________________________________
From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:30:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Here come the censors
[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.
woods:
"I can't think of a single benefit that
would arise from my arming my home with surface to air missile batteries and a
few tomahawk launchers. I trust our military to protect us from threats of that
caliber."
Here's "ONE time" you said it Arlo. Still confused by your own writing?
Arlo:
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.
woods:
Gave you your writing above. No absurd accusation. By saying you "trust our
military to protect us... that
caliber." I take it to mean people, in your assertions, can have matching
caliber to strike back and protect.
Arlo:
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?
woods:
Very clear. You are allowing our neighbors to have nuclear and other high
grade weapons. You said right here. In your writing. What aren't you
getting?
So you are allowing some people to have these weapons and other people
to not. Odd. And what laws are people allowed to listen to and others not?
Arlo:
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).
woods:
My line I drew from the very first post:
What weapons my neighbors can have, I can have. Simple. This is about
morals.
woods
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/
