Ask a liberal, reformed gun grabber thread!

[Don't Tread On Me]

But as has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, I think DTOM (and others who preceeded you) are talking about the left wing of the Democratic party. Some decry the fact that the left wing is the voice of the Democratic party; this is similiar to the rabid religious right currently being the voice of the Republican party. Hopefully we'll find the right answers some where in the middle.

Well, in my long post above, I never said that the Republicans aren't complicit in many of the very same things that the left wing is. That's frightening, as it shows there's really no choice, that choice is largely an illusion.

The progressive left has implemented many of the socialist programs we have today, no one repeals anything - thus, they either agree with it, or accept it as standard.

The right answers are not in the middle. That is a terribly flawed reasoning. You take a truth, you take a lie - you mix them...and say that the result is the answer. Only the truth is the answer. Gun ownership is a truth. Private property is a truth. No major party supports liberty across the issues. They stomp on liberty on most issues.


I just don't see the Democrats as being anything but leftwing. I don't see the Republicans as anything but leftwing either. Afterall, do they not support big governemnt, taxation and the established social programs we currently have? Of course they do. Our governemnt is progressive, because that empowers them. They don't want a libertarian system, because that would mean losing power. Who wants to lose power? Nobody. They're not giving it up now that they've got it. They've been working hard since the 1790's to beat down that ridiculous libertarian theory which this nation was built on.


On gun issues, the Republicans are better than the Democrats. Only because they are not as hostile and determined to abolish it. Supporting the GOP is buying time for the gun culture to grow and change minds so that real reform can take place down the road. We have to use them to buy time. Democrats would destroy the gun culture entirely. The Republicans and the far right wing are NOT friends of liberty or the Second Amendment. They just pander to us because we are a big enough voting block to help them compete with unions and minorities. With so much stacked against the GOP, they need every ally they can get. So, we get some cooperation in the form of a promise that they won't ban guns. We have no new gun control, but we aren't abolishing old gun control passed by the progressives (Democrats from FDR through till today).

 

[quatin]

Besides, if you have the money, there are military surplus fighters out there. I doubt as if you could buy an F-16, but there are people flying a lot of other pretty neat pieces of hardware out there.

Now as far as affording the fuel, the upkeep and the parts required...well, good luck with that. Hope you are exceptionally wealthy.

Well, that's true, but the important thing is you aren't allowed to buy the missiles and bombs to put on your jet. Also, MrTuffPaw, IEDs and car bombs are for those who have little. If the population were to have a supply of tanks, anti-vehicle missiles, land mines and etc. they wouldn't resort to car bombs. The question isn't about affordability or feasability, but the idea that it should be ALLOWED to procure these weapons. If the military has it, then the state militia/individual should have it as well. In the interest of defending yourself/your state against occupation/invasion and the such, shouldn't you be fully armed to do so?

 

[tube_ee]

Every civilization is unique. The West is not unique because it is civilized, it is unique because it has its own civilizational traits.

In that sense, I agree with you. Usually when I hear this argument, especially when preceded with "why won't you on the Left...," it's meant in the first sense, and not the second. I assumed that was the case here.

I was wrong.

--Shannon

 

[jwharris]

Well, in my long post above, I never said that the Republicans aren't complicit in many of the very same things that the left wing is. That's frightening, as it shows there's really no choice, that choice is largely an illusion.
....
The right answers are not in the middle. That is a terribly flawed reasoning. You take a truth, you take a lie - you mix them...and say that the result is the answer. Only the truth is the answer.

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

And to clarify on my "Hopefully we'll find the right answers somewhere in the middle" statement. I'm not one to think the right answers are ones that we all agree with and thus will be found in the mushy middle. I think that more of the correct answers are going to be found somewhere between the radical religious right and the radical "liberal" left. But hey, even they're bound to be correct once in many blue moons (and if they are, I'll support it).

 

[quatin]

Taking your example with Prohibition: why do Liberals recognize that outlawing liquor, in an attempt to eliminate ALL drinking, failed miserably, but support gun control in the belief that it will eliminate ALL crime?

