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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


No, your wrong.




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:24 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.


Firstly, saying that Iran has expressed any desire to develop nuclear weapons is unequivocally incorrect. Iran's public statements have always denied any desire to develop nuclear weapons, and the Ayatolla has even said that the weapons are against Islam - if he were actually endorsing them in secret at the same time, and it became known - he would completely lose his religious authority. It would be worse than committing suicide for him, much worse, so I am inclined to believe the public statements.

However, in my view it is not only perfectly acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons it also highly rational. It is however morally questionable to hold such weapons, as expressed by the Ayatolla. If I were in charge of Iran I would have secured nuclear capability as fast as possible. Which is also one of the ironies regarding the reported Iranian nuclear threat as presented by the western media - as far back as the 70's they claimed Iran was on the verge of nuclear weapon capability, frankly I think if they wanted nukes they have had superfluous time and opportunity to acquire them (yet still no nukes).

Also, I not only support the 2nd amendment, I think it fails to go anywhere near far enough. It is not a 'right' to bear arms, in my view it is a responsibility - and one that most have utterly failed in their civic duty to uphold.

In my view every citizen has a responsibility to be armed, to be politically informed, to be engaged in enforcing and adjudicating law, to seek out controversy and speak their minds - and to never shrink from confrontation.

These responsibilities are sadly lacking in our modern apathetic world, and it is no surprise that the power has fallen into the hands of miscreants.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

thesmokingman
Sure....As long as they are not threatening the annihilation of an entire race of people which they HAVE done in the past.


Israel is not a 'race' of people, it is a violent, brutal and racist regime - which Iran has never threatened in any way.

Irans leader said that Israel (the state - a concept) should vanish from the pages of time. This was targeted at the political ideology of Zionism, and at the geographical representation of that ideology - it was not a reference to wiping out the Jewish people (also not a race btw).

Personally I think anyone who supports that brutal regime deserves to be treated as an enemy of mankind - it is the most vicious state that exists on earth bar none - even though the new Kim of North Korea executed his political opponents by feeding them to dogs - that is nothing compared to the depredations that the Zionists have perpetrated against the people of Palestine.

I should also note that it is little wonder that such a vicious state should exist when founded by people of the Judaic religion, which is a racist, intolerant and separatist religion. An ugly religion, breeding an ugly culture upon which sits an ugly state - no surprises here at all.

edit on 6-1-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Zeppp

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Says who? Israel? The U.S.? You do know that the only country that has demonstrated the capacity to unleash these weapons on another country, you are currently living in right? The U.S. certainly has no right to tell another country what weapons they can and cannot have.


They do if that country is threatening to wipe our allies off the map. Iran is too antiquated in thought to handle such a sophisticated arsenal. They need about another 3000 years of sophistication before they can even be taken seriously. I mean really, their leaders believe some dude in a well is going to spring up and open a can of kick azz on the world in their favor. LOL!!!


And half the western world believes some long haired git is going to fly down from heaven like superman and shower them with gold, crowns and whisk them off to paradise.

Collective psychosis is not confined to the middle east.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


The question can be turned around as such:

Does a nation, that does not respect the Rights of an Individual to arm itself against threats have the same Right to arm itself to the teeth? This question can be applied to all nations that seek to have armaments while denying the People the very same.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 




No, your wrong.


About what?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


lol... everything...

I am writing the response.. Its detailed and I have to work so it will be tonight before I am finished.
edit on 6-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

I'm not entirely decided on this issue, but I tend to support the 2nd Amendment rights of individual Americans and reject the nuclear weapon rights of ANYONE and ANY organization.

In the case of USA vs. Iran, the USA has no moral authority to tell Iran to avoid nuclear weapons because they are the one nation crazy enough to use one against a civilian population and then proceed to stock over 10,000 more such weapons. That is hardly a moral pedestal on which it can tell Iran to keep disarmed.

While I grant people the right to defend them self, I don't grant people the right to harm others property.

