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

reply to post by Iscool

Iran's stated intention when it gets nuclear weapons is to nuke the people it doesn't like...Iran is a nuthouse, run by the inmates...

Please show where Iran has stated that it wants to nuke anyone let alone Israel.

reply to post by Auricom


The questions you ask have been raised and replied to on several occasions in this thread.
Have you read the whole thread before posting?

reply to post by Freeborn


Ummm...Before I respond let me preface with a couple of questions...Do YOU, support the second amendment? I know that your from "across the pond" but I was curious because of your gun toting avatar. Also, would you consider yourself politically on the left side of the spectrum...I.E., liberal or progressive?

The reason for asking is that I would have to answer NO to your thread title...Yet I am a staunch supporter of the second amendment and consider myself to be libertarian/conservative politically. There are however a few caveats...I think that nuclear power and esp., weapons should be banned in all nations. How many "Fukushima's/Chernoble's" does it take to realize how utterly misguided at the very least such power pursuits are.

Forget the rhetoric...forget whether or not their aims are pure or polluted...forget balance of power persuasion. It's a foregone conclusion that...NO...nation is responsible enough...especially my own who used them on civilian populations.............twice.

What I want to know is how do you wrap your soul around such convoluted ideologies and at the end of the day....say that it or you have done.....good?

Take a long hard look at what just one facility in Japan foreshadows for life on the planet.........and yet we have to even discuss whether or not a radical Islamic regime should have the freedom to equip missiles with nuclear weapons.............have you all lost whatever good sense you once had?

YouSir

reply to post by Freeborn
No. I don't. But I also am not sure we should trust any country with nukes to always have leaders who do the right thing.

Freeborn
;
www.policymic.com...

I don't necessarily agree with all of the argument presented against the sanctions that have been placed up

According to that artical Canada are under sanctions? What did they do ?

reply to post by Freeborn


The Second Amendment for some people is as plain and clear as day as far as how it is defined. And there are those who feel it needs to be addressed through further regulation and enforcement to address for the times in our Nation's history. Then there are those who feel that it should be repealed and not allowed at all or extremely limited at best.

On one hand I see regulations as a requirement but I also understand concerns for those who see the 2nd amendment as it was written. I cannot trust the government to do what is in my best interests so I am against federal controls over weapon ownership. But I cannot trust states to honor the 2nd amendment either as they have proven to overstep or exceed the definition of the 2nd amendment as well in many cases.

I support the individual right of a citizen to bear arms in defense of there own well being, private property and those around them in accordance to the laws of the land within reason though. However, I do not want the nut case next door to have the ability to buy legally or illegally weapons of any kind let alone fully automatic or military grade weapons and possibly do harm to themselves or others in the process.

So what is the best path for people who feel like me that there is no right answer other than that what is in place now is not working? I can't trust government and I can't trust my neighbors. Who am I to dictate that my neighbor is a nut case and should not be able to own a firearm when I am allowed to though?

It's not so cut and dry for some people as it is for others. How do you limit said right without infringing on said rights of others? Most particularly in our current times of this Nation and in the World that is a concern.

What I do know is that proliferation comes from a desire to secure the same measures of deterrent and power as those who could or would harm you. Is that self defense? Is it the same thing as the 2nd amendment or the right to possess the means to defend against those with capabilities exceeding your own by matching them or rivaling them?

For me it is complicated. Yet it is clear where the mistrust and misgivings occur. How do we as citizens or even a Nation like Iran address this without imposing upon others or being imposed upon by others?

Zeppp
I mean really, their leaders believe some dude in a well is going to spring up and open a can of kick azz on the world in their favor. LOL!!!

And your leaders beileve a bearded man will come down from the heavens and rapture people.....

yeah.................................

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?

How much money and how annyoing is the jewish guy?

Zanti Misfit

Can Iran Defend itself with Conventional Weapons ?

Erm no.

Because of all its sanctions its military is likley a paper tiger with outdated obsolete equipment.

The US could take the place no doubt and so could Isreal if they wanted to.


MAD is really the only way they can 100% protect there independance.

beezzer


If that is the basis for your reasoning, then disarm America NOW!

You have my backing on that!

Maybe you could use the saved money to pay your debt off

reply to post by Freeborn



I believe everyone should live their own conscious. Not our place to rule on the conscious of others. However, if Iran ever acquired a nuke, I would scream the loudest against it. But not for the reasons anyone would ever imagine.

