[MD] Here come the censors

[X Acto]

________________________________
From: Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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).


_Ron:
I think those answers, for myself are contextual, Since this discussion is an abstract fantasy scenerio. I'd reduce the discussion to a common ground. 
Would the equal distribution of lethal force have the potential for a more peaceful society? Certainly the writers of that bill thought so.
But, we must realize that the U.S. really did not have a standing centralized peace time army up until WWII. Most brigades were local civilian volunteer
organizations that held local armories which mustered when called to duty. The creation of the industrial military complex and a permanent active
standing force altered the meaning of that right as you note.
Why the others do not answer your questions yes/no leaves them vulnerable to your line of dialectic. It allows you to paint them in any way you wish.
I do'nt blame them for not answering.