I don't think that's the reason, people aren't naive to think that no guns means no crime. The problem of gun control isn't really about decreasing crime rates significantly (I know there are some who claim this, but I agree they are gullible.), the problem is that you make weapons easily available to just about anyone. The common criminal most likely would not acquire his firearm legally, but the uncommon psycho does. Every once in a while, some mentally unstable person would go on a killing spree, these people usually DO acquire their firearms legally ie (DC snipers, Columbine kids, the guy who shot sniped from the University of Texas's tower, the postal worker who killed his co-workers in Maryland). By allowing the public to buy guns, you make it easier for them to defend themselves (thereby reducing crime rates), but you make it available to people who may use it violently (thereby increasing crime rates). Now I tend to think having weapons reduces crime rates MORE than it increases crime rates, but what really drives gun control is the question if whether it is moral to make it easy for that handful of people to murder so that the rest of us can defend ourselves.

I know there's the point that if the killers REALLY wanted to do their deed, they would acquire their weapons somehow, such as making bombs or buying firearms off the black market. However, by forcing them through this process it exposes them to the risk of getting caught.

I'm not making an anti-gun rant here, I'm just sharing my 2cents..

 

[cuchulainn]

Nitrogen: This is a sticky wicket for me. in some ways, I'm one of the "shall not be infringed!!!" crowd. However, I see some value in SOME MINOR gun control, mainly, laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons.

That sounds very reasonable and sensible, doesn't it?

But then we get to the point of different premises ... different core principles ... and we conservatives ask, "Um, if they've proven themselves too violent and untrustworthy to have access to guns, why are they out of prison? On the other hand, if they've truly proven themselves rehabilitated enough to get out, why deny them access to guns?"

It costs too much to keep them in prison? Yeah, it's expensive. But I never said I was against taxation. I said I was against the abuse of taxation for the purposes of income redistribution. We could transfer all that money wasted on the left's unethical and immoral income redistribution schemes (which simply create generations of victims who are addicted to the dole, increasing poverty and violent crime) to the proper functions of state government like prisons and roads and of the local governments like schools and police (conservatives generally aren't against public schools, we're against the federal involvement in public schools).

Further, as much as I dislike drugs and agree in principle with laws against hard drugs, I see the WoD much the way you see gun control -- from a utilitarian, prohibition-doesn't-work angle. Too much of our prison space and resources are spent on housing non-violent drug offenders. Reform our drug laws and transfer WoD funds to the resource needs of imprisoning violent felons.

All that's easier said than done, of course.

 

[DBabsJr]

Quote:
What do you propose for the large portion of the working class that works full-time at "big box" stores and still requires financial assistance from the government just to get by?



...see "A" above

.

If you DON'T work to make money to buy food, than you should either:
A) STARVE or...

So you support a corporate sponsored culling of the population?

I'm fine with that if the working population is able to use their 2nd Amendment to destroy tyrannical leaders of these corporations. If the government is going to step in to protect CEOs from being destroyed via law enforcement, then maybe they should have to step in and protect the workers before it comes to that.

 

[cuchulainn]

What do you propose for the large portion of the working class that works full-time at "big box" stores and still requires financial assistance from the government just to get by?

False assumption. The "big box" stores pay them plenty to "just get by." But the various levels of government (local, state, federal) then combine to take about half(*) of workers' incomes in taxes to support immoral and unethical income-redistribution schemes (that simply create generations of victims addicted to the dole, increasing poverty and violent crime) and other abusively wastful spending (insert favorite pork here).

Many people can't "get by" because the governments take half their money ... forcing more people to seek government help ... causing the government to offer more help and thus demand more money ... forcing more people to seek government help ... causing the government to offer more help and thus demand more money ... forcing more people to seek government help ... causing the government to offer more help and thus demand more money ... ad infinitum.

And yet it's "business" who's the bad guy in this situation.

(*)Don't believe "half"? Consider not only all the federal-state-local taxes you pay, but also all the business taxes and regulatory costs that are passed along to you in the costs of the goods, services and utilities that you buy.


.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Why do liberals feel it's okay to mandate moral philosophy rather than allowing free choice in the matter from the people who have proven themselves by their actions and results in life to be contributors to our society?

To me, it's more of "Which is more important, getting help to the most people possible, or getting the best help possible. If we could do both, that'd be wonderful, but, if we could make sure the most people got the most help in a way that didn't involve government, i'd be all for it.

Why the most people? What makes you assume that everyone that needs help is deserving of it? I'm a successful, law-abiding, moral adult capable of making my own judgements about who I'm willing to help. I don't need you or anyone else telling me who or what effort is worthy of my attention and hard earned dollars. It's frankly pompous and arrogant of you to assume so. I prefer to help those that I can count on to appreciate the help I give them and will make something of it. I prefer to help those who are in a set of circumstances not of their own making. I don't assume everyone fits that description, and I understand the realities of the real world that there are those that are morally bankrupt and will take advantage of your charity.

