Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I understand that those weapons might not be practical. But the logical and moral implication is basically this.
America recently went to war over alleged WMD in Iraq, yet you are in favour of the American population having access to WMD (in theory, I accept they arent practical)
The UN is fighting for the non-proliferation of atomic weapons in places like Korea and Iran, yet in theory, you are saying that ordinary American citizens should have access to atomic weapos.
|
You raise some points that I have not thought of before. However the places that we are now fighting to keep from have these weapons are controlled in my opinion by madmen who use this weapons to subjugate their people.
What I advocate is nothing that is not spelled out in the constitution. I personal would not want to own or use chemical or nuclear weapons. I know how destructive they are. When I was in the Army my job was to detect and clean up after these weapons. I know the power they have.
I believe that their are madmen in the U.S. also that if given access to these type of weapons they would use them against us. If I want to live in a free society then that is a price I have to pay. "Anyone who would sacrifice security for freedom deserves neither." I forget who said that but it is something I believe. The way I understand the constitution the Founding fathers would not have believed in any restriction to our arms.
If in this country we followed the example of Israel and allow the common people to carry guns as it is written in the constitution I do be believe that we would be much safer than anything any President or the congress can do to protect us.
Unfortunately gun control seems to be to be just that all about control. The more restive the control become the easier it is to abuse the power over the people.
What most politicians forget is that the are their to represent us not push their personal beliefs on us because they know better than us peons.