First of all, Bub, you have necessarily ignored the totality of my original post to make the absurd claim that my "panties are in a bunch because I cannot own nuclear weapons" which is typical of the tyrants sycophants.

Secondly, Wikipedia is hardly a respectable legal source, not by any stretch of the imagination. If this is the best you can do you are woefully lacking.

No one, not any individual and certainly not any government, has any business owning nuclear weapons.

Your clear advocacy of the ownership of nuclear weapons and only for government is atrocious.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by chr0naut

---

Your country holds the keys to the destruction of the world and has shown irresponsibility in use of that power.

Please think about that.

But you're fine with adding another nuclear stockpile?? Because allowing Iran to move forward will accomplish exactly that, friend. Iran is a country whose leaders chant DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL, DEATH TO ENGLAND, DEATH TO THE WEST. I think they've demonstrated their intent to use them....at least enough for me.

whose leaders chant DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL, DEATH TO ENGLAND, DEATH TO THE WEST

But you're fine with adding another nuclear stockpile?? Because allowing Iran to move forward will accomplish exactly that,

I see, since the yield the U.S. used in nuclear weaponry was in your estimation small enough to make their current arsenal quite okay, and the U.S.'s charitable attitude towards Japan makes it even more okay. Interesting.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag

---

I see, since the yield the U.S. used in nuclear weaponry was in your estimation small enough to make their current arsenal quite okay, and the U.S.'s charitable attitude towards Japan makes it even more okay. Interesting.

So, I prove you cant own nukes and you call me a tyrant?

Prove my sources wrong then. When backed into a corner people claim "OMG WIKIPEDIA BAD"

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times a
rmed;

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag

---

I see, since the yield the U.S. used in nuclear weaponry was in your estimation small enough to make their current arsenal quite okay, and the U.S.'s charitable attitude towards Japan makes it even more okay. Interesting.

I hear all this crap about the US occupation of other countries we’ve battled. Where is the occupation of Japan?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TsukiLunar

---

So, I prove you cant own nukes and you call me a tyrant?

You proved nothing other than the U.S. federal government is more than willing to defy the 2nd Amendment, and I did not call you a tyrant, I called you a sycophant. Find it difficult to read, do you?

Prove my sources wrong then. When backed into a corner people claim "OMG WIKIPEDIA BAD"

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times a
rmed;

~Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors~

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

~Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776~

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

~John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)~

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

~Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)~

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

~Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788~

You provided a website of aggregate writers who have opined on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment written more than 200 years ago, and I have provided just a few quotes from Founding Fathers who opine on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment at the time it was written. Oh My God the Founding Fathers?????

You provided a website of aggregate writers who have opined on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment written more than 200 years ago

and I have provided just a few quotes from Founding Fathers who opine on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment at the time it was written.

Stop deflecting, brother. You are asserting that the U.S. is only trying to save the world from the threat of nuclear destruction

and I am asserting that if the U.S. truly wants to do this they should begin with their own obscene cache of weapons of mass destruction.

Its all about money and power.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by LoneGunMan

---

Its all about money and power.

Well of course it is. Do you think that we would scratch someone back if they didn't scratch ours?