Here's another one. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has no motivation whatsoever to contain costs and increase performance, can actually run things better than businesses who MUST do so every single day in order to survive in a competitive environment?

As far as government vs. businesses, here's the difference: Businesses are answerable to their stockholders, while a government is answerable to the people as a whole. With all the inefficiencies involved in a government, I personally prefer that an entity answerable to us as a whole be involved, instead of a business answerable only to people that care about teh bottom line. Not that wasting money is good, it's not, but, to me, it's a secondary thing.

That's the kind of naivety that drives conservatives crazy. The same kind of naivety that drives gun owners nuts when dealing with gun grabbers.

Your right for once. Business isn't responsible to the public it serves, it's DEPENDENT on the public it serves for it's very survival. The proof of this is so "in your face" it's hard to understand how it could be ignored. How quick was the response of the evil companies when there was the notion that some Tylenol had been tampered with? Even your own liberal left uses this tactic to get what they want from companies by boycotting products. Clearly you understand by your adoption of those kind of tactics that companies have to be responsive to public opinion, yet you would rather trust a government that you only can put pressure on every 4 years to be responsible in a timely fashion. You'd rather trust the unemployed mother of 5 children with 5 different fathers, none of which provide any support for their children, to be honest and trustworthy with the money we give them than the "evil" businesses that depend on the goodwill of the public for their very existence.

That's what we mean by a lack of logic both in gun-grabbers as well as liberals in general. It's what happens when you think with your heart and emotions and live in a dream world of utopia rather than logic and common sense about the world we actually live in. It's the party and philosophy that has their heads in the clouds and no basis in the realities of the world.

It's like the old saying, a liberal is a just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

 

[glummer]

Nitrogen

Quote:

Why don't liberals respect the language our constitution was written in, and the customs and traditions of our founding fathers?

Customs become outdated. Being a reform Jew, I realise that certain customs and traditions of my religion are somewhat outdated. I don't see the need to keep kosher, for instance. In the olden days, when food bourne disease was far more prevlant than it is today, keeping kosher could help keep you alive. Nowadays it's a tradition, but it doesn't hold the same necessity as it once did.

The Constitution is not "customs." It's a legal document, and there is a legal procedure for updating it.

MrTuffPaws

Because we all have a responsibility to ensure that our society functions. Buy insuring that everyone pays when they can (e.g. pay taxes), when Pete gets back on his feet and Paul gets kicked to the curb, Paul has a chance to get back up on his feet as well.

Right. And if Pete is in the gutter because he insists on crawling there?

"Charity does not begin with a gun at your neighbor's head, and your hand in his wallet." - Ayn Rand.

This is along the same lines as the gripe of having to pay taxes for school when the payer does not have any children. That tax payer benefits directly from the fact that most children can read, write, do basic math, and have the skills to be productive in society.

ALL citizens get that benefit, whether they pay taxes or not; parents of schoolchildren get an ADDITIONAL benefit, but they pay no additional taxes.

DBabsJr

What do you propose for the large portion of the working class that works full-time at "big box" stores and still requires financial assistance from the government just to get by?

I don't propose anything. I am neither God, nor a Liberal, so I try to refrain from re-designing the world in my image.

quatin

...these people usually DO acquire their firearms legally ie ...DC snipers, Columbine kids, ...

The way I heard it, the DC Sniper gun was stolen; and the "Columbine Kids" spent a year trying, and failing, to get legal guns - they finally found some stupid legal adult to straw-purchase them.

...what really drives gun control is the question if whether it is moral to make it easy for that handful of people to murder so that the rest of us can defend ourselves.

Letting people walk the streets freely "makes it easy" for that handful of murderers.
Letting people not wear mandatory chastity belts "makes it easy" for rapists.
You are using a very totalitarian definition of "make it easy."

 

[quatin]

Letting people walk the streets freely "makes it easy" for that handful of murderers.
Letting people not wear mandatory chastity belts "makes it easy" for rapists.
You are using a very totalitarian definition of "make it easy."

Ok, fine. Instead of "makes it easy" let's say "increase the availability/sources of firearms to offenders". Even if it's through straw purchases/shop lifting, it increases the amount of people/stores to source the weapons.

