It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Being an American, of course I fully support the bill of rights.
For U.S. as well as them, and their closest neighbor who does have nukes is also a rogue terrorist state.
Of course Iran has the right to defend themselves.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
What the title made me think of was that since Iran rules with oppression and so much violence to force the citizens to do or not do, they in fact do need nukes, this way they could obliterate their own ruling class who are nothing but power hungry animals..

This is not a bad idea for the USA also, especially right now with the kings and queens of GRAFT and corruption currently in control, since it definitely would take a nuke or two to cleanse the USA of this infestation, but then some would have to sacrifice their lives to get the job done, but isn't this what they tell and teach our troops?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
weapons of any kind aren't for peace so no i don't support another nation having such a weapon period or even america, all MAD does is create more fear, paranoia, hatred and hostility, not only that it has destroyed things which militaries used to value on the battlefield like chivalry, fairness and humanity. it has made us weak, arrogant, blind and it has for a significant degree erased fear from the minds of westerners regarding war and made us more war like than ever in policy towards other nations.

if MAD keeps getting spread to other nations it will only corrupt them until the world goes mad with power, one inexperienced, arrogant and foolish nuclear nation is all it will take to destroy us.
so i think that since we have this weapon we as nations(not just america) who know and understand it with the experience, that we must prevent MAD from ruling any other nation at all cost, we must get rid of and never use such weapons ourselves.
i'm for self defense and all but not when said weapons can destroy all of civilization within an hour.

if it wasn't for nukes or the cold war america might still be a humble, respectful and reasonable nation that acts with reasoned thought but no, the power that comes with nukes has corrupted our nation and i don't want that to spread and eat away at other nations even if it results in chaos and war for 100 years.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
I do. Of course I believe that Israel has been blowing the threat of Iran out of proportion for a while now. Not to mention, Israel has nukes and if they can keep their itchy finger off of the button, I'm sure Iran can demonstrate the same restraint.


What, you must be joking lol. Iran is extremely lucky to still be there. It has been their state policy that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. Their prior leader said this on more than one occasion. The religious leaders who really run the country are the same so this remains how they feel. The last interview with their newest leader when asked side stepped this question.

What would you do if a crazy radical neighbor threatened to burn your house and kill your whole family. That is what I thought. Iran has no rights to a nuclear weapon and really should have been wiped themselves. Sponsoring terrorism all over the world. If anywhere needed Arab spring it was Iran.

OK well your leader says that kinda stuff and you get what you deserve.

The Bot



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The right to bear arms has been decided upon by SCOTUS that the meaning of the word "arms" is weaponry that can be carried by an individual in ones arms. With modern high kill ratio "arms" such as SAMs and some other advancements, there have been additions to the restricted list.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I see your Point , but a Thermo Nuclear Weapon is a Weapon of Mass Destruction , Handguns are not , Big Difference . Iran has been safe from Nuclear War so far , why make it more Vunerable to Attack if it is seen as a Bigger threat by other Nations if it eventually Developed One ?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


In my opinion, no one should have nukes, biological, or chemical weapons. There is absolutely NO reason for any one to have them. Not us, not them, no one. Weapons of mass destruction were never needed, ever. Any one who uses security as an excuse, is merely trying to deceive.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


My questions to you are as follows:

1. What does one have to do with the other?

2. Iran is a regional power and does not seem to have bad relations with anyone but Israel and the US. Iran cannot project its military power beyond its immediate regional sphere of influence and even with nuclear weapons its reach would be negligible except to hit targets in Israel and US targets in nations that would be getting nuked needlessly. What possible reason could Iran have to possess nuclear weapons? I don't even think the US should have them and you won't find a stronger supporter of the second amendment on this site.

3. If you answered number one and have somehow made a viable correlation between the second amendment(individual right to arms and self defense) and Iran having nukes (national nuclear deterrent or aggressive bargaining chip) answer this: How is adding more nuclear weapons to an already unstable region going to solve problems in the future?

