askandanswer

gun control, Iran and North Korea

Recommended Posts

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

Yes and no.  Are you familiar with the term "useful idiots"?  That's not really an insult anymore.  That's the correct socio-political term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

umm, no, I don't think so. Could you elaborate please?

Any movement/revolution requires a moral foundation.  Very rarely is there some charismatic leader who simply puts forth an opening gambit that is nothing more than,"Make me the dictator and I'll make sure everyone is treated fairly."  Even Hitler didn't do that initially. 

Karl Marx specifically described the process of convincing the public that there is a serious problem with society.  Then they do things to either create a previously non-existent problem, or exacerbate a minor problem.  When they point it out, they provide a moral foundation upon which they can do serious social change.  But all they need is dictatorial powers to do so.

Then the "useful idiots" will actually riot and protest and even kill people without the pre-dictator even telling them to.  He just has to emphasize how bad the problem is.  Until finally, he has the power.

*****************************

I believe that most of the rioting and violence and hate speech we see (and I do see it on both sides) is because of this tactic.  I doubt that there are very many Americans who are thinking, "Gee, I bet if we just had a dictator, then everything would be better."  Instead, it is just short-sightedness. 

They simply state

  • The Constitution is outdated.  "But that doesn't mean I want a dictator."
  • We should get rid of guns.  But that doesn't mean I want to do away with the 2nd Amendment.
  • We should get rid of the electoral college.  But that doesn't mean I want the President elected by the population of 5 major cities in the entire country.
  • Capitalism is broken.  We need socialism.  But that doesn't mean I want the government to have total control over every aspect of my life.
  • We need socialized medicine.  But that doesn't mean I want the quality of medicine to go downhill or to eventually devolve into death panels.  And I don't believe we should enslave doctors and nurses.
  • We should force Churches to stop telling gay people that they are sinning.  But I'm not saying that government should be running churches.

See how it goes?

The masses want the first, without the second.  But those who are vying for power, are proposing the first specifically so they can accomplish the second.

EDIT: I have to say, I misread your OP.  I thought you were asking if people wanting to disarm Americans are like those in NK who got rid of guns from their citizens.  Sorry.  My bad.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

Who wants the US government to take weapons away from North Korea or Iran?  North Korea and Iran are sovereign nations.  I don't think we have the right to "take" away their weapons.  We have the right to make agreements with them.  I guess there is no real entity that has the authority to forbid us from invading either country, but without real justification, I don't see the US doing that. 

The smart thing is to do is negotiate with them and persuade them not to pursue nukes.  Turn up the pressure when they don't agree.  Or you can do a nuke agreement with them and then give them billions of dollars, but I won't mention what moron did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

Sure.  The question is whether the governments of NoKo and Iran are more, or less, violent and sadistic than your average American citizen is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

i don't know of a single American that wants North Korea or Iran to have really powerful military weapons.  More of an issue of self-preservation vs personal freedom.  

North Korea really doesn't like us very much.  During the Korean War, we were dropping several hundred tons of bombs (a day) on them, and essentially carpet-bombed/firebombed their entire country to destruction.  About 20% of their population died.  Below is a propaganda poster from North Korea.  i don't read Korean, but that guy under the boot - that's Trump.  

i believe they feel similarly in Iran, but have a preference for burning things, there.  Their reasons for dislike there are probably a lot more complicated.  i think it has a fair amount to do with our support of Israel, and our CIA's secret (now public) involvement in a coup in the 1950s that help install a leader many people in Iran considered to be our puppet.  

The book "Ghost Wars" is pretty interesting - about how we fought much of the cold war against Sovet Union/communism in the middle east (prior to USSR's dissolution at least).

image.png.3f271aa58fb384d51b8cbd2fef752c0e.png

 

image.png.5ccf0e72845fd8dca371dd7776f864c1.png

Edited by lostinwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

No, you don’t give freedom to a dictator. 

the government that allows the right to arms will not allow another government/ideolgy, that does not allow the right to bear arms, to supersede it. Capish? 

Two different totalitarian ideologies can’t exist at the same time. E.g. In the U.S.A. some companies are wealthier then entire contries. Our government restricts them, so that the public’s way of life can be maintained. So the company doesn’t get bigger then the government, as to take over the government. They need to operate within the government’s outlines.

We want to maintain our way of life when we restrict other counties from exercising their “right to arms”.  Do you think North Korea allows its people to bear arms? It doesn’t. And if we’d let it take over the U.S.A (cause we wanted to give them “freedom”) they wouldn’t allow the U.S. people to bear arms either. 

Ironically the people who are right (that is the most peaceful) should carry the biggest stick to maintain order. 

This is an important concept.

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

No.

Gun control is about punishing innocent people.

Nuclear disarmament is about punishing governments that have threatened to attack with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, unixknight said:

No.

Gun control is about punishing innocent people.

