Might as well let every country have a nuke, instead of controlling them. That would go over really well.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

We can easily allow other countries to have nukes. That way, if everyone has nukes, no one can use them. If they do, the rest of the countries nuke them and they lose. It actually does apply to guns. If a bad guy takes out a gun, everyone else shoots him. No sane person starts shooting people when everyone else has a gun. That's suicide. Bad guys who want to shoot people go to gun control cities like D.C. and Detroit, where no one has a gun. No one can stand up to you.

As far as I'm concerned, gun control is not even really up for discussion. We have a right to bear arms, not from our bill of rights, but endowed to us by God. The government can't force us to seek their permission to own a gun, like with concealed carrying permits. They can only permit us privileges. A right is something provided to us when we're born, unalienable, and that does not answer to any higher authority. A privilege is a special perk or advantage provided to you by a higher earthly authority. You seek permission to exercise a privilege. If you have to seek permission for a right, it has to also be a privilege, which is a contradiction of terms. Something can't be both a right and a privilege.

I encourage all of you to refuse to get a concealed carrying license for gun ownership on the grounds that it is a violation of your rights. The same goes with a drivers license. It is violation of your right to travel, protected under the 9th amendment, and given to you by God.

__________________
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either -Benjamin Franklin

I am saying if you agree that guns don't kill people, then you should agree that nukes don't kill people. If nukes don't kill people, why not let every country have nukes. Actually, why not let every individual person have nukes.

Its a silly argument, and thats what I was trying to prove.

The reason the international community controls nukes because that logic in your argument is flawed. There are dozens of countries with corrupt officials, no safeguards against theft of anything, with governments that could be overthrown by extremists at any day. The world would be badly screwed up within minutes if every state were to have a nuke, because these types of leaders and people don't make logical decisions or take logical actions.

Then the government theoretically can't stop us from owning a nuke. You're argument is nonsense. Yes I agree there are unalienable rights, but god didn't give humans rationale throught so one suicidal idiot could buy 500 nukes and blow up the planet. No individual should have nukes because an accidental detonation would kill potentially millions of people.

The state clearly defines what rights are and aren't. This is why the right to bear arms exists, but its interpreted as small arms. I also agree this right is pointless because its just an extension of the right to own private property.

Again, god doesn't endow us with rights. He created us and influences us through the bible, but other than that its up for humans to create our own society with our own laws and rules.

Anyways, who says god didn't give cats and dogs rights. Who says he didn't give a tree the right to live. Step out of the world of nonsense and enter the real world, the state determines the extent of individual freedom, has always been like that. Create your own anarchy to live in if you don't like it.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

I believe in a God but I can say with full honesty the Bible doesn't influence me one iota. I might share common morality with some of the Bible, but considering the Bible is filled with instances of mass murder, genocide, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, an unjust God, logical fallacies, rejection of logic and reason and sanity, and encouraging people to reject science in favor of mythology and fantasy, how can you say it's a good influence in these respects? If you're going to deny the Bible has these, I'm quite prepared to barrage you with myriad sources from myriad websites, individuals, organizations, and groups.

I however agree with your second paragraph. Everything has the right to live; except those who seek to kill and murder other people. No one has the right to threaten anyone's life, plan to take anyone's life, or take anyone's life. Additionally, rights aren't universal. There is no physical law of expression. No universal theorem of assembly.

Everyone does have the right to own nukes. You don't have the right to take someone else's life because then you are violating their right to life. It is the responsibility of a government who creates the nukes itself not to allow them to come into the hands of an individual. If an individual creates a nuke himself or is given a nuke by a government who acquired it legally, then that individual has the right to own that nuke. The government doesn't have the right to seize that nuke on the grounds that he could use it to violate other people's rights, because that would be presumption of guilt until proven innocent. I know y'all are going to call me crazy for saying so, but I put liberty over security, as my quote at the bottom says.

__________________
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either -Benjamin Franklin

Which is why you are in the severe minority. An individual possessing a nuke does violate peoples rights. People have the right to security of self, which is why individuals endowed the state with the authority to ensure public safety risks are minimized. Many peoples rights' to security of self outweighs one individuals right to possess a nuke.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

You've said in a different post people have no right to unlimited happiness. I assume in the context it meant things like, drugs, harmful behavior, etc. However, it's complete contradiction to say people don't have the freedom to be happy whenever they want however they want, but say people have the freedom to own a thermonuclear weapon.

.People have no right to security. They have a right not to have their life taken, but that doesn't mean violating the rights of everyone who could potentially violate their right to life. My neighbor could potentially kill me with his bare hands, but that doesn't mean his hands should be cut off to protect my nonexistent right to security. Rights by definition can't contradict each other, which is why I say security is not a right. Everything poses a possible threat, it is impossible to ever be secure. We give some of our sovereignty to the government to protect our rights directly by punishing those who violate your rights, not by taking the rights of others away to decrease the chance that your rights could be violated.

In the context, I meant people don't have the right to violate other people's rights. I think people have the right to do drugs or engage in any other self-destructive behavior, because they own their own body, and have the right to do what they want with their property. If someone acquires a thermonuclear bomb, they should be secure in their property and have the right to keep it. Just because someone has a possibly destructive weopon, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to use it. They have the right to own it, but no right to ever use it.

__________________
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either -Benjamin Franklin

+1. "An armed society is a polite society" - Mark Twain

AA