Nuclear Proliferation vs. 2nd Ammendment

[SidDithers]

Silverhair's posts about nuclear proliferation, and many of the interesting and strong opinions posted in his threads got me wondering if there were parallels between the abilities (rights?) of countries to pursue nuclear ambitions, and an American citizens rights (disputed or not) to keep and bear arms.

Are the principles the same? Can one be supportive of an individuals decision to own guns for self-defense, and oppose a countries attempts to develop nuclear weapons for the same reasons? Or are nuclear weapons considered offensive weapons only?

As a Canadian who is very much a supporter of stringent gun control, I have been amazed by the passion in some of the pro/anti gun debates here at DU. Americans, i've observed, feel very strongly about the issue :)

I'm curious if those very strong feelings also apply, and are consistent with, opinions about a soveriegn nations rights to "keep and bear arms".

Idle musings on a Wednesday morning...

Sid

[Deep13]

1. This is a question of practicality, not principle.

A nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to the stability of the entire region and therefore the world. In one sence the world was better off with the Soviets still around since they kept their stuff pretty well guarded. Now nuclear-armed third world countries are popping up increaing the risk of either an accident or intentional use of nuclear weapons.

I don't know if Iran has a moral right to have them or not and I don't really care. I just know that the more places that do, especially when they have an axe to grind like Iran does, the less safe the world will be.

The gun control debate is an internal matter for the USA and has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

[SidDithers]

4. Could a heavily armed neighbour...

be considered a threat to the stability of the neigbourhood? I guess what I was (poorly) wondering is whether the strong opinions about gun control influenced opinions about proliferation.

Maybe, being an outside observer to both issues, I don't see them as being totally disconnected.

Thanks for the reply.

Sid

[sweetheart]

9. Nuclear proliferation has everything to do with that debate

There is no moral separation between allowing self determination at home and
self determination abroad. The debate is a coherent thread between internal american
arms proliferations advocacy and those same persons when confronted by that same
moral point when it could cost them dearly, are suddenly non-proliferation. But
then our proliferation-intensive economy and military is out there training and
arming a world of negroponte nightmares. If you truly believe that an armed citizen
is a better neighbor, then you must believe as well, that an armed nation makes a
better neighbor.

I respect realpolik, but even that is better to embrace iran as an emerging democracy,
to use sunshine diplomacy for once, on the back of the brutality of sharon and so many
fearmongering "peacemaking" war criminals. It may not be realistic until the bush
administration indictments clean out the white house, but that could be short on. :-)

Nuclear arms have a secret side effect. They are useless, and cost a f**king fortune to
maintain. The decaying weapon cores leak so much radiation, that even the best shielded
trigger and arming circuits are destroyed over time, that all such weapons need be rebuilt
every few years to make sure they are battle capable. And all this involves billions in
expense, billions. And at the end of it all, the real prayers of the world are that
those weapons are forever buried and unused. So, then must be the prayers of allah.

So, my take, is that if people just drop this whole issue, they might develop a couple of
bombs like north korea did... realize that they are still not economically viable having
spent all that money, and over time decide that living by MADD is not a very fun way to
run a country. I think they have to learn for themselves what its like to own and keep
these extremely expensive, absolutely dangerious, weapons around. Then they too will
discover that its better to lead with engagement, the willingness to forgive and get over
the past... to lead with the heart of allah and not the ugly human misunderstandings.

If nations are allowed to learn how to keep nuclear weapons savely, then lets teach them
and keep in the loop. Then we are a global community collectively realizing that nuclear
arms and nuclear war are in no persons interest, no nations, and no gods either.

[Loonman]

2. One has nothing to do with the other

Pretty much. What goes on inside of a country regarding rights to individuals has nothing to do with any nations interactions with any other nations.

An example being: the Swiss are the most heavily armed people on the planet, yet they do not go to war or interfere with other nations, excepting peacekeeeping and Vatican duty.

[SidDithers]

5. The question would probably apply to the Swiss then, too...

If they believe that citizens have the right to be armed, do they also believe countries have that right?

Maybe it's a degree issue. Is there a limit to the type of weapon that the 2nd ammendment allows, and so too there should be a limit to the type of weapons a country can aquire?

As I posted above, looking at it from the outside, I see similarities in the issues.

Cheers.

Sid

[Loonman]

8. The Swiss only believe in making money

Remember, they pretty much banked(laundered money, that is) for Nazi Germany to avoid being invaded and destroyed. Both they and Hitler knew that Nazi Germany needed a neutral country nearby in order to continue banking and trade. But that's a whole 'nother story.