I want to disable all nuclear weapons because I view them as a threat to me or my property regardless of who has it. A nuclear weapon detonation in anywhere but maybe Antarctica causes harm to human and animal habitats unrelated to defensive actions. While I don't believe animals have higher rights than humans, they do have some rights. While people have the right to self-defense a nuclear weapon cannot be used in a way that attacks only the people it is aimed at. It attacks not only innocent people but the environment of those people and also the environment of animals. I don't grant animals the same level of rights as humans in general but I do grant them protection rights from extreme and unwarranted harm. I consider the wilderness to be in some small sense my property, and I consider nuclear weapons to be the threat of an assault on that property.

So for now I'll say I don't give anyone the right to own a functional nuclear weapon including Iran, and I give everyone the right to bear arms including those in government, who are the ones who abuse their rights the most frequently and therefore should have the weakest firearm rights.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:00 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.


Lol are you really comparing the 2 with insinuating that our right to bear arms is the same as some nut with a nuke? has as much as a equal meaning as my wifes night gown and the bank that was robbed.

Self Protection = stuff like home invasions, car jackings, thieves. you know bad things that people come on your property for?

Have i ever threatened anyone? no have i ever said i was going to pull out a gun and start shooting people because they dont agree with me?
Now i do agree that if a person owns a gun and starts threatening others with it. then yeah its time to take away HIS gun. NOT EVERYBODYS. But his.
Has he threaten anyone? yes, Has he ever said that he wants everyone in Israel to die? yes he has said that.
We do have laws in place to make sure your not just some nut job granted its not mistake proof yet but like everything else just needs time to tweak. You dont hand a gun to somebody that is like that. let alone a nuke. and to say that a gun that you can use on your own property = the same thing as a nuke. you really think that nuke is going to be used on their own property? really? when you fire off a round in a gun do you really think 100's of 1000's are going to die to that gun? or do you think it will just hit the targeted individual. 0h wait i guess thats where your nuke comes him it will only hit the attended target and nothing else ok....



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


that's like asking if I believe the gang banger who's about to break into my house should have the right to a gun to protect himself from me while he robs me blind.

No. Vile places like Iran have no rights to a Nuclear arsenal.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
weird does this country have the right or that country and who is it taht says yes they do or no they dont?
the US? frankly If I lived in said country KNOWING the US could invade my country tommrow and having a nuk mite just make them reavaluate a invasion then you can say any thing you want I would be trying to make a nuk.
The right? you point a gun at me and tell me I cant point one back ? lolol
grante ill be pointing a gun back.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Zeppp

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Says who? Israel? The U.S.? You do know that the only country that has demonstrated the capacity to unleash these weapons on another country, you are currently living in right? The U.S. certainly has no right to tell another country what weapons they can and cannot have.


They do if that country is threatening to wipe our allies off the map. Iran is too antiquated in thought to handle such a sophisticated arsenal. They need about another 3000 years of sophistication before they can even be taken seriously. I mean really, their leaders believe some dude in a well is going to spring up and open a can of kick azz on the world in their favor. LOL!!!


You do know Iran has highly sophisticated technology (except nukes) which is why they still exist. Otherwise countries would have taken them over long ago (which they have tried and failed). They have become self-sufficient in so many ways that sanctions have hardly affected their growth. They are the N.K. of the Middle East. A country forced to develop everything for themselves because of other nations trying to bully them. A "sanction" is technically a bully move, like someone taking your lunch and then asking what your going to do now, egging you on for a fight.

As for the original topic, I say no one should have nukes, there is no point in having them. Countries go to war for land and resources, and nukes leave little or none left behind (and anything that can be used cannot be accessed quickly due to radiation). It is one of the most pointless weapons EVER created, right up there with bio-weapons. Iran though should be allowed to develop nuclear power if they are okay with a possible meltdown.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by beezzer
 


aren't you violating their rights by demanding to know the purpose of the purchase?


Why? The gun shop owner can sell to whomever he wants. As long as the government is not doing it, no one's rights are violated.

People seem to confuse rights with entitlements. You may have the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not entitle you to have someone pay for it for you, or obligates someone to sell you one. As long as the government is not preventing you from buying one from someone who wants to sell it to you, your rights are not violated.


As for Iran...I agree that a sovereign nation should be able to have nuclear weapons if they want. This does not, however, obligate anyone to sell them the material to make one. Nor does it preclude the nations around them from using diplomacy and or boycotts to dissuade them. Just like in the gun shop scenario above, their right to own a weapon does not obligate those around them to do business with them.

