North Korea's "2nd Ammendment Rights"?

[Vairochana]

This ought to stir the pot a bit.
It results from a lunch time debate where the question was raised->

What is the difference between N.Korea arming itself with nuclear weapons in order to match those it feels threatened by and any private citizen who feels the need to arm themselves for self protection? Bear in mind that like the man in the street, countries which are out of favour are not able to rely on a "police force" (U.N) for protection and that the same "police force" wants to take their weapons and deny them the right to self defence/deterence (BAFTE?)

I will now take cover

 

[GunnySkox]

Really, I figure that you're only allowed to have your Finger On The Button if you actually give a crap about the consequences of mashing that button. Some of the banana-nut-muffins in the sketchy parts of the world make it clear at every opportunity that they're insufficiently not-crazy to play in the Thermonuclear Sand Box with the big kids, so we do our best to keep them from playing atom-cracker, y'know?

It's the same reason our very own homegrown (certified) zucchini-breads aren't allowed to own or operate firearms.

Man, when did I take to calling crazy people after baked goods?

~GnSx
"Have you ever considered the baking and selling of tiny breads?"
"Homestaw Bunmakew, eh? Thanks, Eggman!"

 

[Low-Sci]

I think I tend to agree with Gunnyskox. When you're running around telling people that you're gonna shoot them once you get a gun, odds are good that you shouldn't have one. This of course implies that when you make the threat, you're not kidding (this means you, Lance Corporal Garcia).

If you run around telling the whole world that you're getting ready to use nukes if the world makes you mad, you shouldn't have a nuke. Its clear and present danger.

Quite frankly, IDGARA about Iran's nuclear weapons rights when their leading wingnut is calling for the obliteration of other nations post-haste.

You don't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you don't hand a gun to a lunatic threatening passers-by on the street, and you don't give hostile nations nuclear weapons.

 

[Fn-P9]

There is a personal responsibilies. There are responsibilities that a nation has with the world. A man with a gun is a scalpel. A man with a m203 grenade launcher is a sledge hammer. Same with a nation. WMD's are not a thing to mess with. Too bad EVERYONE didnt learn the lessons from 1945 and they think that nukes are a good thing to have. And many of these smaller nations think that they are like gang bangers out there flashing their guns around thinking they are the baddest boys on earth.

 

[mike101]

Take a good look at a recent photo of their Jack Daniels swilling, porn freak, sex maniac, fearless leader. Would you give this man a nuke?

When he decided he wanted North Korea to get into the movie making business, he kidnapped a South Korean movie star, and her producer husband. He has kidnapped Japanese scientists. He's a raving lunatic.

His people are starving. They regularly try to escape to Communist China.

He claims to need nukes because the U.S. is going to invade North Korea, if we don't nuke him first. I realize you are from Australia, but trust me-not even George Bush would invade NK. Who would want it.

If this nut-bag moved to the U.S., to open a nail-salon or a dry cleaner, we wouldn't let him have a
gun, either.

 

[mons meg]

I love their logic, it's like saying since they feel they might be attacked with a gun, they have decided to wave their own guns around wildly. Really helps defuse tensions.

 

[cuchulainn]

1) National governments don't have rights. There is no violation of rights in attempting to prevent a government from arming itself. You're comparing apples and oranges -- the powers of governments and the rights of people.

2) North Korea's nuclear goals have nothing to do with "the people" and their rights. Indeed, North Korea's goal is the opposite -- to destroy rights, not only of its own subjects, but of the citizens of South Korea (if not farther). "Submit to our communist authority or we'll nuke you!" There is nothing wrong with taking action to stop a government from attacking rights.

3) Nukes ain't guns. You cannot operate them responsibly from a self defense standpoint. The deaths of innocents is assured when using nukes -- in other words, the violation of the rights of non-aggressive citizens is assured. This is not true with guns and even most crew-operated weapons.

4a) Compare to free speech -- I'd say that nukes (and other NBCs) were the super-hyper equivalent of slander.

4b) "They ban nukes" does not logically lead to "They should ban guns" any more than "They ban death threats, slander and libel" logically leads to "They should ban the Bible!" -- and vice versa; it's illogical in both directions.

5) Red Herring. We need to protect our personal guns. The power-plays between national governments prove nothing ... change nothing ... about guns and our right to own/use/bear them.

 

[carlrodd]

i love the fact that he comes out with these pending nuclear tests because he's not in the limelight currently. with all of the iran and other middle eastern uproar going on, kim is just feewing a wittle wonwey, and wants some attention.

 

[SKeefe]

Because they are our enemy and have publicly stated so/made threats.

If you were in the street and your well-known enemy was about to fight you, would you let him run down the street to the gun store first?

 

[longeyes]

The Second Amendment is about defending individual liberty. It is not about creating armed thugs, on either a micro or a macro level. Thuggery is about domination and oppression, not liberty.

 

[offthepaper]

Longeyes has solidly struck the nail.

 

[GEM]

North Korea likes to sell its weapons to loonies who have committed terrorist actions.

That's different in my mind from the 2nd Amend.

 

[quatin]

Well that's hypocritical, this sounds the same as the "Who should have guns" thread. Alot of you vow that any citizen should have guns to defend themselves whether they "were" convicted felons or not. How's this different? There's no way to defend against a nuclear strike, except to intimidate with a counter nuclear attack. If N.Korea feels they are threatened, who has the right to become big brother and say who should be able to defend themselves and who shouldn't? Nuclear war will have large casualties, gun wars will have small casualties, but nevertheless there will be casualties, where do you set the boundary for how many innocents can be killed? How much faith do you think any N.Korean has in the US after we've invaded 2 nations in the past 4 years and are already threatening 2 more?