 

[glummer]

quatin

Quote:
Letting people walk the streets freely "makes it easy" for that handful of murderers.
Letting people not wear mandatory chastity belts "makes it easy" for rapists.
You are using a very totalitarian definition of "make it easy."


Ok, fine. Instead of "makes it easy" let's say "increase the availability/sources of firearms to offenders". Even if it's through straw purchases/shop lifting, it increases the amount of people/stores to source the weapons

You're still accepting a totalitarian viewpoint. Everything that helps peaceable people also helps homicidal people to some degree. Paved roads help criminals commit crimes over greater areas, as do automobiles. Food supplies energy for criminals just as much a non-criminals. And how many murders would occur, if murderers had no access to clothing, without government permission?
There is no justification for singling out a specific category of life activity, such as firearms, without evidence that that activity has some strong, differential negative impact, compared to other activities. And there is no such evidence.

 

[up_onus]

I will say it again....

see how close you "republicans" and "Democrats" are?
SOME issues you disagree on....most are just COMMON SENSE.
ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES. I like some of the repubs, some democratic...
so ima republicrat? this is why we NEED A THIRD PARTY.

 

[PILMAN]

Glummber the Columbine kids purchased 3 of there guns (2 shotguns and the hi-point rifle) at a gun show. Eric had his girlfriend I believe she was 22 Robin Anderson purchase the guns as they were not yet 18. The TEC-DC9 Dylan Klebold bought illegally for 500 dollars at the place he worked (Blackjack Pizza) from a coworker, I believe that was Mark Maines or Phillip. Dylan being 17 therefore illegally owned the gun as it was considered a automatic pistol (though it was actually a semi auto). Check http://www.acolumbinesite.com

 

[oswulf]

I applaud the OP for the sackular fortitude to touch THR's Third Rail... Being a liberal, and proclaiming it proudly, while supporting gun rights. You'll learn better... I sure did.

There's some folks around here who find that position incomprehensible. Since they can't understand it, it can't exist. That's why they're conservatives.

Seriously, though, there is a very vocal group who simply won't believe that you exist, or that you cannot hold these beliefs. Don't let them shut you up. Not all of them are trying, but they raise the S/N ratio of these threads so high that the people who you will be able to have intelligent converse with won't be seen, and many will stay away. That's been the pattern here, and that's sad.

If you can't contribute anything to the discussion beyond "this discussion is nonsense," please go find something else to talk about and let us who think this conversation is not only possible, but important, have it in peace.

We all should guard against only talking to those we agree with. People of other political persuasions often enough have interesting things to say. We should listen to them. If we disagree with them, it should be because of what they've said about that issue, not because of what they may have said about something else. Granted, some perspectives are so different from mine that I'll give ideas from that "side" more scrutiny, and often more skepticism. Even that is a failing on my part, but I do try never to reject them out of hand. It's about the best I can do.

James Dobson or Pat Robertson may hold some position I can agree with. It hasn't happened yet, that I know of, but it's possible. In fact, since idea space is practically infinite, the odds are just as good now as they were before either one of them became public people.

It's politics, folks, not physics. There's often more than one right answer, and just as often, there's none. Two people can disagree radically on a political question... when they're both right, or both wrong. It's important to remember that.

--Shannon

Best post yet here I think. Don't necessarily agree with all of it, but the basic premise that you need to see beyond your own preconceived spoonfed notions and actually think about what the other side has to say with some objectivity. Both sides have some very good ideas and both sides have some very bad ideas, which are which is kinda subjective really. Personally I have no problem with being 100% pro-gun/pro-2A and at the same time being 100% pro abortion. I don't get many invites to either party's conventions. I pick and choose from all sides positions that make good sense to me when I have thought out all the ramifications and listened to all the arguments from all sides.

I guess politcally I belong to the Pariah Party. I can't come close to completely agreeing with all of what anybody has to say. Maybe that would make me the chairman of the Contrarian Party. If it wasn't so much fun to watch the cons and the libs fighting each other it might be pretty sad, but both sides are so amusing that it's worth it to keep them around just for entertainment value. As to who do I vote for, it almost always comes down to who should I vote against, though it's never an easy choice either way. It seems to be an absolute requirement that to run for political office you shouldn't have any actual ability to do the job well. Being the best talker shouldn't be what gets someone elected, not sure how Dubya managed there.

As it is now when either side gets in power things seem to go downhill in one way or another, when they share the power somewhat equally it seems to be a somewhat smoother ride. I guess maybe I'm an anarchist at heart who doesn't want anyone telling me what to do or what to think, even if I happen to agree with them on some issues.

