THIS Is What A "No Compromise" Position Looks Like.
We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing. Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing. Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing. Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing. We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing. There ( Read more... )
"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'" Nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."
No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame millions of honest people for the actions of a tiny handful.
Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda. After all, they killed Jesus.
And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.
Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.
Reply
I'd defend your right to own the nuke. But the moment you screwed up with it, in any of the ways I have previously listed, I'd prosecute you. Not before, though.
I don't think owning a nuke would be very popular, if people realistically accepted that level of moral responsibility. So far as I can tell, the governments and leaders that currently own nukes have not accepted that level of moral responsibility. About the only two ways I can think of using a nuke that would not involve killing innocent people in the blast zone, would be as some sort of mineral mining device in a very remote area that you had made very sure was evacuated first, or to aim it as something in outer space, such as an enemy satellite or an asteroid. Otherwise, you can own your nuke, but as soon as you either deliberately use it, or screw up with it, in such a way that you kill innocent people, I'd go after the death penalty in the case against you.
Basically, that's my POST facto way of being completely reasonable. You're right about the argument against owning nukes being a 'slippery slope'
" Nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."
If you argue against nukes, as you point out, the same argument can apply to guns, it's just a matter of scale. But it works the other way, if Ed Gein or the Manson family are held morally responsible for mass murder, then you can't claim that leaders and governments that own nukes are NOT morally responsible for mass murder if they use those nukes in such a way that kill innocent people in other countries. After all, THAT is just a matter of scale, too. If the morality or murder changes due to scale, because of a 'large' enough number of people doing something (millions of people vs one or just a few), then it becomes logical to assume that morality of weapons ownership could also change, based on the scale of the weapon, if the weapon is 'large' enough.
Regarding child porn, it is illegal for the same reason a snuff film is illegal. You can't create it without committing a crime (murder and child molestation are both crimes). I also disagree with laws against 'virtual' child porn, an image created on the computer is not an actual child, no actual child molesting has been done, any more than actual people are murdered in hollywood movies where fake blood and intestines are made by special effects men.
Reply
Leave a comment