COLUMN: A modest proposal: nukes

From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the consequences wrought by a violent, crime-ridden society. Doe-eyed sorority maidens, instead of being left to their jet-black outfits and Maybelline face-paint, are continuously besieged by criminal elements who have chosen not to work for their honest livelihood. Having turned my thoughts (and my stomach) for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of others, I have hit upon an ingenious solution. I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection. The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms, yet I feel the spirit of this law is being compromised in our times. The original architects of the proposal wished that at any time a militia of civilians would have the wherewithal to rise up against a tyrannical government and give power back to the good people of this fair land. How realistic is this today? The U.S. government has a preponderance of weaponry which outmatches even the most ardently-armed fringe Montana-based cabal. Does this law really provide, in the words of George Mason, "that the Liberties of the People may be the better secured against the Danger of regular Troops or standing Armys in time of Peace?" I think not. The inexorable thrust of technology has left ordinary folk at a disadvantage. Imagine the denizens of West Philadelphia against a platoon of United States Marines. If we tried to take on the Pentagon, we wouldn't stand a chance! I therefore submit that we should level the Ultimate Playing Field. The right to bear arms is an unqualified one -- private individuals should be allowed to purchase grenades, rocket launchers, B-2 Stealth Fighters and, of course, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles. When you and I have access to the same tools of warfare as our friends in Washington, then and only then will we truly be a free people. For it is entirely arbitrary for the federal government to trample on our constitutional rights by excluding certain "strategic" arms from the very people it is meant to represent. Banning private possession of H-bombs is a ludicrous violation of civil liberties -- the thin edge of the wedge. As the Russians have recently discovered, if you criminalize nuclear weapons, the only people with nuclear weapons will be criminals. Many Defense Department bureaucrats would protest. Of course, this is natural. They hold a monopoly, and everybody knows that a monopolist always seeks to maintain a stranglehold on power. Some may argue even if such weaponry were available, it would be exceedingly expensive. Certainly, a Tomahawk or an F-15 would be out of the average person's price range, but private organizations could still afford them. The University, for example, would be able to enhance its weaponry for the good of its members. I think the advantages are obvious. For first, applications to the University would increase as parents would be happier sending their progeny to an institution equipped with the latest in defense hardware. Secondly, we would all be safer since malefactors would soon realize that any overt aggression would be met with an air-to-surface smart missile from a University attack-chopper. Thirdly, the community as a whole would flourish as the streets are made safe for a true renaissance of collegiate congeniality. Anyone attempting to encroach upon our oasis would be blasted to his Creator by a rocket-launcher-wielding Spectaguard. ("Hasta La Vista, LCE!") I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal. Therefore, let no man talk to me of other arguments: that assault weapons pose a clear and causal threat to peaceful citizens; that background checks should be made on gun buyers; that violent criminals have abrogated their right to bear arms; that a short mandatory waiting period is an unreasonable infringement of rights; lastly, that the rampant availability of guns is, through pernicious misuse, destroying inner cities. I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and like arguments -- they are naive and impractical. Remember: nukes don't kill people, people kill people. (Apologies to Jonathan Swift. The poor guy's probably spinning in his grave.)