[MD] Here come the censors

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Woods]
can I spell it for you or will you still find this to be a paranoid 
statement, P-E-A-C-E got it?

[Arlo]
Can you answer this question for me. Please. Just answer it.

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.

I say "no". I fully support a "double-standard" that gives only one 
group (the military) access to these weapons.

What do you say?

As for the charge of paranoia, can you then further explain to me why 
you feel uneasy with the idea of only our military (some people, but 
not you) having access to nuclear weapons?