Reason Magazine

reason.com

reason.tv

reason.org

Donate

Site Search:

previous link

REASON.TV VIDEO:The Pilgrims
and Property Rights: How our ancestors got fat… (11.23)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Porkers of the
Month 11/2010: Sens. Tom Carper and George… (11.23)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Richard Epstein
on Barack Obama, his former Chicago Law… (11.22)

REASON.TV VIDEO:TSA "My
Ding-a-Ling" Sing-Along (11.19)

REASON.TV VIDEO:44 Ways to Say
TSA: What do the initials "TSA" really stand for… (11.19)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Con Air 2010
(TSA Remix) (11.18)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Raw Foods Raid
- The Fight For the Right To Eat What You Want (11.17)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Coming Soon to
an Airport Near You: Prison-style strip searches… (11.15)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Peter Thiel on
Facebook, Technology, and the Higher Education… (11.12)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Help Reason
Make More Pols Cry! (11.11)

next link

✕

Loading...

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

close video

Subscribe

About

Staff

Contributors

Topics

Print Archives

Cover Gallery

Hit & Run - Blog

Daily Brickbats

Podcasts

RSS Feeds

Advertise

Subscriber Services

Donate

Reason
Stuff

Events

Submissions

Contact Us

Reason on
Facebook

Reason on Twitter

Reason on YouTube

Reason RSS

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

First
Name Last Name Email
Manage your Reason e-mail list
subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310)
391-2245

advertisements

Print|Email|Single
Page

The
Right to Own a Bazooka

Peter Bagge from the August/September 2007
issue

Page 1

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Tweet

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

Try
Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are
not completely satisfied.

See
all 43 comments | Leave
a comment

|8.16.07 @ 12:23PM|#

And as for that old "Bazooka" argument: If I don't hurt, threaten, or
disturb anyone with it, then why can't I own one?

Well it's kind of
like the reason you can't drive drunk even if you don't speed, cut off, or hit
anyone.

The fact that the second amendment is about defending yourself
against your own government, and the fact that you can't mount a credible
defense without a bazooka, is why I think the second amendment is an anachronism
and should be repealed.

Not that anyone agrees with me.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Bagge's a wimp. If he really wanted to do an extreme defense of the Second
Amendment, he'd advocate the ownership of nuclear weapons by private
individuals.

After all, as long as they don't actually detonate them then
what's the problem?

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Dan, you might want to RTFC before posting about its
shortcomings.

reply to this

Seer|8.16.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Very entertaining. I think that the right to own a bazooka also has more to
do with defense against government as a reason to own one.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:38PM|#

Dan, you might want to RTFC before posting about its
shortcomings.

I read as much of it as I could, believe
me.

Generally, the appeal of an editoral cartoon is that it expresses an
idea quickly and cleverly using pictures in place of too many words. Bagge's
work is more like a written column illustrated with pictures. A really
convoluted one in this case.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:40PM|#

Hey Dan, what does the "T" stand for?

As if we didn't already bleeding
know.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Okay, Jake, I did read the rest of Bagge's cartoon.

He does address
the nuclear missle "red herring" by making the seriously stupid argument that
one's next door neighbor probably won't be able to get one, since even the
nation of Iran cannot.

Well, I'm not worried about my next door neighbor.
But of course there are people out there with enough money to purchase one if
they legally bought and sold on the free market.

And besides, this is
about the right to own any sort of arm, not the ability to procure
one.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Edit: "...if they could be legally bought and sold on the free market."

reply to this

Daniel|8.16.07
@ 12:46PM|#

Bazookas for some, miniature American flags for others.

Daniel

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:48PM|#

I would like to go on record as saying Peter Bagge is the dullest cartoonist
ever.

Family Circus dull.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Ha! I finally figured out what "RTFC" stands for!

Read the Fucking
Column?

reply to this

jimmy|8.16.07 @ 12:51PM|#

peter bagge is a national treasure, and the best part of reason magazine. i
don't care if his politics aren't 100% libertarianly correct, or if he pisses
off the terrorist-coddling crackpots and occasional misplaced commie-lib in this
forum. he makes me laugh and gives me good material to email to my statist
friends.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Neu,
Huh? Are you kidding? Do you stand by that?

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 12:58PM|#

RE: Owning a tank.
I've come across guys who own old World War II bombers
and I think the governator used to own a tank. What exactly is the legality of
war vehicals, and bazookas for that matter? I am pretty sure there are at least
some (crazed) hobbists out there with a rocket launcher.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Warren,

Yeah.

And I'll go farther...

Ziggy dull.

reply to this

S.A. Miller|8.16.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Read the Fucking Column?

Cartoon...

reply to this

Libertarian n00b|8.16.07 @ 1:15PM|#

What exactly is the legality of war vehicals, and bazookas for that
matter?

I think bazookas and fully automatic machine guns are
classified as destructive devices and you need a special license from the ATF
(and perhaps special permission from state and local authourities).

