Nothing to laugh about
"In a perfect world"
I don't think you are wrong.
But you seem to be conflating two things by introducing the Military Industrial Complex because, as stated, you don't like guns.
Wars, for the most part, are fought over who has valuable stuff you want.
Lebensraum if you will.
We'll ignore the cultural, religious and geo-socio-political aspects that may be involved.
(Would people still fight wars if the Tower of Babel had not happened? Maybe less likely.)
Those are, I think, only as a secondary issue and really too deep and not responsive to the OP of the thread.
That would get us on a tangent. A wild duck chase.
This quoted post seems to envision some fantasy world in which weapons do not exist.
(Cue the John Lennon song Imagine)
Weapons can be used both for offensive and defenses purposes.
Nations do this and the logic is accepted by people. Mutually assured destruction be damned.
Why is this concept lost on the individual level?
I think I've covered this on the first page of this thread.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
See next quote below.
This is an interesting legal concept, if this factoid is correct.
And it hits (pun intended) on something very important.
While we might not have control over what other people do we should have control over what I myself do as an individual.
This whole discussion is about a group regulation.
What gets lost in the discussion is that while you may not care if your wife to be able to defend herself, people are suggesting laws which limit weapons of defense for someone else's wife.
Here's a few posters that say it better in fewer words than I can.
A thousand words?
(I hope they don't make any one "cringe".:rolleyes:)
"In a perfect world"
I don't think you are wrong.
But you seem to be conflating two things by introducing the Military Industrial Complex because, as stated, you don't like guns.
Wars, for the most part, are fought over who has valuable stuff you want.
Lebensraum if you will.
We'll ignore the cultural, religious and geo-socio-political aspects that may be involved.
(Would people still fight wars if the Tower of Babel had not happened? Maybe less likely.)
Those are, I think, only as a secondary issue and really too deep and not responsive to the OP of the thread.
That would get us on a tangent. A wild duck chase.
This quoted post seems to envision some fantasy world in which weapons do not exist.
(Cue the John Lennon song Imagine)
Weapons can be used both for offensive and defenses purposes.
Nations do this and the logic is accepted by people. Mutually assured destruction be damned.
Why is this concept lost on the individual level?
I think I've covered this on the first page of this thread.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
See next quote below.
This is an interesting legal concept, if this factoid is correct.
And it hits (pun intended) on something very important.
While we might not have control over what other people do we should have control over what I myself do as an individual.
This whole discussion is about a group regulation.
What gets lost in the discussion is that while you may not care if your wife to be able to defend herself, people are suggesting laws which limit weapons of defense for someone else's wife.
Here's a few posters that say it better in fewer words than I can.
A thousand words?
(I hope they don't make any one "cringe".:rolleyes:)
