harSens said:
So the US/UN commits a black crime by not allowing Iran to bear nuclear arms?
The UN has allowed Israel to build nuclear weapons with a blink of an eye, with no media attention whatsoever and leaves them completely unchecked- they do not apply to the SALT agreement, nor do they have any obligation to tell the rest of the world how many nuclear weapons they build or how fast they are building them. The UN is a powerless, mislead joke. One could call them an extension of America's intentions. And America does not intend to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Not that I believe Iran should have them, but I believe they should be responsible for their own choices. Don't forget that America built the first nuclear weapons, that America is responsible for starting the entire "Well they have one so we better have one too" snowball effect. Nuclear weapons are the result of America's ill intention, and yet they want to pick and choose who gets them? That is not gun control of a peaceful nature, that is gun control of an imperialistic nature.
harSens said:
Intelligence, what puts us above animals (although even animals have group constraints and rules), is bred from some setting constraints (by law if required), not by trying to experience every possible 'freedom'.
Then we have found the principle we disagree on. Constraints create order, to be sure. But they do not leave room for creativity or expansion of intelligence. The difference is the difference between being told what to do (which may or may not be the right thing), or deciding for yourself what to do (which may or may not be the right thing). People still make bad decisions in a society with constraints, because the power of the individual is immeasurable enough that constraints can be broken.
With constraints, people look toward the people who set the constraints for guidance, to solve all their problems. But these people often lean on the constraints themselves, rather than holding up the constraints. This creates a society where everyone is dependent on too few individuals. They become lazy, and those that set the constraints eventually become lazy too. Think of Rome, of the power of Caesar and generations later the weakness of his successors.
In a society with less or no restrictions, people must stand on their own, make every effort to survive and become strong in doing so. No-one else is going to fulfil their role for them, and so they have to think creatively and intelligently. I see no way in which constraints will ever foster intelligence.
harSens said:
Fortnox notion of linking gun control with Nazi Germany or other oppressive regimes is just as ludicrous as my UN argument. If the right to bear arms is necessary to overthrow your government, wouldn't modern days require much more heavier arms (jet fighters, tanks, etc.)?
You're taking my argument out of context, then. I explained that gun control was used by dictators to kill their masses to explain that gun control is not well intentioned and cannot be trusted.
And realistically in terms of overthrowing a government look up the Chinese revolutionary war or the Spanish Anarchist war, even the Cuban revolution, an incredibly successful campaign. I'm not advocating China or Cuba as nations of course, just that their history has some great victories of the people.
Furthermore, protecting yourself from your government /=/ revolutionary war. The most powerful ability of guns is fear, and from time to time it is necessary to remind your government that you are the ones with the power.
Going back to overthrowing government though, F16s and nuclear missiles or battleships do not even come into it. That's not how a revolutionary war is fought. Gurellia tactics are used to destroy vital parts of government, mass corporate destruction is caused and the people demand the resignation of government. You never enter a full scale conflict with an international military.
*edit* And as a last note for Gir, the domestic issues of owning a gun are completely irrelevant. The point of the right to bear arms is that people are intelligent enough that they know whether or not they need a gun and how they can use it. I'm not saying every person ever has to have a gun, nor am I saying you should put it in your cupboard in somewhere your kids can get to with a "Please don't touch" sticker. I would never own a gun in a free world, I see no reason in my current situation to do so. But if my government decided I was not allowed to own a gun, by hell I'd get one.