I'm
not sure of the hoops one has to go through in order to own a tank, other than
the weapons on board need to be rendered incapable of firing. IIRC, this is done
by the military before it is sold to a private collector.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 1:16PM|#

He does address the nuclear missle "red herring" by making the seriously
stupid argument that ...

Pot. Meet Kettle.

reply to this

D. Greene|8.16.07 @
1:29PM|#

It is a very good thing I finished drinking my coffee before I got to the 4th
page of that comic. The bit with the Canadian slayed me.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Dan T. is a failure even as a troll. If he really wanted to have a
provocative discussion about the 2nd Amendment, he could have brought up the
issue of ownership of nuclear weapons by private individuals.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 1:47PM|#

What? Did I read Dan T.'s comments before commenting on them?

Of
course. Well, I read as much of them as I could, believe me.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Taktix:

S.A. Miller is correct - I meant the C to stand for "cartoon."
(Admittedly, I was stepping outside the standard RTF canon.)

reply to this

dhex|8.16.07 @ 1:54PM|#

I would like to go on record as saying Peter Bagge is the dullest
cartoonist ever.

man you are so totally dead to me.

also
you're forgetting garfield and mary worth and that prince valiant guy that
always confused me as a kid.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 2:02PM|#

NM,

Finally something we agree on; Bagge's cartoons are dull. I have
to admit that I am not much of a cartoon fan though, so my opinion on Bagge is
irrelevant, even to me.

I am an avid defender of the 2nd though. Yes, it
is an individual right. If you read the text of the second and the history that
surrounds it and come to a different conclusion then either you don't comprehend
what you read, or you can't bring yourself to deal with reality.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 2:05PM|#

What? Did I read Dan T.'s comments before commenting on them?

Of
course. Well, I read as much of them as I could, believe
me.

Stevo, you are fucking smart aleck, which around here is a
good thing :-).

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Who's "smart aleck"? Is she cute? Spill the beans, Stevo!

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 2:10PM|#

oops... a typo.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 2:20PM|#

I wonder why he thinks it is tragic that people leave guns where kids can get
them. (Last page first frame. I RTFC) I leave electricity and chemicals around
the house where my 12 year old can get them. I want my kid to be able to get to
her gun and defend herself if necessary as easily as she plugs in her hair
dryer. She is trained in how to do both and knows the dangers of both. No big
deal.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 3:08PM|#

The difference between a bazooka and a nuclear weapon is that the nuclear
weapon is designed to inflict maximum collateral damage on a surrounding
civilian population, a bazooka is not. If the military is terrorizing a
neighborhood with a bazooka, it would not be difficult to retaliate likewise. A
nuclear weapon makes that impossible. Now how to reconcile that difference with
the 2nd amendment is up for debate.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Let's just say we'll discuss the nukes issue as soon as we reclaim the right
to own automatic weapons, hand grenades, magazines bigger than a dozen rounds,
etc.

The "since nukes are clearly bad, everything else must be banned,
too" argument is like saying, "because Rottweilers trained to rip out an
intruder's throat are dangerous, we're gonna have to confiscate your fluffy
little miniature poodle, because clearly all dogs are unsafe to own."

reply to this

|6.15.10 @ 11:49AM|#

A more apt comparison would be "because Rottweilers trained to rip out an
intruder's throat are dangerous, we're gonna have to confiscate your goldfish,
because private citizens clearly can't be trusted with anything as dangerous as
a pet."

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Wayne,

If you read the text of the second and the history that
surrounds it and come to a different conclusion [than Wayne]
then either you don't comprehend what you read, or you can't bring yourself to
deal with [Wayne's view of ]reality.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Afghanistan has managed to fight off the USSR and, I predict, will manage to
fight off the USA as well, without a nuclear arsenal. The problem is I think my
government would like to disarm me of ANY weapon that could be effective against
it. From RPG's to handguns. Nukes don't even come in to the equation.
Side
question: Has any country that has nukes ever been invaded and taken over?

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 3:33PM|#

For the record, I find it hard to deal with the overly simplistic view of
reality that Wayne carries around in his head.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 5:51PM|#

Bagge's a wimp. If he really wanted to do an extreme defense of the Second
Amendment, he'd advocate the ownership of nuclear weapons by private
individuals.

Dan T,

Nuclear weapons are a red herring. I believe it should
be illegal for your neighbors AND the government to own nuclear weapons... in
the same way it should be illegal for the government and your neighbor to
torture people. Understand?

We support the right of citizens to own any
weapon that our government owns. If a weapon is so terribly dangerous that you
can't trust your neighbor with it, then you probably shouldn't trust your
government with it either, because theoreticly in a Democracy the government is
supposed to BE you and your neighbors.

reply to this

|8.16.07 @ 9:16PM|#

I follow the rules around here.
I just hit and run.
Is Dan T a
troll?
I wouldn't know.
I'm not a troll.
Anyone who wants to endure the
maintenance of it, I hope has a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Why do
nothing but anal pussies float at a blog site like this?

Is this Davy
Crockett's Amurika?
Evidently not.

reply to this

LarryA|8.17.07 @ 12:33AM|#

The fact that the second amendment is about defending yourself against
your own government, and the fact that you can't mount a credible defense
without a bazooka, is why I think the second amendment is an anachronism and
should be repealed.