Although my paradox would be a different one than anyone here because I share the same religion as Iran. See in my religion, the one espoused publicly by the Iranian government, nuclear weapons are forbidden, unequivocally so. If they ever acquired nuclear weapons capability, they just broke Islamic law wholly, wadded it up and threw it all in the trash.

The problem is not the ability to defend yourself. I believe in that beyond any doubt. But nuclear warheads do not just kill your enemy they kill the innocent and in Islam, there is no such thing as collateral damage, and no excuse for it.

It is for this reason, I am against ANY country having nuclear capability where concerns arms. It is against every belief I hold dear... and if the only country on earth which calls itself a follower of the teachings of the 12 Imams goes against that belief, then I can no longer call them brother.

But so far, they have not done this, and I do not believe they will honestly. I think its a bunch of cry baby whinny BS on the part of those who do not understand our core beliefs and do not like what they think they see... they aren't seeing themselves in a mirror.

Freeborn
reply to post by projectvxn

 

2. Iran is a regional power and does not seem to have bad relations with anyone but Israel and the US.....

You are joking of course?
You are aware of Sunni / Shia differences and the ongoing sectarian conflict between them that is claiming thousands of lives?
Most nations in the region despise Iran.....and vice versa.

No other country in the region has nuclear weapons....so why does Israel feel the need to have them?

I want to postulate something in response to what you said here. In my previous post I said, you aren't seeing your own country/beliefs in a mirror when you see Iran, yet this is what you are expecting to see... otherwise you wouldn't fear that someone would ever actually USE nuclear weapons. That is your crime. The mirror is not there for you... but your trying to project it.

Your right, Iran is surrounded by her enemies. Isreal has almost as many nukes as the US, India has one, Saudi has pure evil on their side...

When I see Iran I want to project the mirror of my beliefs on them... They supposedly represent what I believe right... yet, they aren't my mirror either...

So, where is this middle place, this place between your mirror and mine, that place where the truth is most likely to reside?

My mirror is none, yours is using them... the middle is what? A. To make people think you have them, or want them, or would use them...

fear mongering. Surrounded by your enemies, its all psychological warfare... make them think you would break Islamic law... who cares? They will think twice before starting another war with you. Its about thinking twice anyway... that is the ONLY purpose for a nuclear weapon... to give someone pause before proceeding....

You can do that without a nuclear weapon... Iran proves that daily.

reply to post by YouSir

Do YOU, support the second amendment?

To be honest I'm pretty much apathetic towards it.

I understand its purpose and its importance to many Americans but its an irrelevance to me personally.
The US should do as the US see's fit - this isn't about gun control in itself, as I've explained on several occasions in this thread.
Suffice to say that I'm sure if I was living in America I'd be a gun owner - but I'm not and I don't feel the need to have one here in the UK and I don't think we need or want US like gun laws here. Horses for courses.

I know that your from "across the pond" but I was curious because of your gun toting avatar.

My 'gun toting avatar' is a character from a comic I read as a child - it evokes pleasant memories from a pleasant and long ago childhood. Nothing more, nothing less. Please don't try and read something from it that isn't there.

Also, would you consider yourself politically on the left side of the spectrum...I.E., liberal or progressive?

I dislike the obsession with labelling things and I try to view things on their own individual merit free from the restraints of any particular ideology or belief system.
I guess on some things I'd be viewed as left of centre, some even far left. But then again on many issues I'd be viewed as something of a Nationalist and right of centre.

For what it's worth;
Political Compass Test.
Economic Left / Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian / Authoritarian: -4.21

www.politicalcompass.org...

I think I've made my position perfectly clear in my previous posts, I don't want to go on repeating myself over and over again.
If you're interested enough please take the time to read all of my posts in this thread and I'm sure you'll get the answers to the questions and points you raise.
And of course please feel free to comment on anything I may have posted or if you think I have missed something etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Freeborn

How exactly do countries fight? If I remember correctly it's "to the death" if possible. How would we have been treated by Nazi Germany or Japan if we lost WWII? Or by Russia if we lost the cold war?

Or lets say Iran had the bomb first, you think they would do everything in their power to keep us from getting it? Or would they hand them out because we all have the right to self defense?

Every country has the right to PURSUE self defense with any means at their disposal, and guess what, every country also has the right to confound the self defense pursuits of any other country, if they perceive those efforts as possibly threatening. So the US has the same right to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, if the morons in charge here had any sense that would be the policy.

In case you haven't noticed, MIGHT makes right. And there is the correlation you are seeking. Just as those in charge are limiting our access to guns in the name of "safety", those in charge will work to prevent nuclear proliferation under the same banner.

