[Woods] Your right, your confused. If you can clear this up, it would help. I've already drawn my line, but you go on allowing some people to have nuclear weapons and other people not. It's a bit odd.
[Arlo] I'm not confused, Woods. I've articulated clearly where I draw the line at least several times. Either you're playing the Platt game, or you are simply not reading my posts. Can you show me ONE time where I said I'd allow people to have nuclear weapons? No, you can't. Because I haven't. And despite asking you to do this several time, you continue to make this absurd accusation. So here, again, is my position, for the last time. I have full support for sportsmen owning guns and ammo they need for hunting, and full support for citizens to carry weapons to defend themselves. But I draw the line at explosives and weapons of a grade designed to destroy targets such as cars, houses, and (of course) anything larger (this would include nuclear weapons, as I have pointed out before). Thus, in my view, tanks, missiles, flamethrowers, grenades, atomic bombs, sidewinders, tomahawks, battleships, bazookas, Abrams, etc. would all be reserved for the military. Is that clear enough for you? Now, since you claim to have "already drawn your line", can you please point me to the post where you've done so? Because every post I have in my archives (I can repost them) has you arguing for civilians to have whatever weapons we entrust to the military (which would include all the above). Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