Whether a limit is put in place, or not, if a country wants to acquire or manufacture weapons, there's little that can be done. The Non-Nuclear Proliferation laws are merely guidelines that say "just don't do it", because there is little that can be done. Notice how fast India and Pakistan armed themselves.


The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution only applies to Americans living on mainland American soil. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is purposefully kept vague because it enables citizens to arm themselves in a "well organized militia" in order to combat an internal government that has become "tyrannical".

The only similarity I see between the two issues is they concern weapons.

[benEzra]

12. Civilian guns in the U.S. are probably more restricted than you think...

If they believe that citizens have the right to be armed, do they also believe countries have that right?

Maybe it's a degree issue. Is there a limit to the type of weapon that the 2nd ammendment allows, and so too there should be a limit to the type of weapons a country can aquire?

Speaking to the Second Amendment issue, the types of weapons an American civilian can own without special government approval is a lot more limited than many people unfamiliar with U.S. gun laws realize.

Federal law heavily restricts automatic weapons, sound-suppressed weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except some hunting guns), disguised firearms, rifles with barrels shorter than 16", shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", any long gun shorter than 26" overall, guns undetectable by X-ray equipment, and armor-piercing ammunition for handguns and intermediate-caliber rifles. All of the preceding are restricted Title 2/Class III weapons under the National Firearms Act, and to own one must pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance.

[SidDithers]

14. Thanks for the input, benEzra

:toast:

Sid

[benEzra]

15. Had another thought on the way back from Duke Children's today...

the crime of threatening to murder someone is grounds for taking someone's guns away. Nor are people subject to a domestic-partner restraining order allowed to so much as touch a gun, or a single round of ammunition.

To apply that analogy to Iran, their leader just a few weeks ago spoke of Israel "needing to be wiped off the map," did he not? May be another parallel there.

[bryant69]

3. The 2nd ammendment only applies to Americans

And, if many of it's staunch defenders had their way, only a certain kind of American.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ComerPerro]

6. Well, according to conservative worldviews

Rogue nations aren't given the same rights as American citizens.

So to them, this wouldn't even be an issue.


But you bring up an interesting point for discussion. From a philosophical perspective, how is denying a nation nuclear proliferation any different from denying a US citizen the right to a firearm?

[-..__...]

7. I really don't see any relationship between the two.

FWIW, I'm opposed to any government/country possessing or developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. One... they're purely offensive weapons (although there might be some support to the claim that NBC weapons can serve as a deterrent).

Two... the manufacture, testing, storage and disposal of NBC weapons themselves can pose a threat.
The margin of error, miscalculation, carelessness, etc with NBC weapons can have far more serious consequences.

[SidDithers]

10. Isn't that a similar to many anti gun arguments?...

I'm not being deliberatly obtuse here :), fwiw, I agree and opposed to any nation having NBC weapons.

"The margin of error, miscalculation, carelessness, etc with NBC weapons can have far more serious consequences."

Isn't that a similar position that anti-gun types take with assault weapons? Something like "yes, knives and baseball bats can kill people too, but the consequences of misuse, miscalculation or error with guns are much more serious and deadly"

Thanks for replying :)

Sid

[-..__...]

11. The mere possession of firearms doesn't pose a threat.

It requires someone to pull the trigger (either deliberately or accidentally), before any harm can result.

Would I be concerned if my neighbor was stockpiling collecting firearms? No... but that's just me
(hell, I could be that neighbor :) ).

I would be concerned if was he storing nuclear materials or hazardous chemicals (just as I would be concerned if he was storing gasoline or explosives in his home/apartment).

The presence alone of NBC weapons, without any direct human interaction, constitutes a threat.

[benEzra]

13. Automatic weapons are already restricted, for that reason...

Isn't that a similar position that anti-gun types take with assault weapons? Something like "yes, knives and baseball bats can kill people too, but the consequences of misuse, miscalculation or error with guns are much more serious and deadly"

That's precisely why all automatic weapons (including military AK-47's and Uzi's) are so very tightly restricted by Federal law; to own one, you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance, and have to be fairly wealthy to boot; if you get the government clearance to own one, a civilian-transferable assault rifle will cost you $15,000 to $75,000, depending on the model. There's your parallel to the NBC issue, I suppose.

(The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch covered non-automatic civilian guns with modern styling, e.g. a stock with a protruding handgrip, but which are no more lethal or rapid firing than any other civilian guns of similar caliber and capacity.)