posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:15 PM
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
Are any of these acts any different from some of those carried out by USA, Chine, Russia, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India?
edit on 3/1/14
by Freeborn because: typo