And I don't agree with nor like the recent efforts to limit access to arms, because I happen to be on the wrong side. As long as we have pipes, nails & rubber bands it ain't happenin. I do believe it is in MY best interest that Iran does not acquire nuclear capability, so any sneaky, seemingly unfair efforts by the US to prevent this are A-OK. I don't care who thinks it's fair, or who doesn't like it, because it's survival and ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR. So they take our guns and say "too bad",
and we keep Iran from getting nukes and say "sux to be U, LOL"

reply to post by Flint2011


Thanks for the well written and considered post.

For me it is complicated.

Indeed. It is very complicated to say the least.

Yet it is clear where the mistrust and misgivings occur. How do we as citizens or even a Nation like Iran address this without imposing upon others or being imposed upon by others?

I honestly don't know, I've never professed to have all the answers.
But its something that I think greater minds than mine and more influential people than me should try to work out.
At present all we seem to be doing is forcing a situation where lines in the sand are being drawn and people are choosing sides before some sort of inevitable confrontation.....a confrontation that could have devastating repercussions for all of us.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Thanks for your posts.
I take it from what you've said that you are a Twelver and living outside Iran?

You give another perspective and one that deserves respect and consideration.

It'll be impossible to reach the middle ground we all need until genuine respect is given to everyone's viewpoint.

Its interesting that you say possessing nuclear weapons is expressly prohibited by Islamic teachings.
I've seen the same claim attributed to Rouhani yet its quite clear Ahmadinejad didn't agree with this view and Iran's continued development of weapon grade uranium suggests something quite different.
But I guess that too is a topic for another thread entirely.

Freeborn
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Thanks for your posts.
I take it from what you've said that you are a Twelver and living outside Iran?

Yes I am.

You give another perspective and one that deserves respect and consideration.

It'll be impossible to reach the middle ground we all need until genuine respect is given to everyone's viewpoint.

Thanks and I agree. Without respectful discussion we can never come to our middle ground, and that middle ground is very very important.

Its interesting that you say possessing nuclear weapons is expressly prohibited by Islamic teachings.
I've seen the same claim attributed to Rouhani yet its quite clear Ahmadinejad didn't agree with this view and Iran's continued development of weapon grade uranium suggests something quite different.
But I guess that too is a topic for another thread entirely.

I believe that it is less about a disagreement on Ahmedinejad's part concerning textual disagreement, as the books are too clear on the issue.

I believe Ahmedinejad was simply more for the fear mongering part. He believed that it was important for the world to have that respectful fear. Iran really is, as I said and you concur, surrounded by her enemies. In such an untenable situation, the ability to strike fear into the hearts of others is important wouldn't you agree?

Fear is something that exists in the mind... so its all in what you can make your enemy think.

reply to post by Freeborn


I think nations, including Iran, have the right to self-defense, and if that includes building nuclear weapons, more power to them!

And I'm pro-Second Amendment. So, in answer to your question, yes.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Iran really is, as I said and you concur, surrounded by her enemies.

I think people really need to understand just how much Iran feels isolated, not just from those outside the Muslim world but also from most of its neighbours and fellow Islamic nations.

Whether these are actual 'enemies' as such and wish to see harm befall Iran is open to much debate - although I'm sure some do.

But it works both ways, Iran needs to understand just how threatened many of its neighbours feel by Iran's actions and postulating etc.

Of course its not the only cause or consideration but the harsh reality is that much of this discord lies with the differences between the Sunni and Shia denominations.

In such an untenable situation, the ability to strike fear into the hearts of others is important wouldn't you agree?

I'd probably argue against Iran having the right to 'strike fear into the hearts of others' but I certainly understand why Iran would want to be able to defend itself to the fullest extent possible.

Fear is something that exists in the mind... so its all in what you can make your enemy think.

But what when religious fervour and blind faith eliminates fear?

I'd love to debate Sunni / Shia tenets, Ahmadinejad and his personal beliefs about The Mahdi, Rouhani and the 'conservatives', Iranian society and internal structure and issues etc but that's not really the intent of this thread.
Maybe in another thread?

reply to post by crazyewok


"MAD is really the only way they can 100% protect there independance."

You do realize that is a Ridiculous Claim . With no " First Strike " Capability , if Ever developed , their Missles or Tactical Nukes would never have a Chance to Launch before they were Completely Destroyed . Nothing M.A.D. about that . No , they would be Safer without them IMO ..........