 

[Vairochana]

Finally

They were all good points but only Quatin got the gist of what I was saying

 

[azredhawk44]

Well that's hypocritical, this sounds the same as the "Who should have guns" thread. Alot of you vow that any citizen should have guns to defend themselves whether they "were" convicted felons or not. How's this different? There's no way to defend against a nuclear strike, except to intimidate with a counter nuclear attack. If N.Korea feels they are threatened, who has the right to become big brother and say who should be able to defend themselves and who shouldn't? Nuclear war will have large casualties, gun wars will have small casualties, but nevertheless there will be casualties, where do you set the boundary for how many innocents can be killed? How much faith do you think any N.Korean has in the US after we've invaded 2 nations in the past 4 years and are already threatening 2 more?

They were all good points but only Quatin got the gist of what I was saying

Respectfully, you are both nuts.

North Korea is the equivalent of a class 3 weapons straw purchaser. A nuke in the hands of north korea is a guaranteed route to nuclear proliferation for Burma, half of Africa, the rest of the middle east and anywhere else that is unstable but can rob and rape its own citizenry for the necessary blood money to give to Kim Jong Il.

North Korea has no RIGHTS. That government has POWERS, either STOLEN or BEQUEATHED by the PEOPLE. That's it. The North Koreans have been oppressed, starved, murdered and abused by their own government to the point that they cannot stand on their own 2 feet.

I am amazed that a person educated enough to use the internet and put a logical sentence together cannot understand the distinction that North Korea is a morally bankrupt government that poses a threat to most of the northern Pacific Rim, that the government has not a single right, and that nuclear weapons are so vastly different than firearms its not even funny.

 

[Vairochana]

Thanks for the mild insult, I am not saying that I think NK should be allowed to arm themselves- but I am posing a question I belive worth asking.
After all, we should be always questioning our own beliefs and not just swallow wholesale what the media and govt tell us are the truth

 

[Basura Blanca]

With all the bleating that I hear from fellow gun owners about things like the UNs attempt to regulate firearms laws within the U.S. (thus imposing their will upon us), I'm surprised that so many here can't seem to distinguish one sovereign nation from another.

North Korea, all judgments aside, is a sovereign nation.
Period.

 

[CZ-100]

Now I do not think it is a good idea for N. Korea or for that matter Iran to have Nuclear Weapons or Biological Weapons. (WMDs)

BUT

I do not think WE have a right to say "Hey you are not allowed to have them" Who the hell are we? We should not be able to say that about anything, weather it is weapons or something else.

We should not try to push our way of life an anyone. Basura Blanca had it right, they are a sovereign nation and we should keep our noses out of other countries business. I think this is one of the reasons why allot in the world hate up, kinda like a noisy neighbour.

If people want to live like us, let them start the process on their OWN, like WE did, and if need be, we can help in the backround.

Some People/Country's are not ready for what we have. I think we are seeing this in Iraq, they have been told what to do for too long.

 

[wingnutx]

If we are going to get into the game of equating nations with individuals, then NK is the guy who already invaded your house and killed half your family, and now he claims that if you don't support him he will do it again.

I would have trouble with allowing that guy to finish the catapult that he is building right across the street.

 

[CZ-100]

with what we have seen with their missile test, we should just let them test them, they will prolly blow them selves up...

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

The problem isn't that they would *test* them...really.

Lots of countries have tested their nuclear weapons.

Away from people.

He doens't have a geographically isolated area in which to test them. I don't think the Chinese will be happy with his probable choice (the border between NK and PRC).

I know that the Russians will be unhappy with a northern choice, and the SK would be extremely displeased with his choice of the southern area.

The Darling Leader is a nutbar. No other way to describe it. It isn't that he wants to shoot his gun out in some secluded area, he wants to go shooting RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR DOOR. And he wants to use lots of wolf ammo in all its smoky haze....

nahh, thats not it. There really *isn't* a good analogy. He wants to foul up another country in his tests.

My question: will PRC/Russia/SK/JPN jump into the fray militarily if he actually does somethin dumb?

 

[azredhawk44]

North Korea, all judgments aside, is a sovereign nation.
Period.

You're right.

And we are a sovereign nation.

When NK goes around the neighborhood with a running chainsaw... to the park... to the bar... to the strip club... to the idiot's house who is always beating his kid in the front yard and sells him an equivalent chainsaw... and says the chainsaw is there to protect himself...

But he can't afford gas for his lawnmower to cut the grass, or gas for his roto-tiller to cultivate his garden...

Then he comes over to your house with that running chainsaw and blackmails you saying "gimme gas before I run out, or I'll make you wish you did"...

It's time to get the chainsaw out of his hands.

 

[Geronimo45]

If NK gets the bomb, chances are high that we won't invade them (Nuclear countries don't mess with other nuclear countries as a rule). Chances are that they may sell some copies of their bomb for beer money to various terrorists. North Korea is in bad financial straits, and they'd like extra dough.

Is it possible that we will invade them? Sure is. Are their fears justified? Well, we did hit Cuba once. Are the fears that North Korea will sell secrets to terrorists justified? Probably so.

Nobody's got rights over North Korea. The UN doesn't have any legal power over them. The cops and BATFE have legal power over us. If we balk, they pull out the big guns, tear gas, stun grenades... ad infinitum. The UN is simply a neighborhood watch group.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I agree with a lot of you they should not have nukes. They are crazy. There is no way we could liberate N.Korea at this point. But at this point they are testing...and they know we have a significantly larger amount of working nukes than they do. Also what we need to do is damage the inflow of parts and other materials if we can do that we can slow'em we may not be able to stop them but we can slow'em down.

 

[wingnutx]

We wouldn't invade NK even without nukes in the equation.

They have 15-20,000 artillery pieces zeroed in on Seoul, and could destroy it and everyone in it within hours.