|
>> I don't think you can fairly compare disarming Iraq with taking guns away from
>> law abiding citizens, which is what recent gun laws have done. At the end of
>> the Gulf War Iraq said it would remove all its Weapons of Mass Destruction and
>> not build any more. Invading Iraq to remove its WMD it like taking guns from
>> criminals, not ordinary citizens. OK so you have new principle - preemptive defense is OK
against a criminal. But exactly what makes Saddam Hussein a criminal?
- Making threats against the US or the UK? He only started doing this
when they started making threats against him.
- Invading Kuwait because they were stealing Iraq's oil? (yes they were, by
the way).
- Dropping Scuds on Israel in 1991? Israel dropped bombs on his nuclear sites first.
- Going to war with a bunch of Muslim psychopaths who stole Iran for the
Iranians through dictatorship? Like the US did in Afghanistan?
- Working for the CIA? Like Bush Senior?
- Locking up people without trial? Like the US has done in Cuba?
- Torturing his citizens? Like US police did to Rodney King? Or is it
merely a question of degree?
I'm not actually saying that Saddam is a good bloke here, I'm sure you can
refute each and every one of these points above, and I too would like to stick
his head on a pike - but the issue is What's the principle?. As soon as you change the principle of preemptive defense is wrong
or preemptive defense is your right to preemptive defense is OK
against a criminal, as defined by my definition of criminality you are on
a slippery slide of interpretation. That is, each case must be judged on its
merits according to the risk, and the violation of rights on all sides, and
this is exactly my argument. Hence I do not think that you have a fundamental right to own a gun, any more
than you have a fundamental right to own a nuclear bomb. On balance I think
that non-hand-guns make society safer, which is my objection to gun control. Thanks for reading.
| 
