Do Second Amendment supporters also support Irans right to protect itself with nuclear weapons?

Christian Voice
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Sure we do. If you are referring to WWII, that was the only thing that ended the war and saved Democracy. Japan received several warnings and would not comply. I do not agree with that kind of weapon anyway. Who wins when something like that is used ? NO ONE!!! Why should one of the most volatile regions ever be allowed to own such destructive power ?

So you think that the dropping of the bomb on Japan was necessary to end the war? If a country can find justification to use a nuclear weapon on another country no matter how noble it may sound, other countries will do the same thing.

By the way Russia has had the nuke since the 50's and hasn't dropped it on anyone. Don't give me this crap about volatile regions not being able to refrain from using the weapons. I'm sure if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, they would be well aware that if they used it, their entire country would quickly be turned to glass. They may or may not be crazy (I'm leaning on not crazy but whatever), but I'm sure they aren't suicidal. Come up with a better reason to deny these weapons.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Pakistan hasn't routinely made a habit of threatening genocide. They want Kashmir, but they haven't made a habit of threatening=to wipe India off the map for it. In short, Pakistan is still ruled my MAD. There isn't much evidence that Iran is, but there is evidence that Iran is influenced by Mahdaviat which is a whole different cup of tea.

reply to post by Indigent


So if they simply rescind their signature to the NPT it is then ok for them to have nuclear weapons?

Freeborn
reply to post by Zeppp

 

And look at some of the wackiest beliefs of the more fundamental Christians in the US - and they have a hell of a lot of influence in your country.
Should the religious zealots in the US be denied their Right To Bear Arms because many view them as cranks and whacko's?

What gives the US or anyone else the right to dictate what other nations can do to defend themselves?
I agree that possession of such weapons brings with it a heightened degree of responsibility.

Seems to me you kick Christians around like a bodily function. Those Christians and their wacky ideas of stopping infanticide or telling people to love their neighbors are right up there with 14th century mullahs that hack peoples limbs off or behead them. They should all be eradicated from the face of the planet huh? By the way I'm a Buddhist I'll bet you can find shame in that too?

reply to post by Freeborn


The two have nothing to do with one another. The 2nd amendment is an individual natural right, a self evident truth that exists whether or not it is transcribed onto a piece of paper. The other is the right of a sovereign nation to keep whatever arms it feels is necessary to defend its sovereignty. Having said all of that, when someone misuses their individual right to keep and bear arms, due process is used to strip their 2nd amendment right from them. When a sovereign nation has proven to not be responsible enough to keep and bear certain types of arms, in this case nuclear, then said nation should not be allowed to have them. I would say that Iran's past threats and rhetoric have deemed them not responsible enough to have nuclear weapons, just as if I were to go around threatening to shoot people, I should lose my right to own a firearm.

reply to post by Freeborn


What does Personal Firearm Ownership and Nuclear Weapons have in Common ? Nothing ................DUMB THREAD

reply to post by Freeborn


Two men walk into a gun shop.

One man, want's the weapon for protection.

The other person, wants the weapon to kill a Jewish guy.

Do you sell the weapons to both men?

reply to post by beezzer


aren't you violating their rights by demanding to know the purpose of the purchase?

reply to post by ketsuko


You think so? How many wars has Iran started in the last 100 years? 200 years? Here is the answer: 1826 during the 4th Russo-Persian War

Pakistan has started a few more wars in that time frame. America, has been pretty much constantly at war in that time frame. Israel is pretty much always at war. Yet these countries are all perfectly able to own and not use nuclear weapons, two of which tell Iran that they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons.

reply to post by beezzer


Jewish or Zionist? You know that there is a world of difference to some people ...

