Why Doesn't the US Support North Korea's Right to Nuclear Arms?

[mootygrimes]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.

This belief is etched into the Constitution of the United States and likely will not be changing any time soon. Fine.

What can change, and can be iterated upon are the rules and regulations around how people acquire guns, how people can actually have their right to gun ownership revoked, building upon laws that make threat of violence punishable and other supporting efforts in the realm of mental health, etc.

There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.

This party believes that more guns, not less, are the solution and that if more people had weapons everybody would be safer for it. Mostly based on the idea that "you can basically be assured that the person you're likely to assault is armed just like you."

At the same time, this party is very much against a country like North Korea (and the rest of the world) gaining access to Nuclear weapons despite North Korea's sovereign right to defend itself from those that would do it harm.

If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?

Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we to takeaway from this that it's OK for Americans to keep killing themselves, that's just the cost of being free but the only people that can beat up on Americans is other Americans? We're willing to label Kim Jung Un a madman and at the same time work on a diplomatic solution; Why isn't diplomacy (iteration) being attempted at home? Why aren't these gunmen being labeled as domestic terrorists (which is the only word that seems to unify a failed two-party system)?

What're the takes here?

EDIT: this was meant to be in off-topic. plz move?

[Lochton]

Dunno but MMO-champion doesn't approve of this thread being in the wrong subforum. Sorry.

[Swalload]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.

This belief is etched into the Constitution of the United States and likely will not be changing any time soon. Fine.

What can change, and can be iterated upon are the rules and regulations around how people acquire guns, how people can actually have their right to gun ownership revoked, building upon laws that make threat of violence punishable and other supporting efforts in the realm of mental health, etc.

There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.

This party believes that more guns, not less, are the solution and that if more people had weapons everybody would be safer for it. Mostly based on the idea that "you can basically be assured that the person you're likely to assault is armed just like you."

At the same time, this party is very much against a country like North Korea (and the rest of the world) gaining access to Nuclear weapons despite North Korea's sovereign right to defend itself from those that would do it harm.

If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?

Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we to takeaway from this that it's OK for Americans to keep killing themselves, that's just the cost of being free but the only people that can beat up on Americans is other Americans? We're willing to label Kim Jung Un a madman and at the same time work on a diplomatic solution; Why isn't diplomacy (iteration) being attempted at home? Why aren't these gunmen being labeled as domestic terrorists (which is the only word that seems to unify a failed two-party system)?

What're the takes here?

EDIT: this was meant to be in off-topic. plz move?

Well, guns and nuclear weapons are not the same thing for this very simple reason: A well used gun will kill your target, within the idea of the second amendment all you kill is the person threatening you. Where as a nuclear bomb when used on your target, will kill your target and all the innocent people around, inevitably. The bomb doesn't do the same thing a gun does, nowhere near. It cannot be judged or managed in the same way. Also guns can be used for hunting, or just shooting for fun in places made fir that. Bombs not so much, right?

The beef with north korea is mostly that they explicitely said they were aiming at the US, if they made nuclear weapons and never said shit or never even tested them we wouldn't be in such a situation. It's a taunting game at this point.

Nuclear weapons and guns are nowhere near the same thing, can't just compare them that way, doesn't work.

[Azelas]

because if other countries start getting nuclear weapons, the US can no longer be the bully of the world, and that same party you mention thrives on creating wars with countries like NK and getting that sweet sweet military money.

[lummiuster]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.

This belief is etched into the Constitution of the United States and likely will not be changing any time soon. Fine.

What can change, and can be iterated upon are the rules and regulations around how people acquire guns, how people can actually have their right to gun ownership revoked, building upon laws that make threat of violence punishable and other supporting efforts in the realm of mental health, etc.

There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.

This party believes that more guns, not less, are the solution and that if more people had weapons everybody would be safer for it. Mostly based on the idea that "you can basically be assured that the person you're likely to assault is armed just like you."

At the same time, this party is very much against a country like North Korea (and the rest of the world) gaining access to Nuclear weapons despite North Korea's sovereign right to defend itself from those that would do it harm.

If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?

Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we to takeaway from this that it's OK for Americans to keep killing themselves, that's just the cost of being free but the only people that can beat up on Americans is other Americans? We're willing to label Kim Jung Un a madman and at the same time work on a diplomatic solution; Why isn't diplomacy (iteration) being attempted at home? Why aren't these gunmen being labeled as domestic terrorists (which is the only word that seems to unify a failed two-party system)?

