3 ms·
You’re completely missing the point of the nuclear weapons here. Their purpose in this argument is to show that the principled stand is a lie. It’s not about b
by wat10000 2y ago
You’re completely missing the point of the nuclear weapons here.
Their purpose in this argument is to show that the principled stand is a lie. It’s not about belief in a god-given right to bear arms without restrictions. Basically everyone on all sides of the argument believes there should be restrictions. The disagreement is just about what those restrictions should be. Some people who want looser restrictions pretend, maybe even believe, that their position is a principled, absolutist one. But it isn’t, any more than “ban all guns except single-shot pistols” is.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoWhat if the reason people can't own nuclear weapons has nothing to do with them as weapons? The debate people have about 2A and nukes is usually pretty low resolution: I don't ever see any references to the CFR but there's plenty of stuff (in Title 10, I believe) that restricts nuclear materials for any purpose whatever.