Oswulf

 

[Fletchette]

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll ask my question again (because I really want to know!): How do Liberals come up with their core values?

We all agree that Liberals (in general) are contradictory in their logic on several different issues, so how do Liberals arrive at a consensus as to what they stand for?

 

[orangelo]

There is no logic involved in liberal policy only feelings.

[liberal mode on]
Guns are bad, except for ted kennedy's bodyguards or john kerry or the police when I dial 911. SUVs are bad!!!! Except for the one I drive my kids to school in. War is bad!!!! We should use diplomatic means-> SANCTIONS ARE BAD!!! Look at all the starving people in Cuba and pre-invasion Iraq.

Liberals see exceptions for everything and arbitrarily apply rules. There is no equal before the law for liberals there are always exceptions.

Everyone should be treated the same regardless of skin color. Except if you are darker than everyone else. If you are darker then your academic performance shouldn't count as much and you should get more credit on your college applications than lighter colored people that worked their asses off for that perfect 4.0 GPA.

Laws are meant to be followed, except if you grew up poor. Or your skin is dark. Or you are a Kennedy. Or you are a lesbian. Or if you dropped out of high school. Or if you murder 4 people in a convenience store robbery but then write some absurd stupid book about it.

I don't believe in capital punishment. That george bush and karl rove should get the death penalty!!!!
[/liberal mode off]

American liberals are borderline schizophrenics, their beliefs contradict their other beliefs and even they themselves don't know their heads from their asses.

George Bush is dumb as a box of rocks. But at least he is consistent about it.

 

[Helmetcase]

We all agree that Liberals (in general) are contradictory in their logic on several different issues, so how do Liberals arrive at a consensus as to what they stand for?

As a general rule, we don't. Liberals disagree on guns, on education, on economic issues, on foreign policy...there's not much unity these days on this side of the fence. Much less than on the other side of the fence, by any metric you can think of.

 

[oswulf]

We all agree that Liberals (in general) are contradictory in their logic on several different issues, so how do Liberals arrive at a consensus as to what they stand for?

The same way conservatives do, they pull them out of their a**.

I live in a very conservative town, yet some of my best friends are liberals. I dunno, maybe I just like arguing with everybody about anything but I don't see much in the way of consistent values or morals on either side of this fence.

Get a room full of conservatives together and the only thing they can agree on is that they hate liberals. Get a roomfull of liberals together and all they can agree on is how evil all conservatives are. They're both right.

Oswulf

 

[tube_ee]

We all agree that Liberals (in general) are contradictory in their logic on several different issues, so how do Liberals arrive at a consensus as to what they stand for?

First, we don't all agree with your premise. Certainly every liberal would disagree, and I know a lot of conservatives who would as well. There's also no real liberal consensus to discuss, anymore than their is a conservative consensus. Not all liberals are anti-gun. Not all conservatives oppose abortion. Neither is being inconsistent. The only way to get consensus would be to define one as "everyone who agrees with me" and the other as "everyone else." At which point, both groups are perfectly self-consistent by definition, and the question goes away.

Now, I'll try to answer the question behind the question.

I don't believe that every political or policy question has exactly one right answer. As a great physicist once said (either Feynmann or Pauling, I think), "To every complex question there is a simple, easy, obvious answer. Which is wrong."

When people disagree, even as widely as we've seen in this thread, there's a significant chance they're both right. There's an even larger chance that they're both wrong. Usually, they're both partly right.

Yes, there are "absolute" rights and wrongs. "Absolute" not in that they are imposed from somewhere else, but that without those standards, civilization is impossible. They may not be unversally true, but they're certainly true for us. We don't always agree on what they are, but just about everyone I've ever heard or spoken to agrees that they exist. The Nazi death machine and the Soviet Gulag were absolute wrongs. No justification is possible. There is no circumstance that makes such atrocity OK. Below that level of wrongness, it gets fuzzier, and rational, intelligent, well-mannered people can consistently draw the line in different places.

Liberals arrive at thier conclusions the same way conservatives do. We gather information, we form an idea from that information, and we act. We're drawing different conclusions from similar data. That's more a function of the size of the problem space than errors in logic.

"Political Science" is a meaningless phrase. Politics isn't a science. Life would be a lot simpler if it was, until we all died of boredom.

