Mr Hanky wrote:
So your position is becuase people have acted irresponisbly with WMD's they shouldn't exist? Wouldn't that same logic follow with firearms? Just a question/thought, no slander, just struck me to ask ya...
Mach wrote:
Quote:
WMD's are whole different class of weapon. Indiscriminate doesn't even begin to describe the problem with their use. I belive that no man should have the power to kill tens of thousands with the push of a button.
The argument can be made from a moral standpoint that there is no difference between a madman with a rifle who kills 20 and a madman with a nuke who kills millions. Anyone who actually buys into that is just plain stupid. While any loss of innocent life is tragic, magnitude is certainly a factor in how horrific that event is. A madman with a gun can be confronted and combatted. A madman with a WMD can only be threatened with retaliation, which is of little comfort to the masses at his mercy.
So, in short, my problem with WMD's is that there is no clear distinction between defensive and offensive use, and nobody is safe from them, no matter how hard we try.
WMD's give absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
jakemccoy wrote:
It's a tough issue because you still have to buy into the concept that the U.S. government has the right to own WMD's in order for the U.S. to be the super power it is.
I don't totally agree that WMD's give absolute power. More accurately, WMD's give power over people who don't have WMD's.
Mccoy, that's along the lines I was thinking too.
Mach,
First off, I voted that citizens shouldn't have WMD's initially becuase I would not like to further the ability of someone killing thousands etc. I thought that way until I read your post about because someone has done bad things with them they shouldn't exist or be unavailable to just anyone.
But I thought a little bit and the concept that the weapon already exists and bad people have done bad things with them is something that won't find an easy solution.
I acknowledge that WMD's are a different category of weapon from firearms. The principle that I was talking about is still that same. Restriction of a weapon that is doing bad things will only give BG's greater freedom with WMD's for BG's, bad .gov's -bad anyone.
Now, sssuming that I am having a discussion based on a moral train of logic/standpoint becuase I compare your logic that promotes restriction of a certain class of weapon ownership based on .gov's or anyone elses good/bad behavior to begin with and adding that it is "just plain stupid" isn't the response I was trying to elicit from ya bud. Really, I am not trying to troll with ya or anything, just have a civilized discussion.
I acknowldge that WMD's are a different class of weapon, and I acknowledge that I don't want anyone to use them to hurt people and ideally, it would be nice if no man had the power to use WMD's. This argument is equally applicable on principle to a whole different categories of weapons as well, even if its not mass murder weapons, albiet there are some differences in outcome, the premise remains the same (feel free to debate this if you like, I could be flawed as well
). The reason the premise remains the sane is we can't control what people do with weapons once they exist. No matter the weapon. We can try to influence it, but with enough $$$, you can do enough bad things to make people have the discussion we are.
I don't think your standpoint is stupid, just flawed.
Again, while I can understand that it is undesirable to think of an individual with the power to kill a bunch o people with the push of a button, I don't understand why you would argue that you just wished WMD's didn't exist, someone subscribing to that viewpoint just might be construed by your affore mentioned label as "just plain stupid" -which I now actually agree with 100% put my way! Just like gun control is "just plain stupid." Again, different outcome, same premise.
So with the notion established that there is no way to eliminate the ability of a BG or .gov to use WMD's or any other weapon (like guns) in a horrible way, besides punishing behavior and trying to influence someone from thinking twice about bad behavior, my concern is about the idea of some people having WMD's, grenades, guns etc and others not. Again, not becuase of a moral issue but because of a power issue. As well as not focusing on the outcome becuase I agree with you that killing thousands is worse than a 2, but the power difference is concerning to me.
I know you mentioned earlier that you would prefer they didn't exist at all, but that isn't reality mi amigo.
Point of all this is that restricting access to something like WMD's grenades, guns is ideal but I am not sure if it is possible (you might compare this restriction attempt to other weapons restrictions and arrive at the conclusion that "its just plain stupid" to try to think that you can really stop WMD's or guns or anything else from being used by bad guys or bad .gov's.
After all of this I can see your point though that I wish WMD's didn't exist and there is not easy solution. I really can. And my references to the ideas of weapons restrictions as just plain stupid refer to people like the Brady bunch and not yourself.
How do these things get this long?
Just depositing my .02. Thanks for listening.
