posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:20 PM
Originally posted by superman2012
Serious question looking for serious answers. I know this will not dissuade some of you, but at least I tried.
Quite a few people that believe Iran is building towards a nuclear bomb are saying that they should not be doing so.
Quite a few people, in the US, responded in quite a few 2nd amendment threads where people from other countries, were telling them they should get rid
of their guns.
So, my question is, why is it ok for some US citizens to tell people what to do in their country, but, if someone tells you what to do in your
country, it is stupid and they should keep their nose out of your business?
Is this a case of, do as I say, not as I do? Also, why, in the face of this double standard, should we take anything you say from now on
Thanks in advance for keeping this civil.
These are actually two very different issues. Gun ownership is a right in the United States for a very important reason. The reason is so that, if
the government becomes corrupt, and a danger to freedom, that the people would have a way to take care of that issue. People would be able to defend
themselves if the government was so far gone as to attack its own citizens. The Declaration of Independence even addresses this: "...But when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...".
No one is saying that the people of Iran should not be able to arm themselves in that fashion.
In the case of Iran, the issue is nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were developed in the United States during WWII, and used, only twice, when no
other option seemed likely to end the conflict with Japan. Even after they were used, some Japanese didn't want to stop fighting. That use of those
bombs was a very difficult decision, and one that was made only after long and careful consideration. Since that time, no country has been willing to
use such weapons against another. Five nations signed a non-proliferation treaty, in an effort to discourage further development. More than one
nation has created such weapons since that time, basically ignoring that law. In the case of Iran, you have a very unstable country, headed by people
that hold a strong animosity towards most of the rest of the world. Such weapons, in the hands of such a nation, threaten the entire planet. This
isn't a case of the United States telling another country what they can't do, but of the entire free world being involved in the effort to keep such
weapons out of the hands of fanatics. When you have a nation that would destroy themselves, along with the rest of us, in the name of their cause,
that nation should not have such weapons.
I would think that any reasonable person could see the difference between citizens arming themselves, and nations building nuclear weapons that could
destroy other countries, especially if one such nation in question is hostile to freedom.