What're the takes here?

EDIT: this was meant to be in off-topic. plz move?

I can see you started with the wrong assumption that what US does is right and justified. The truth is that they want world domination and money and will use any mean to try to pretend that what they do is the right thing. The result of their actions are worst than those of Hitler. The only difference is that they found a way to make you think it is right.

[Shakou]

Dude, the entirety of western civilization and nearly the whole world is against any rogue nation obtaining nuclear weapons. This is not a US only thing.

[plagueshard801]

If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?

This is only my opinion, but countries like North Korea possess the "we don't give a fuck" attitude, and could be more likely to be satisfied with our destruction than concerned over theirs.

[Enkrypt]

LOL.

Is the OP really suggesting we should adopt, or at least even be open to, a mindset where we treat atomic bombs the same way we treat handguns? Holy fuck.

I can't believe this is a real topic someone thought should be discussed.

Hm, yeah, let's equate a tool that can, with extreme precision, kill maybe 16-20 people depending on a few factors to an atomic device that can kill hundreds of thousands instantly, and desecrate the Earth for decades, if not centuries. Yeah, we should totally treat those as one in the same.

[Zelk]

The US would prefer if only them and their vassal states had nukes

[mootygrimes]

LOL.

Is the OP really suggesting we should adopt, or at least even be open to, a mindset where we treat atomic bombs the same way we treat handguns? Holy fuck.

I can't believe this is a real topic someone thought should be discussed.

I like your nuance. You really dug in there and thought about the situation before responding. Thank you for participating and your contribution.

[XDurionX]

Arming one lunatic is insane, arming a million lunatics is a statistic.

Am i doing this right?

[Swalload]

This is only my opinion, but countries like North Korea possess the "we don't give a fuck" attitude, and could be more likely to be satisfied with our destruction than concerned over theirs.

I believe their attitude is more "we give so much fuck that we can't handle anything the right way", they are like an extremist sect who care so much about themselves and their cause that they will go to extreme length to reach their goal to change the world or something. They are passionate about their shit, they are not evil guys from a movie who just want to see the world burn, they have an agenda.

[wombinator04]

PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis

This is gonna get locked anyways.

PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis PenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenisPenis

[Enkrypt]

I like your nuance. You really dug in there and thought about the situation before responding. Thank you for participating and your contribution.

There's really no nuance to saying, "Well, if American citizens have the right to bear arms and to have a nuclear arsenal, so should a mad-man that's declared he would use it on the Western civilization if given the opportunity. I mean, it's only fair, right?"

C'mon, dude... be real.

[Schattenlied]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms.

Guns =/= nukes and the two are completely different things.


Also... North Korea is lead by a mentally unstable person... In the US, people who are known to be mentally unstable (diagnosed as such, it needs to show up on a background check to be prevented, obviously) are not allowed to own firearms.

Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.
Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”



So, even if we were going to compare gun ownership in the US to Nukes on the world scale, we don't support mentally ill people being in possession of weapons, and therefore don't support a mentally ill dictator being in control of North Korea's Nukes.

[mootygrimes]

There's really no nuance to saying, "Well, if American citizens have the right to bear arms and to have a nuclear arsenal, so should a mad-man that's declared he would use it on the Western civilization if given the opportunity. I mean, it's only fair, right?"

C'mon, dude... be real.

Except that there is.

Here are some facts:

* American citizens have a right to arm themselves
* Countries have a right to defend themselves

Why does leadership continue to deprioririze mass shootings? Why is the killing of Americans by Americans tolerated without any meaningful progress being made towards reducing frequency, severity?

20 children are murdered at a school. No meaningful legislative iteration occurs.

One dude in Vegas kills 58 people, bump stock prices soar. Thoughts and prayers.

DPRNK says they want to bomb all of the western world, sanctions come out.

DPRNK tests tech that they have acquired within their right to defend themselves. Diplomacy (iteration) effort cranks up.

Why?




n u a n c e

[Whatever Dude]

Kim is just following the will of Big Boss.

[Nefarious Tea]

Because NO ONE needs nuclear weapons.

[Aaronioslo]

since they can't bully countries with nukes as easily

[Niroshi]

More nukes in the hands of more people is asking for disaster.