[MD] Here come the censors

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ron]
I think those answers, for myself are contextual

[Arlo]
So there are contexts where allowing all citizens the ability to own 
their own nuclear arsenal would be okay?

[Ron]
I'd reduce the discussion to a common ground. Would the equal 
distribution of lethal force have the potential for a more peaceful society?

[Arlo]
This is not common ground, this is an evasion. "Lethal force" can 
refer to hunting rifles as well as nuclear missiles. We are not 
talking "lethality/non-lethality", we are talking at what point IN 
GRADE do we draw a line? Or do we never draw a line?

We do allow our citizens in this country the right to lethal force, 
rightly so. As for whether America is more peaceful society than its 
non-gun owning friends, that depends on the measure of "peace" you'd 
want to use. The NRA argues vocally that an 'armed society is a 
polite society'.

Would a more peaceful society result from everyone having equal 
access to own their own nuclear missiles? Why use abstractions when 
none are necessary?

[Ron]
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.

[Arlo]
They don't answer because its easier to talk in pointless 
abstractions and pretend the view from your horse is prettier than 
mine. I don't make any bones about what my position is. But I am 
ridiculed for drawing a line (gasp!), a line I fully and articulately 
admit to.

But if they scoff at me for "drawing a line", then this must mean 
they do not. It gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling until taken to its 
logical extreme. Then they realize they draw a line too. But rather 
than admit that, rather than have a valid conversation over where 
that line gets drawn, they try to keep pretending otherwise. They 
can't bring themselves to admitting they want a line, but they can't 
bring themselves to saying outright they support all weapons for all 
peoples. In order to push away from being either a hypocrite or a 
fool, they refuse to answer yet keep challenging me for "drawing a line".

It is not a hard question. Are there some weapons, even at the 
extreme edge of nuclear missiles, that should be allowed one group 
(the military) but disallowed for another group (civilians)? I say 
"yes". What do you say, Ron?

If you think this is an unfair question, then let me ask it this way. 
Our current society is ordered so that one group (the military) has 
access to a grade of weapons another group (civilians) do not. Do you 
feel this is optimal? Is it something that should change? How so and 
to what degree? Would it be better for our society to dissolve this 
dinstiction entirely? Or just bend it more? Or keep it the way it is?