Half a million combat soldiers (maybe) against
80 million gun owners? When a good percentage of the warfighters are outside the
US? I'd hate to be back on active duty and have to face those odds.

Sure,
maybe all the gun owners wouldn't show up. But you might be amazed how many
soldiers remember that they took an oath to protect the Constitution, not the
government. Orders to fire on their families would be very unpopular. Then
there's the question of which side the National Guard (and all their equipment)
would end up on.

There is simply no way Congress or the officer corps
could declare national martial law and get away with it, except by first
disarming the people.

Or you could look at it this way. The US military
is finding it impossible to pacify Iraq, which is only a little bigger than
California. They'd be spread very thin, stretched over the whole fifty
states.

I'm not sure of the hoops one has to go through in order to
own a tank, other than the weapons on board need to be rendered incapable of
firing. IIRC, this is done by the military before it is sold to a private
collector.

The tank itself is no problem. As far as the weapons,
they can be licensed if you have the money for the taxes. James Garner
did. Or, of course, you can get them free if you have a badge. It might be
interesting to do a force comparison between the Army and law
enforcement.

Has any country that has nukes ever been invaded and
taken over?

USSR. By McDonalds.

reply to this

megs|8.17.07 @ 10:16AM|#

This thread is full of win, to speak as if I'm on the internet for a second.
And Peter Bagge is terrific. I kind of like his hands-off approach to tackling a
topic (no-touch football?), as cartoons make it very easy to present a point of
view that's very hard to argue with, what with your ability to control words and
images and make a point with even the expression you put on the face of a
caricature of an opinion.

reply to this

|8.19.07 @ 2:06AM|#

Neu Mejican is the dullest commentator ever. Mainstream Man dull.

reply to this

|11.15.09 @ 10:13PM|#

I notice Bagge compared the US to every country except its neighbour to the
North. Canada has pretty much the same culture as far as movies, video games,
etc. but we have a much lower murder and suicide rate......but hey, that
couldn't be because of gun control right?

reply to this

|6.15.10 @ 11:52AM|#

But, as was pointed out in the cartoon (when he did, in fact, compare the US
with Canada), Canada has many more rapes.

I guess that's because rapists don't have to worry that their targets might
be armed and able to protect themselves.

reply to this

Pingback| 4.14.10 @ 7:19PM

Great 2nd Amendment Comic from Reason Magazine links to this
page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Minute Ago amagi Member   Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Bryn
Mawr, Pennsylvania (Delaware County) Posts: 34 Rep Power: 0 Great 2nd
Amendment Comic from Reason Magazine The
Right To Own a Bazooka: A Very Serious Defense of the 2nd Amendment I
found this old article looking around on Reasons Website. It advocates our
rights to own a Bazooka. Worth a peak! Very educational! // Register for a
Forum Account Thanks…

nfl jerseys|11.6.10 @
2:00AM|#

udfg

reply to this

Leave a Comment

* NAME:
EMAIL: WEBSITE:
Remember name, email, and website on this
computer for 30 days? * COMMENT:

More Articles by Peter Bagge

I.M.P., Peter
Bagge, September 21, 2010

I.M.P.:
The Isabel Paterson Story, Peter Bagge, September 14, 2010

I.M.P., Peter
Bagge, July 27, 2010

Related Articles (Guns)

Brian
Aitken's Mistake, Radley Balko, November 15, 2010

You’ve
Come A Long Way, Baby, Brian Doherty, September 13, 2010

Reclaiming
Rights, Matt Welch, September 7, 2010

The
Persecution of Gilbert Arenas, Daniel Wattenberg, August 3, 2010

Civil
Rights and Armed Self-Defense, Damon W. Root, July 9, 2010

Latest Articles on Reason Online

Torture Tort
Terror, Jacob Sullum, November 26, 2010

The
King's Speech, Kurt Loder, November 26, 2010

Friday
Funnies, Henry Payne, November 26, 2010

A
Simple Way to Improve Medicare, Jeffrey A. Singer, November 25,
2010

The
Case Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws, Steve Chapman, November 25,
2010

Shredding
Public Art, Tim Cavanaugh, November 24, 2010

The
Singing Divas of Burlesque, Kurt Loder, November 24,
2010

Latest Posts on Hit & Run

New at
Reason: Jacob Sullum on How Obama Uses National Security As A Cover for
Violating People’s Rights, November 26, 2010

New at
Reason: Kurt Loder on The King’s Speech, November 26, 2010

New at
Reason: Friday Funnies, November 26, 2010

DEA
Bans Fake Pot; Goats Grateful, Jacob Sullum, November 25, 2010

New at
Reason: Jeffrey A. Singer on A Simple Way to Fix Medicare, November 25,
2010

Reason.tv
(and The Pilgrims): Give Thanks...For Property Rights!, Nick Gillespie
& Meredith Bragg, November 25, 2010

advertisements

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2010, Reason
Magazine