> >this might also be included in any description of extropians, as having
> >this tendency.
> People react to labels.
> Please consider a different label, such as "pro self defense", "pro
> peacefully armed" or "anti victim disarmament".
> "Pro gun" is exactly what antigun activist like as a label; meanwhile
> they're busy as hell trying to keep themselves labeled "anti-violence".
> >b) from the exercise of force by individuals willing
> >to fight and die to gain such rights, authority, or power, either for
> >themselves, or ==>>>for the group of people they represent. <<<==
> Emphasis above mine.
> >I cannot understand how any Libertarian
> >atheist can not support the right of the individual to keep and bear
> >arms. ANything other than this seems extremely hypocritical to me.
> How about shortsighted? See the flagged part of your comment above.
> "Oh, that? I _delegated_ that nasty thing. Let them pick up the garbage and
> fight fires while they're at it. zzz...zZzZZZZZ..."

I specifically included that, and is the main bone of contention between
individualists and statists. I myself would define the body to which
defense may be delegated would be every able bodied adult, which is not
so far off the Title X of the US Code which defines every able bodied
male between the ages of 18 and 40 as members of the militia (keep in
mind this dates back to the early formation of our government, so of
course women weren't counted at that point). Statists would say whittle
this group down to a single monopolistic small omnipotent paramilitary
force controlling an anarmed populace.

WHile statists would paint Libertarians as advocating every man, woman
and child for themselves, this obviously is not practical (which is the
point of such propaganda, to make the Libertarian viewpoint, as defined
by statist media, seem ridiculous). Anyone who has studied libertarian
thought is familiar with the concept of private, competetive, free
market law enforcement. THose of you who have read Vinge's short story
_The Ungoverned_ are also familiar with this.

At the heart of it, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is
possibly the most demanding right (which is possibly why it is in such
disrepute with today's lazy bread and circuses populace), in that it
requires the individual to take responsibility for the defense of
themselves, and of their community. Most people in today's world of rush
rush, maximum overtime work, etc, just dont have the time or energy to
exercise this right. It also requires that the individual acknowledge
that they may have to sacrifice their very lives to exercise this right
when it counts the most, while the unarmed individual, in their blissful
denial of responsibility, willingly place themselves at the mercy of
criminals and governments (any terms that connotate both?? There doesn't
seem to be much difference) in a form of Russian Roulette every day, and
look on armed citizens as crazy. Excuse me?

As extropians, we also expect to, in the future, have technologies,
tools, at our common, everyday disposal which will make firearms seem
like childrens toys. Will we one day have lobbying groups called
Deathstar Control, Inc., Coalition to Ban Laser Stations, out to ban the
private posession of planetbusting weapons, even for the peaceful use as
mining equipment or interstellar communications or spacecraft
propulsion? As extropians, we should even now recognise that we accept
the responsibility to exercise our rights as individuals to the fullest
of our abilities, that we deny that common governments have even an
inkling of the ability to better decide for us how to live our lives.
Because of this, we should also accept that it is our responsibility as
extropians, as transhumans, to excercise our rights to master the
responsible use of present day technologies, among which, guns and other
weaponry used for defense of the individual are a part.

Kathryn's idea of "moving beyond the use of force" seems nice, but how
is it practiced when those who are not as advanced as the trans-Kathryn
decide that she is an evil abomination to their religion and should be
wiped out? We seem to be moving into a world where the most rude and
repressive ideologies that still exist, due to the easy communications
and transportation of our era, are able to exert their influence in the
most advanced centers of culture and technology. Every Abdullah,
O'Reilly, and Phan Tri seems to be able to travel the world and attack
anyone who seems to not conform or to oppose their primitive beleifs.
Additionally, as the singularity nears, the disparity between the
technological haves and have nots will only get wider, leading to
greater class resentment and strife, and technological possibilities,
like cloning, genetic manipulation, and mind uploading will been seen by
a large percentage of a still primitive population as perverse, evil,
and "against God's will".

The singularity will not be a pretty time, my freinds, and those who
wilfully refuse to take action in their own immediate defense will not
make it through that period. WHile Kathryn's work against abortion
clinic bombers is admirable, and I salute her work, what she experienced
fighting those bombers is, IMHO, nothing compared to what is in store
for those who will continue to push the boundaries of technological
possiblities. WHy? because as technology advances, such radicals will
show no compunction against using technology to fight against those of
us trying to advance the human race, much like the Unabomber was not
opposed to building bombs to fight his war against technology.

As technology advances, so will the weapons of such terrorists. Already,
it is acknowledged in anti-terrorism circles that it is only a matter of
time before some group uses anthrax or some other biological weapon
against a population center. WE have already seen the Sarin bombing of
the Aum Rykyo (sp?) in Tokyo a few years ago. I am pretty convinced that
the only reason Ian Wilmut is opposed to human cloning is merely to hold
off the fundamentalist assasins.

And it is not like governments can go out and magically eliminate
knowledge from the world. I myself know enough to be able to build
several pretty powerful bombs out of household materials that are in my
house right now. I know enough about explosives to be able to even make
a bomb from a persons urine and feces.

How do we progress, then, when it seems like the only 'peaceful'
solution is to reprogram the entire populace's minds? THe solution is to
arm oneself with the ability to present an active defense against those
who would oppose such progress.

			Michael Lorrey
mailto:retroman@together.net	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?