Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available?
by
ImNotHerb
on 08/01/2013, 22:24:40 UTC
I draw the line at weapons of mass destruction - nukes, bunker-busters, etc, (you know, all those things that governments create and stockpile by the megaton). Basically any item whose use entails indiscriminately kill large swaths of people within a geographic area ("killing the righteous along with the wicked", as it were) is something that represents an aggressive threat against everyone. It is illegitimate to claim such a device is "defensive" when by it's very nature it ensures immense "collateral damage" for miles and miles.

But the government is nothing more than a big misinformation-based mafia. Take for example the terror attacks that are part and parcel to State Warfare - Dresden, Hiroshima, essentially any bombing campaign that was ever perpetrated. The lies and propaganda run so deep that the people don't even understand the madness inherent in the system.

This is the main reason I so hate the movie "Fail Safe", which has the President offering to nuke New York in order to make up for accidentally nuking Russia. What the movie should have had was the President offering himself and all of his warlord cabinet members up for execution, not murdering more millions (who happen to be unfortunate enough to live in a certain geographic area) in order to prove it was a mistake and he was "sorry". Would the filmmakers have even dared put forth such a statement? Of course not. /rant