THIS Is What A "No Compromise" Position Looks Like.

[mzmadmike]

We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There

Comments

[ext_683076]

You English-born wet back...I have seen how you people do maintenance on your dentition and trust you not at all to maintain an anti-matter containment vessel. You will never legally own any anti-matter. As God is my witness, I so swear it. Go back to Wales, you feckless git.

[septithol]

Mike, I imagine the ownership of nukes and antimatter, at least in a place as small and crowded as the planet we live on, would be remarkably unpopular if we actually had something resembling a real justice system.

The concept of 'collateral damage' is basically a euphemism for murder without the consequences of justice or responsibility. It's not possible to use nuclear weapons in 'self defense' without killing people who are not a threat to you.

If you insist on the right to own nukes, if and when you use it in 'self defense' and kill thousands of other people in the initial blast, and thousands later from radioactive fallout, are you willing to stand trial for mass murder? If not, what you want are rights without responsibility, which doesn't really work morally for me.

I don't think I would want antimatter around, personally, even if it were not highly destructive. I find it disturbing in a mathematical sense.

[mzmadmike]

I'd bear the same responsibility as any government and its leader.

[septithol]

Madmike wrote: "I'd bear the same responsibility as any government and its leader."

Which is pretty much the problem I would have with you owning a nuke. Because, so far as I can tell, governments and leaders have exempted themselves from the same moral responsibilities as everyone else. I see this in every aspect of what the government does, when they commit the same actions which in other people would be called 'mass murder', when the government does it, it's called 'collateral damage'. Or, when doing things which in other people would be called 'fraud' or 'kiting checks', when the government does it, it's called the 'budget deal' or some other such nonsense. And, since 1965, the government has been doing what if other people did it, would be called 'counterfeiting'.

[septithol]

The thing is, Mike, that you are refering to the 'right' to own weapons of various sorts. Which I believe in, since I believe in rights and the existence of any right necessarily that there also must exist a right to defend those rights, and therefore to own whatever weapons you choose to defend those rights

[mzmadmike]

I would use it to defend my nation and community, not myself.

I don't find how my possession would hinder anyone's right to life. Only the illicit use thereof, which makes it no different from any other weapon.

Prior restraint is frowned upon by the Constitution and SCOTUS.

[septithol]

Madmike wrote

[mzmadmike]

The "Right to live" argument can be used against guns, on the argument that they MIGHT get stolen and/or used illicitly.

There is no difference in position, only in scale.

Either I can own the means to hurt others, or I can not. If I can, then the onus is on me to use it responsibly, and I am liable for any harm that results.

If I can't own something because it MIGHT be used to harm others, then almost everything becomes bannable.