My opinion on the second amendment and the use of nukes is quite separate. Nukes for self defense makes about as much sense to me as nukes for individual self defense. I believe we should be aiming for a nuke free world. Nuclear power should be used for humanitarian purposes not to annihilate each other.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 




1. What does one have to do with the other?


I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

Only so many times I can repeat the same thing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



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?



How is adding more nuclear weapons to an already unstable region going to solve problems in the future?


How is adding more guns to places like Louisiana which in 2010 had a firearm murder rate of 10.16 per 100,000 going to solve the problem?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 





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.


And yet no open conflict.




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


Is this about Israel or Iran?




How is adding more guns to places like Louisiana which in 2010 had a firearm murder rate of 10.16 per 100,000 going to solve the problem?


I'd like to see where you got these numbers. Not disputing it. I just don't like ill-cited statistics.

Secondly, firearms in personal use is NOT the same thing as nuclear weapons which have internationally destabilizing effects.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 




And yet no open conflict.


Granted. But you alleged that Iran had no bad relationships with neighbouring countries, I'm pointing out they have. Whether there is open conflict or not is pretty much irrelevant in this instance.
Let's face it, they could hardly be called bosom buddies with Saudi Arabia or most of the Gulf States or Iraq.



Is this about Israel or Iran?


Iran.
In your first post in this thread you brought Israel into the discussion.
Iran feels threatened by Israel's possession of nuclear arms and many believe that is a primary reason why Iran wants to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

I'm sure Israel believes it has good reasons why it needs nuclear weaponry, by the same reasoning so does Iran.



I'd like to see where you got these numbers. Not disputing it. I just don't like ill-cited statistics.


Yes, I should have provided the source, apologies;
www.theguardian.com...
www.fbi.gov...



Secondly, firearms in personal use is NOT the same thing as nuclear weapons which have internationally destabilizing effects.


Individuals use the right to defend themselves from potential threats as a justification for their possession of firearms.
Nations use the right to defend themselves from potential nuclear threats as a justification for their possession of nuclear arms.

No, they aren't the same...but the same principle of justifying possession of weapons for self-protection applies to both.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 





Granted. But you alleged that Iran had no bad relationships with neighbouring countries, I'm pointing out they have. Whether there is open conflict or not is pretty much irrelevant in this instance.
Let's face it, they could hardly be called bosom buddies with Saudi Arabia or most of the Gulf States or Iraq.


You're absolutely right and I stand corrected.




Iran.
In your first post in this thread you brought Israel into the discussion.
Iran feels threatened by Israel's possession of nuclear arms and many believe that is a primary reason why Iran wants to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

I'm sure Israel believes it has good reasons why it needs nuclear weaponry, by the same reasoning so does Iran.


Yes but not quite in the context you did. While either party might believe that having nukes is in their best interests there may one day come a time when the possession of those weapons will be the end of their interests.




Yes, I should have provided the source, apologies;


Might I direct your attention to California? They have very restrictive gun laws and they seem to be doing a lot worse than Louisiana by far:

www.fbi.gov...

Maybe it isn't the guns? But on that same note we are awash in nuclear weapons and no nuclear war has yet to occur. But in this case, it may be the presence of nukes. Who knows.




Individuals use the right to defend themselves from potential threats as a justification for their possession of firearms.
Nations use the right to defend themselves from potential nuclear threats as a justification for their possession of nuclear arms.


That is a notion I am fully willing to accept. My problem is with nuclear weapons in general not that Iran has one or not.




No, they aren't the same...but the same principle of justifying possession of weapons for self-protection applies to both.


Well I'm not really arguing for that. Again I am a believer in 100% nuclear reduction. A Nuclear Zero as it were. I don't want the US to have nukes anymore than Iran or Israel.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


First of all, thanks for the courteous reply, as always.

I'm not advocating that Iran should have nuclear weapons and neither am I trying to debate the pro's and con's of the USA's Right To Bear Arms I'm merely trying to stimulate a discussion on a certain amount of double standards.

It maybe that those double standards are fully justified but that reasoning needs to be understood.

America will do as America see's is fit and proper for itself, and rightly so, with regards to gun control.
My point of view, or anyone else's, opinion whilst may be of interest or may offer an alternative perspective is still ultimately irrelevant.

