2013-03-09, 05:09 PM
SaptaZapta Wrote:In which case the civilians don't need any weapons at all. And perhaps shouldn't have them so they don't shoot at the military and antagonize them.
[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; who said anything about nukes? This thread is talking about remote-controlled conventional weaponry.
You said "if the government were corrupt guns would do us no good", and, "for INSTANCE, drones", as in, ONE EXAMPLE IS DRONES. Don't use some silly backpedal argument like that; if they reached a point where they didn't care what they had to do to control the people, they would hold nothing back in doing so, be it drones or nukes or biological weaponry or anything else. Right now, we aren't to that point; we still have one of the best working governments in the world, even if that is only comparatively and it doesn't necessarily mean our government is "good". We've had a bad run of presidents for a very long time; first with Clinton and his idiotic ideas for the housing market that eventually was one of the major contributors to a huge recession (at least on the banks side), then with Bush and his huge overexpenditure on military that was another major contributor to a huge recession and terrible PR, and now with Obama and his everything. We can't do much good if the most powerful person that represents the country should be in a mental institute.
And who says drones can't be modified to carry nuclear armaments?