Arlo,
You just don't get it. Just cause you think
one way, now everybody else is paranoid and
watches Red Dawn movies. You keep labeling
me and others without trying to find out
what others are actually saying.
can I spell it for you or will you still find this
to be a paranoid statement,
P-E-A-C-E
got it?
woods
________________________________
From: Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:14:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Here come the censors
[Ron]
My Question is, which Arlo is drawing what lines?
[Arlo]
The Arlo that is speaking here, of course. If it was another, how would you
have heard him?
[Ron]
Arlo is questioning the validity of the right to "keep and bear arms" in this
country under the idea of defence against a corrupt government.
[Arlo]
I'm not question the validity, as much as I am the pragmatics. IF we accept
that the purpose of allowing citizens to hold weapons is to defend against
invading armies or tyrannical governments, then my point is that we are
severely undercutting their ability to do so by not allowing them military
weapons. It seems illogical to me to say "you have the right to bear arms as
"being necessary to the security of a free State", but we are only allowing you
to have pop guns and pea shooters while the threats you will face will have
tanks, missiles and a nuclear aresenal".
Instead, we as a society opt for a volunteer army that would serve as our
defense, and to those persons we entrust the great responsibility and care of
managing the use of weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion, this is how it
should be.
Woods, having seemed to fall into a paranoiac rabbit hole, no longer trusts the
idea that some people (the military) should have access to weapons that others
(civilians) do not. I don't know if its the black helicopters of the One World
Order, or watching Red Dawn reruns on Spike TV, but he seems to think it'd be a
safer world is everyone (dissolving the "civilian"/"military" duality) had
equal access to all weapons. If the military has nuclear weapons, then the
civilians must have them as well (to protect themselves from said military).
So here is the breakdown, taken to the extreme to dislodge those who would
pretend to ride a high horse.
(1) The military has nuclear weapons.
(2) Because of this, should everyone have the ability to own nuclear weapons?
If you answer "no", then we are simply drawing our lines at different points in
the field. I draw mine at explosives and weapons designed to destroy targets of
any size ranging from cars and houses on up. We can argue about where that line
should be, of course, but we start from the vantage of recognizing that there
must be a line.
If you answer "yes", then we are no longer on common ground, and we'll have to
agree to disagree. If you think a world where every person can buy and own
their own nuclear weapon would be "better", "safer" or "freer" than our present
one, then go ahead and make that case. This would be the position of there
should be NO LINE.
You'll also notice that Micah, Platt and Woods have failed to answer that
simple question, relying instead on distortive and distractive rhetoric. Now
why do you think that is? (I know why, so that's a rhetorical question. And
that Platt can only limp along with even more grossly hypocritic rhetoric is
something that should surprise no one).
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/
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/
