Question for people that live in the USA

************ATTENTION************

If you do not understand the question asked in the opening post, please do not despair. I could have worded it a bit better and more clear so people would have no trouble understanding it. About 1/2 of the people understand what I am asking and the other 1/2 believe I am comparing guns to nuclear weapons (ridiculous).

Here is a post explaining things for the people that don't get that an analogy is not to be taken literally.

Edit: After reading some more of the posts on the previous page, it seems like some of you only saw the word Iran and decided to try and get some stars.

Sorry if someone has already posted this, I skipped a few pages because I was tired of reading the same things. I find no hippocracy in supporting gun rights, but not wanting Iran to have nukes. Most people that support the second amendment probably would rather the US not have them either. Honestly, I think the every country should stay out of others business. With two exceptions...if a nation asks for help, and their cause is ethical, or if the citizens are evidenced as being in grave danger due to their own govt. (Think Hitler,etc...) I also don't think the governments, ours anyway, should involve themselves in citizens rights, but that's just me as a minarchist.

This is the reason why they're trying their best to disarm Americans. The ban gun agenda is getting bigger and bigger everyday, I can literary feel what they're trying to do. Starts @ 1:47:00

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Malcher

 

Read the whole thread, or at least understand what I have been talking about before responding please.

I read most of it but i did not see you change what you said form the OP?

If i missed it you can post it again.

Some of us are surprised how Amerocentric your news must be because as i saw in the thread about those women disappearing you should be concerned with stuff like that...or am i wrong here?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
My having a gun does not threaten someone living in say Great Britian....but Iran having a nuclear bomb could threaten me here in the United States as well as those living in other countries (ie, Great Britain) also.

Wait, was that a sensible response? You know such logic will only confuse people, right?

I flat can't understand who can't get that simple FACT! How anyone can equate a gun, of ANY sort, with a nuke, is beyond me. I want those people to show how a gun can wipe out an entire city. In seconds. If no one can do that, this discussion should be closed.

reply to post by igniterevolution

I find no hippocracy in supporting gun rights, but not wanting Iran to have nukes.

It isn't about that. It never was.

It isn't about supporting gun rights but not supporting nukes.

It is about telling people not to do something in their country, while getting mad at them for telling you what to do in yours.

It's a pretty simple question.

reply to post by superman2012


Iran has every right to build whatever weapons they care to. A large part of why they want the bomb is because of western imperial policies.
That said, I'm not completely sure they wouldn't use those weapons offensively, but, if the US was following the foreign policy advocated by the founders of the country, its unlikely we would be the targets.
Unfortunately, we aren't, therefore we are.
Too bad for Iran, because they're playing coy about the subject is completely setting themselves up as the fall guy in a false flag attack.
By playing with the weapons, Iran is playing right into the TPTB trap. Their only way out I see is to get real, deployable weapons together in quantity ASAP, then they have to be treated like players at the table.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.

reply to post by igniterevolution


Exactly, I'm not calling for the citizens of Iran to not have guns... I just don't want their Govt. to have a nuclear bomb. Similar to how i want NO Govt. to have a nuclear weapon...

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
My having a gun does not threaten someone living in say Great Britian....but Iran having a nuclear bomb could threaten me here in the United States as well as those living in other countries (ie, Great Britain) also.

Wait, was that a sensible response? You know such logic will only confuse people, right?

I flat can't understand who can't get that simple FACT! How anyone can equate a gun, of ANY sort, with a nuke, is beyond me. I want those people to show how a gun can wipe out an entire city. In seconds. If no one can do that, this discussion should be closed.

It should only be closed if people (ie: you and others) can't grasp what the actual question of this thread is. Look up at the top and follow the links.

Originally posted by superman2012
************ATTENTION************

If you do not understand the question asked in the opening post, please do not despair. I could have worded it a bit better and more clear so people would have no trouble understanding it. About 1/2 of the people understand what I am asking and the other 1/2 believe I am comparing guns to nuclear weapons (ridiculous).

Here is a post explaining things for the people that don't get that an analogy is not to be taken literally.

Edit: After reading some more of the posts on the previous page, it seems like some of you only saw the word Iran and decided to try and get some stars.

edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

Seriously...we KNOW it was an analogy.

reply to post by Malcher


Really? Look around again. I have explained more on this thread than I have to my six year old. If you can't tell, I'm getting a little frustrated.

Why can't a thread evolve from a question to something else? I enjoy listening to peoples responses to the question and then taking it t another direction, it leads to interesting conversation

reply to post by jhn7537


Have you answered the original question yet? If not, how is it going to evolve. Plus, we all know where this is going to wind up. With people on one side saying Iran is going to build a bomb, that they are, that they will use it. With the other side saying that they haven't built one, have no plans to and won't use it as that would be foolish. Check out the 2 - 6 pages.

Edit: I'm trying to keep it on topic. There are plenty of Iran threads if you want to discuss other issues, or start your own thread.

Originally posted by superman2012
************ATTENTION************

If you do not understand the question asked in the opening post, please do not despair. I could have worded it a bit better and more clear so people would have no trouble understanding it. About 1/2 of the people understand what I am asking and the other 1/2 believe I am comparing guns to nuclear weapons (ridiculous).

Here is a post explaining things for the people that don't get that an analogy is not to be taken literally.

Edit: After reading some more of the posts on the previous page, it seems like some of you only saw the word Iran and decided to try and get some stars.

edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

We understand your question just fine

Why do AMERICAN CITIZENS AS I SEE THEM ON ATS feel the need to judge and tell people halfway around the world what they should do, when THOSE SAME AMERICAN CITIZENS tell people that live halfway around the world to butt out when they offer their opinions on how the americans should handle their country?