If progress is to be made in alleviating tension between 'the west' and Iran then we need to try and understand and possibly even sympathise with their viewpoint.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to simply allow them to do as they please - there's a certain degree of moral responsibility that goes with possessing weapons of such magnitude.
But we do need to understand them and appreciate their perspective - simply saying they are barbaric heathens who shouldn't be allowed something only leads us further down the path towards eventual confrontation and conflict.

If only we could uninvent the bomb things would be so much simpler, but the reality is we can't and as such the desire for a nuclear weapon free world is nothing but an idealistic dream - more's the pity.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

learnatic
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I certaintly support Irans right to defend itself, with necular arms if necessary. If Israel claims this right which is supported by most goverments in the world, so Iran has the same rights



We should remember that state power under the constitution is what is regulated. The 2nd amendment is a statement to that power in an affirmation of the peoples power.

Nukes on the other hand, whoever has them, is another matter. Justification for nukes cant really be found in a sort of state right to a 2nd amendment type proclamation against another state and is another matter all together.

"We the people" have made a statement from the peoples position that the state, in this case the federal government of the United States, cannot deny the peoples right to maintain the capability to exercise martial force against the state if the need ever arise. That right is manifest first in the right to "keep" arms. Its justification is found in the history of abusive state power.

Iran coming before the world and complaining about resistance to its desire to gain nukes is naturally going to provoke the question of justification which in tern is going to be answered by other states outside of the peoples right to keep and bear arms philosophy. In fact I would say that it is totally in the answer to power that the 2nd makes that justification is NOT found in the 2nd to let Iran gain access to nukes if it can be helped.




edit on 4-1-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Freeborn
First of all, I was really uncertain where to place this thread so if any Mod / Admin can think of a better fit please do so.

Over the years I've gotten into many a debate here on ATS about the pro's and cons of The Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
I've also participated in quite a few Iran related threads.

I was wondering do those who support The Right To Bear Arms for self-protection etc agree with Iran's alleged desire to develop independent nuclear capability so that it can defend and protect itself from what it views as potential aggressors and threats to its sovereignty?

Many might not see a connection or similarity, some may - just wondering.

Not sure how the two would relate to one another.
One is for personal protction the other is for the "protection" of a nation.
I guess we could look at it this way........
Most of the people who support the second amendment are law abiding citizens of the US.
Depending on things you have done in your past you may not be able to obtain a gun LEGALLY in the US.

Are you asking that we judge other countries by the US 2nd amendment that was ment for individuals? If so has Iran done anything in it's past that would warrant concerns over having nukes?
Quad
edit on 4-1-2014 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Yes, Iran has the right to protect themselves from evil terrorists. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The second that the US and Russia saw the destructive power of these weapons of mass destruction, they should've made it world law that no one is to posses them, and if anyone tried, then the US and Russia would roll over them and take everything. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way, and somehow places like Israel, India and Pakistan,(to name a few) were allowed to posses these weapons. Now, everybody wants them, which makes the world an even scarier place. It forces countries, who had no nuclear ambitions in the first place, to acquire them just so they can protect themselves. The cats outta the bag and there's nothing we can do but watch in terror.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
If we have the right why shouldn't they?
From a purely political standpoint though, the Superpowers make the rules. That's the way it has always been and they way it will always be. No one said life was ever going to be fair,



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I support the second amendment and here is my reply to your silly thread:

If a guy walks into a gun shop and says, "I hate the Jews living next door to me. They are swine and sons of the great satan. I'm going to wipe them off the face of the Earth" and then tries to purchase a shotgun; no the gun shop should decline to sell him a gun as is their right.

edit on 5-1-2014 by GenerationGap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Wow, is it me or are threads about gun rights becoming more and more obtuse?

Iran is a nation. The nuclear bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

The second amendment protects individuals, and a gun won't obliterate an entire country.

I mean seriously, get a grip.

As for Iran, I believe they have the right to defend themselves. I don't trust them with nukes though, and that goes for Israel too. Heck, that goes for everyone, including the U.S.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 

No...Definitely not...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...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join