--Shannon

 

[quatin]

Quote:
Quote:
Letting people walk the streets freely "makes it easy" for that handful of murderers.
Letting people not wear mandatory chastity belts "makes it easy" for rapists.
You are using a very totalitarian definition of "make it easy."


Ok, fine. Instead of "makes it easy" let's say "increase the availability/sources of firearms to offenders". Even if it's through straw purchases/shop lifting, it increases the amount of people/stores to source the weapons
You're still accepting a totalitarian viewpoint. Everything that helps peaceable people also helps homicidal people to some degree. Paved roads help criminals commit crimes over greater areas, as do automobiles. Food supplies energy for criminals just as much a non-criminals. And how many murders would occur, if murderers had no access to clothing, without government permission?
There is no justification for singling out a specific category of life activity, such as firearms, without evidence that that activity has some strong, differential negative impact, compared to other activities. And there is no such evidence.

Well that's true, but what about nuclear weapons? Is there no justification to ban "WMDs" in the literal term from the general public? There's no strong negative impact of nuclear weapons in society yet since it's a fairly recent development and the civilian population have not been allowed to possess it since it's creation.

 

[roscoe]

We all agree that Liberals (in general) are contradictory in their logic on several different issues, so how do Liberals arrive at a consensus as to what they stand for?

Come on, give me a break!

Keep in mind that liberals are the reasons that women and black Americans can vote, that schools are not segregated, and that the first and fourth amendment are protected. Do they make mistakes? Well - public housing and welfare come to mind.

But contradictory in their logic - you mean like conservatives who believe that the government should stay out of our lives unless we want to engage in consensual sex in private with someone of the same gender? How's that for logically contradictory?

Or how about conservatives who say they oppose profligate govenment spending, yet drive up the federal deficit to a new record, having been given a budget surplus by the previous administration? Sounds a little logically contradictory to me!

Want more?

 

[MrZ]

/quote]I'm fine with that if the working population is able to use their 2nd Amendment to destroy tyrannical leaders of these corporations.[/quote]

It doesn't take the 2nd amendment to destroy a corporation. Corporations can be destroyed simply by choice. Example: Oil companies can be destroyed if people choose not to drive. Far fetched you say? Not really, however, people ARE indeed too fat and lazy to walk, ride a bike, or use public transportation, but it IS simply a matter of choice. This simple example can be applied to countless corporations.

" If the government is going to step in to protect CEOs from being destroyed via law enforcement, then maybe they should have to step in and protect the workers before it comes to that."

I do not agree with corporations getting bailed out by our tax dollars, however, I DO agree with law enforcement protecting ANYONE from unlawful violence. "Unlawful" being the key word in that sentance.

Keep in mind that liberals are the reasons that women and black Americans can vote, that schools are not segregated, and that the first and fourth amendment are protected.

BULL&$#*!!!!!

The ONLY reason ANYTHING gets done, or has EVER been done in this country, is because CONSERVATIVE men have, and WILL take up arms to ensure this nation stays free. This, in turn, allows all you hippie liberals, much like the parasite on a host, the opportunity to rationalize anything and everything, smoke dope, and act like spoiled children.

Now, that may upset you hippie liberals, however, rest assured that if you think about it long enough, you can rationalize and accept the response. REMEMBER, it's not MY fault. I am a minority raised in an underprivelaged home by illegal aliens who has been discriminated against all my life.

 

[glummer]

quatin

... but what about nuclear weapons? Is there no justification to ban "WMDs" in the literal term from the general public? There's no strong negative impact of nuclear weapons in society yet since it's a fairly recent development and the civilian population have not been allowed to possess it since it's creation

??? WMD's have an enormous differential negative impact. Almost by definition, there is nothing else which has less beneficial effect combined with greater harmful possibilities. ???

 

[glummer]

Not entirely off-topic:

Can any liberal/left/anti-war types explain to me the argument against Bush's desire to allow "harsh" treatment in the interrogation of unlawful combatants?

Specifically, I keep seeing references to "putting our troops in danger in future wars." I can't understand the implication. (I don't mean in the sense of disagree with it - I mean I can't figure out what you're trying to say.) The Conventions, as I understand it, cover soldiers/POW's (nothing changed here),& non-combatants (again, no change). The problem arises with non-soldier combatants, who are not either category. Bush wants to make up new rules, since there are none now. How does that endanger our SOLDIERS in future conflicts?? If we employed irregular, insurgent types, THEY would be in trouble; but that would be true today, anyway. But regular troops would be covered under the current agreements. So what, exactly, is the argument?