If you want to own a gun, but I think it is a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to sell you one of mine, your rights have not been violated.

If you want to own a gun and I think its a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to do any business with you or talk to you, your rights have not been violated.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Freeborn
 


But then you still missed the boat in your analogy. US citizens don't actually have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms although they do have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.

I think you'll find that most everyone here says that Iran has the right to defend themselves although we divide on whether or not that extends to nukes.


Interesting reply, I guess an appropriate analogy of scale might be as follows then.

Why were so many of your country men so upset at proposals to limit magazine size, and to control and restrict the ownership of "assault weapons" (whatever they are). because most of the arguments that I read here and elsewhere went something along the lines of:

"the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from guvmint, and in order to protect ourselves from guvmint, we should be able to own the same weapons as the guvmint"

Its a paraphrase and I'm not pointing any fingers or advocating any particular viewpoint, but surely any one making a statement even close to my made up one above cant deny irans right to assert that they should be allowed to develop weapons to match those held by those it considers the greatest threat.

Don't get me wrong, I'd push the magic button that turned all nuclear weapons into flowers immediately if it existed, but it doesn't, and until we as a species evolve intellectually far beyond where we are right now, this ridiculous game of "top trumps" will continue until the kids find something nicer to play with, or until the school bully comes and takes all of the cards,



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




If you want to own a gun, but I think it is a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to sell you one of mine, your rights have not been violated.

If you want to own a gun and I think its a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to do any business with you or talk to you, your rights have not been violated.


Indeed.
But if you think it is a bad idea because I'm an idiot do you have the right to stop other people selling me one?

And do you think it is right to enforce trading restrictions on me because I'm trying to build one of my own?
edit on 6/1/14 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

proteus33
reply to post by Freeborn
 


the two have no similarity a gun man with a rifle is not going to be able to use that gun to destroy a city of 10 million people


Yeah he could...it would just take him a lot longer!



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


I haven't ignored your post.

To be honest I was totally unaware of any theory alleging the whole nuclear weapon industry and history was a deliberate lie.

I have since watched a couple of video's.
There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims made and I have to admit my initial thoughts are one's of scepticism.

To be fair some of the science goes a little bit over my head and contradicts everything I've previously learnt and the scale of the alleged cover-up is massive and far reaching.

Whilst not dismissing the theory outright I've got to give myself a bit of time to try and understand the detail and the ramifications etc before giving a truly considered reply.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




If you want to own a gun, but I think it is a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to sell you one of mine, your rights have not been violated.

If you want to own a gun and I think its a bad idea because you are an idiot and refuse to do any business with you or talk to you, your rights have not been violated.


Indeed.
But if you think it is a bad idea because I'm an idiot do you have the right to stop other people selling me one?

And do you think it is right to enforce trading restrictions on me because I'm trying build one of my own?


I have every right to try to talk someone else into not selling you one.
I have every right to talk to people and try to keep you from getting the parts you need to get build one.
Whether they listen or not is another matter.

There is a difference between diplomacy and negotiation and coercive force. If I talk everyone from selling you a gun, then your rights have not been violated--after all, your right to own a gun does not obligate someone else into selling you the gun or the parts to make a gun or the machine to make the parts to make the gun. If I smash down your door and take your half-made gun, your rights have been violated. As long as the international community is using diplomacy and sanctions and not force, the sovereignty of Iran is not violated.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You make some valid, pertinent and reasoned points.



As long as the international community is using diplomacy and sanctions and not force, the sovereignty of Iran is not violated.


On this we agree.

As much as I dislike the effects sanctions are having on the ordinary, everyday Iranian's I do however recognise that it is probably these more than anything that are forcing Iran to the negotiating table.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You make some valid, pertinent and reasoned points.



As long as the international community is using diplomacy and sanctions and not force, the sovereignty of Iran is not violated.


On this we agree.

As much as I dislike the effects sanctions are having on the ordinary, everyday Iranian's I do however recognise that it is probably these more than anything that are forcing Iran to the negotiating table.


I enjoy a nice and polite discussion. Thank you.




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join