















The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: I did not "exclude" nuclear
I did not "exclude" nuclear
I did not "exclude" nuclear weapons. I said you cannot use them as a defense if it presents a clean and present danger for innocent people. That applies to ALL weapons used to defend yourself. If you are in space and some spaceship comes to kill you, you can use a nuclear weapon, if it defends YOU and not kill others than the aggressors. Hope that clears it up.
"If you can preclude ownership of one, then you can do so for others."
Where did I preclude ownership of anything? You can own 100 hand grenades, but you can't use them in a crowded theater to defend against one person trying to stab you. I explained all of this.
The focus should be on the object, BUT in the manner in which and WHEN it is used. You would agree that dropping a nuclear bomb in Iraq's biggest cities would be outside the scope of defending the US?
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...