In the case of Iran, what are American Citizens telling Iranians to do?

What part of UN Sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council don't you get? That is not American citizens judging Iran, that is the UN Security Council made up of numerous nations telling Iran what not to do. It has nothing whatever to do with our 2nd Amendment rights.
Other than that. let Iranians do whatever. As someone else said here, just don't do it in our direction.

As a disclaimer, I am totally not fond of the UN, as many here could probably testify, and I do not wish the UN to tell Americans we cannot have handguns. I think this must be really what you are getting at here though you won't admit it. Perhaps you are for the UN Small Arms Treaty therefore limiting American gun ownership? But you don't want the UN to tell Iran not to produce nukes.
Where is the hypocrisy now?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

We understand your question just fine

Your words and posts say otherwise.

American citizens judging Iran,

You haven't seen any threads on ATS?

It has nothing whatever to do with our 2nd Amendment rights.

You're right. I explained that to you two or three times already. Glad to see you're caught up.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
My having a gun does not threaten someone living in say Great Britian....but Iran having a nuclear bomb could threaten me here in the United States as well as those living in other countries (ie, Great Britain) also.

Right, I get that, but you are missing the point. How can an American tell someone what to do in another country and then get mad when someone from another country tells them what they should do?

No, YOU are missing the point. Deliberately, I suspect. First off, this isn't America telling someone else what they can't do. This is the entire free world not wanting a radical, fanatical nation to have weapons that could destroy other countries.

reply to post by superman2012


If there is one thing you should know about Americans, its that there are as many opinions on things as there are Americans. As far as banning guns, I don't think that is the answer. I think we need to examine what in our society is creating these people who feel the need to do these things.Maybe a better mental healthcare system would be a good start. I feel very bad about the gun violence but I am very much in favor of the second amendment being upheld, sorry. Hamburgers kill far more people in my country than guns do but I don't see a huge outcry to ban fast food (although that would be a good thing and would ultimately save millions of lives). Regarding Iran building a bomb, I don't think adding any atom bombs to the world is good. And also I don't feel threatened by Iran building one because I think they know that if they were ever foolish enough to use one against us, or Israel for that matter, they would be committing national suicide. Yes, we have attacked countries (by "we" you must realize that would be the OWNERS of the country), and invaded them. But the average American is something akin to a free range slave who is mostly concerned about how they are going to make it from this paycheck to the next at this point.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
My having a gun does not threaten someone living in say Great Britian....but Iran having a nuclear bomb could threaten me here in the United States as well as those living in other countries (ie, Great Britain) also.

Right, I get that, but you are missing the point. How can an American tell someone what to do in another country and then get mad when someone from another country tells them what they should do?

No, YOU are missing the point. Deliberately, I suspect. First off, this isn't America telling someone else what they can't do. This is the entire free world not wanting a radical, fanatical nation to have weapons that could destroy other countries.

Nope, it's still you.
My thread was asking a question to Americans on ATS. I have participated in threads on ATS with some Americans, where they were quite critical of Iran. This thread has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or handguns. Critical thinking is a skill few have. If you still need help, scroll to the top and follow the links for a better explanation.

I have some questions. To the OP, would you like foreigners telling you what to do in your own country? I mean, no offense, but that is just a no- brainer. What we do here is our business. Period. Yes it affects a lot of other countries too, but tough luck. Foreigners, mind your own business. It's called national sovereignty.

Now it's pretty apparent that some people have trouble governing themselves. The world is much smaller than it used to be and if you can't play nice then someone's got to handle the situation because actions will affect more than just you. The next thing I ask is, to everyone who thinks the U.S. is basically the evil devil, would you rather the Soviet Union had won the cold war? Hey, someone had to win and whether you like to admit it or not, the world is much much better off with America as the major world empire. You think the Soviets would let us all get online and rant against things we have absolutely no knowledge of? Think the Soviets would send food and medicine to Africa (which Europe mostly screwed up by colonizing it, but that's OK, we'll help them)? How about the British Empire? Yeah, they had a great humanitarian record.

America is the policeman of the world because you all have proven time and again that you cannot police yourselves. Here's an idea: How about the rest of the world grow a pair and start taking responsibility for their own problems instead of leaving us holding the bag and then criticizing how we handle it- I'm talking to you U.K. for your failure to deal with Hitler and you France for the whole mess in Vietnam. Just a couple examples where we bailed out people.

I am reminded of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men when he said, "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

OP....

We get what you tried to do. While saying you were not trying to compare a domestic policy to a country arming itself with nuclear weapons....there's a distinct difference you purposely ignore to try to further your own ideology and point. You're not interested in the answers nor in opposing points of view. You wanted to drive your point home. The problem here, is that foreigners telling Americans they should not exercise their domestic right to bare arms, is different than countries (Like the United States of America) opposing a radical religious ideologically extremist group arming itself with weapons capable and attained for the purpose of attacking other countries that do not believe in the same god or prophets as they do.

Make no mistake, Iran has every intention to attack countries (Hello Israel) and has publicly made it clear.

The world would be better off if Israel decimates every last Iranian before that happens. Bonus points if they just get rid of Palestine too. Yes, I support mass genocide, when it comes to Iranians & Palestinians. Not because they are part of a specific ethnicity or color...but because they are religious fanatics that think it is justified to kill and destroy those who do not believe in what they believe. They are a threat and have proven to be so.