Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Anything available to the military should be available to civilians? Including nukes?
|
And somebody predictably always tries to slippery-slope me on this point. Wearisome, really, in its rhetorical transparency. Nobody ever comes up with something original.
In actual real-world effect, this means sidearms. Selective fire should not be forbidden, as indeed it is not, merely restricted to what I think is an undue degree.
I draw the line at nuclear weapons. Now somewhere on the other side of the line would be my neighbor having a surface-to-air missile battery all his own. I don't have a problem with that unless he tries taking my roof off with it. He's quite crossed the line then.
The reason I draw the line is rather a philosophical one: many weapons may be used as designed and intended in a moral manner. Point weapons, with a small area of effect, may be used, even lethally, in a moral manner. By contrast, a nuclear weapon is an area weapon. It is exceedingly hard to make use of a nuclear weapon as designed and intended in a fully moral manner. At best, look at the pollution problems you get. Not good, is it?
This consideration is also why the fliers of old warbird bombers and fighter planes aren't allowed to drop ordnance, either inert or simulated. Conking the innocent isn't good.