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko

 

You think so? How many wars has Iran started in the last 100 years? 200 years? Here is the answer: 1826 during the 4th Russo-Persian War

Pakistan has started a few more wars in that time frame. America, has been pretty much constantly at war in that time frame. Israel is pretty much always at war. Yet these countries are all perfectly able to own and not use nuclear weapons, two of which tell Iran that they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Send us a post card when you go over to their freedom loving country to live we would love to hear from you.

reply to post by Indigent


They claimed it openly while walking into the store.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You're talking about wars/conflicts v. weapons used.

The question is whether or not you trust Iran to have the weapon without using it. And it's not like Iran is all squeaky clean, either. They've been pretty systematically waging their own proxy war through Hizbollah all this time not counting the Iraq/Iran war which saw the use of chemical weapons by both sides. If Iran was capable of using chem weapons, would they use nukes if they had them especially if they thought it would usher in the Mahdi?

Or do you trust that Iran will be rational actor held the MAD like most everyone else?

reply to post by beezzer


i would sell them both, if someone kills anyone the law will decide, cant have freedom without the part to do stupid acts, this aint minority report

beezzer
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Two men walk into a gun shop.

One man, want's the weapon for protection.

The other person, wants the weapon to kill a Jewish guy.

Do you sell the weapons to both men?

Well, I'd sell the weapon to the normal guy first and tell the other one we're out of ammo for his.. Sorry..

Let nature takes it's course outside the shop for Darwin's theory.

reply to post by Zeppp


Irrelevant. I never claimed to want to live over there or that people get treated fairly there either. All I said is that Iran hasn't done anything to demonstrate that they'd be irresponsible with nuclear weapons. There already exist countries that do severe human rights violations and haven't thrown any nukes against another country or even against their own countrymen (barring testing the weapons, but that is done in remote barren regions). Seriously, why are responses like yours ALWAYS one of the go to ones when you run out of ammo to support your argument?

reply to post by Zeppp

Seems to me you kick Christians around like a bodily function. Those Christians and their wacky ideas of stopping infanticide or telling people to love their neighbors are right up there with 14th century mullahs that hack peoples limbs off or behead them.

I never said ALL Christians, just SOME of the more fundamentalist....please show where I inferred anything other than that.

I'm Agnostic and I find ALL religious extremists quite disturbing.

They should all be eradicated from the face of the planet huh?

Again, where did I imply that?

By the way I'm a Buddhist I'll bet you can find shame in that too?

Not at all - but Buddhism is not without it's own zealots as can be witnessed in Myanmar.

But that's not why I started this thread - I'm simply trying to draw a comparison with The Second Amendment and the contradiction that SOME of it's supporters have in their belief in denying Iran a right to defend itself from what it believes is a threat from other sovereign nations.

The only person trying to turn this into a religious hate fest is you.

And for the record I haven't even given my personal opinion on the matter I'm just trying to stimulate a reasoned and respectful debate.

reply to post by ketsuko


I let Iran's history of declaring wars speak for itself.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


So, we'll ignore the shadow wars ... I see.

I guess the lesson, boys and girls, is to never openly declare a war to be square with Krazy. Just carry on a shadow war where it's all *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*, and he'll give you a big ol' pass.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

The two have nothing to do with one another.

We'll have to disagree on that - I and quite a few others think that the same principle can be applied to both.

.....when someone misuses their individual right to keep and bear arms, due process is used to strip their 2nd amendment right from them.

Ok, I understand that.

When a sovereign nation has proven to not be responsible enough to keep and bear certain types of arms, in this case nuclear, then said nation should not be allowed to have them.

Who determines what criteria should be used in such an instance?

I would say that Iran's past threats and rhetoric have deemed them not responsible enough to have nuclear weapons,

So political rhetoric is enough to disbar a nation?
If that's the case then no nation on earth should be allowed to have them.

.... just as if I were to go around threatening to shoot people, I should lose my right to own a firearm.

So are people in the US denied their right to bear arms under such circumstances?

I'm not really a big fan of the Iranian regime but please show me where their acts have singled them out as being so untrustworthy to be allowed nuclear weapons.
Are any of these acts any different from some of those carried out by USA, Chine, Russia, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India?