Nuclear disarmament is about punishing governments that have threatened to attack with them.

THIS.  Go take the internet.  You won it.

Have you ever heard of the US clamoring to denuke the UK or France?

And have you ever heard of the US clamoring to arm their criminal population?

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 


Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and agreed to not have nuclear weapons.

North Korea has not signed, but has made threats to its neighbors and fired weapon delivery systems.  So I don't think any normal country would want them to have nuclear weapons.

If your neighbor, a gun owner, made similar threats and shot guns into the air near your house,, he/she would likely have a problem with law enforcement and have weapons confiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and agreed to not have nuclear weapons.

Which they failed to comply with decade after decade.  Add to that their vocal promise to eliminate Israel from the planet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unixknight said:

No.

Gun control is about punishing innocent people.

Nuclear disarmament is about punishing governments that have threatened to attack with them.

Nuclear disarmament and gun control are both about removing dangerous devices from people who might misuse them. The size and power of the devices in question, the degree of likelihood that they might be used, and the nature of the possible users are only relatively minor details that can completely change from one say to the next and do not detract from the underlying principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

THIS.  Go take the internet.  You won it.

Have you ever heard of the US clamoring to denuke the UK or France?

And have you ever heard of the US clamoring to arm their criminal population?

It seems to me that US efforts to disarm Iran and North Korea are nothing more than an effort at gun control on a global scale. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing I'm just having difficulty seeing consistency in the arguements of people who oppose gun control in America but who support efforts to impose a form of gun control on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If someone threatens to kill you, then goes to get the means to do so, I'm fine with stepping on them.

Yup. 

A hard reality that many people can't accept is that there are very nasty people out there-people who want to hurt you. People who don't listen to reason, cuddly hugs, or harsh words. Sometimes these people run countries, so you better be prepared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Nuclear disarmament and gun control are both about removing dangerous devices from people who might misuse them. The size and power of the devices in question, the degree of likelihood that they might be used, and the nature of the possible users are only relatively minor details that can completely change from one say to the next and do not detract from the underlying principle.

Minor details?  Are you kidding?  😀

You're drawing an equivalence between a rifle and a nuclear weapon but the fact that both Iran and North Korea have threatened to use nukes to wipe people out by the millions is a minor detail, to your way of thinking...

Man... I don't even know how to unpack that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Details and specifics are separate from principals, as illustrated by the anecdote below and once you cross the line, then its only a matter of degree. 

They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Details and specifics are separate from principals, as illustrated by the anecdote below and once you cross the line, then its only a matter of degree. 

They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.

Yeah, there is a much dirtier version that Winston Churchill used to use. It's funnier too. 

You are way off base here though @askandanswer. There is a HUGE difference between private ownership of rifles and nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Nuclear disarmament and gun control are both about removing dangerous devices from people who might misuse them. The size and power of the devices in question, the degree of likelihood that they might be used, and the nature of the possible users are only relatively minor details that can completely change from one say to the next and do not detract from the underlying principle.

That is the claim.  But look at what the actual measures do.

Nuclear disarmament looks at each individual nation and their history and the community at large makes a decision as to who should and should not have them. Measures are taken to make sure those who are denied the right will not have them.  And those who have shown they are responsible nations still have them.

With guns, a blanket requirement is made upon ALL people.  Measures are taken to make sure the law abiding citizen has a harder time buying, carrying, and using guns.  Criminals get around all those measures.

See the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Yeah, there is a much dirtier version that Winston Churchill used to use. It's funnier too. 

You are way off base here though @askandanswer. There is a HUGE difference between private ownership of rifles and nuclear weapons.

So lets change the price a little - perhaps we are talking not just about rifles, but about high powered assault weapons that can be easily turned into machine guns, and not just about nuclear weapons, but Iran's development of a strategic not necessarily nuclear missile force, which Trump also wants to curtail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grunt said:

If someone threatens to kill you, then goes to get the means to do so, I'm fine with stepping on them.

So, speaking hypothetically, when your heavily armed neighbors who hate Mormons learn that you are now LDS and want to run you out of town, do we figuratively step on them and take away their guns?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 assault weaponsl. 

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". I can assault you with a pair of scissors, or my bare hands. It's a term anti gunners use because it makes firearms more scary to people who know nothing about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

So, speaking hypothetically, when your heavily armed neighbors who hate Mormons learn that you are now LDS and want to run you out of town, do we figuratively step on them and take away their guns?  

@Grunts neighbors probably don't have a history of murdering innocent people in acts of terrorism. Like Iran, North Korea....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran and NKorea have openly engaged in rhetoric that they will destroy their peaceful neighbors. 

We don't allow people who actively want to murder people guns.  We have due procees, or should, to deem such individuals unworthy to own a weapon, and we currently ban convicted felons from owning firearms. 

Same thing with nations.  We have judged Iran and NKorea as guilty and not worthy to have weapons of mass destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now