North Korea detonated a nuclear

Started Feb 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
knox
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,558
Like?
Re: princess . .
In reply to Jim, Feb 13, 2013

Jim wrote:

knox wrote:

I didn't look at your link princess because everyone knows there is a link or story anyone with Google can find to support their opinionated and biased agenda at any given time. You of all people know this, because that's all you do. If you were a reasonable person, I would be happy to look at it with an open mind.

Don't put words in my mouth or exaggerate my prior comment princess . . . . I said "control" as in 'reasonable' control of weapons (NOT "take away"), especially those that are made for extreme killing. Just as you are probably saying about North Korea, but refuse to see the similarities to suit your agendas and wants. Though I'm sure if it were up to you, you would take away ALL weapons from any country other then America!

My point was clear . . the more weapons, the more opportunity a whacked out person or religious nut (who thinks he is doing it for his God) or a pssed off person can get their hands on one to kill. Just as you are saying. You just close your mind to my point. More weapons do not fix anything, in fact they increase the percentages of killing. Just like NK or Iran having nukes. "Reasonable' control is needed across the board.

I see your point but it's quite one thing to be dealing with firearms and quite another with nuclear weapons...with but one being able to wipe out millions with one use. This is the clear distinction between "controls" on these two issues (as I know you are already aware). This is why nations like Iran and NK should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons as they have demonstrated that they are not responsible players. I would put Pakistan in that category as well. I think that at the end of the day, these nations know that if they ever used their nuclear weaponry against the West (and we would likely know if they did) it would be over for them as we would retaliate...disproportionately to their disadvantage.

At least you were open minded enough to 'get' my point and offer level headed discussion (thanks). Of course it's in a smaller way . . . . but then tell that to someone whose loved one was killed with a revolver many years ago who now sees high capacity automatic weapons on the streets. To me, possessing automatic / even some semi automatic weapons or extended magazines holding many rounds needs reasonable control / regulation so certain weapons don't get in the hands of certain people. Just like certain weapons should not be able to infiltrate the world and in other countries. Even stronger 'reasonable' regulation on gun ownership as a whole. If not when does it stop? Many years ago it was a musket . . today it's Mac 10s etc . . what's next? I certainly don't have all the answers but it's clear that more weapons in this world, whether nuclear or bullets is not the answer. Especially if we want to keep them out of the wrong hands as it increases the odds of things happening. Any reasonable person can see that. One cannot speak of keeping (controlling) nuclear weapons from some country without seeing the similarities.

-- hide signature --

Knox
--
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow