North Korea vs Gun Control

[Rustic]

Thats an interesting comparison... But NK is not firing weapons here in the US they are doing it in their own country so I don't think your analogy of firing within the city limits is comparable. I haven't seen reports that the missile tests they are doing as being an immediate threat to harming anybody.

Now your point about their threats is interesting. Im curious about what laws they are breaking by making threats? How their threats are different than the ones that Trump just made? And what is the punishment for making threats...

And to tie it back to the comparison in the OP... If a citizen makes a threat with their gun, "any intruder that tries to break into my house will be shot dead by my gun"... Should they be arrested? Should their gun be taken away?

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

North Korean WMD programs must be eradicated for safety of all mankind.

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Overall I don't give a shit about other countries what they have and don't have, but the problem is socialism. There is one essential element to socialism - control freaks… They cannot tolerate any other view of any sort.

 

[JGalt]

Thats an interesting comparison... But NK is not firing weapons here in the US they are doing it in their own country so I don't think your analogy of firing within the city limits is comparable. I haven't seen reports that the missile tests they are doing as being an immediate threat to harming anybody.

Now your point about their threats is interesting. Im curious about what laws they are breaking by making threats? How their threats are different than the ones that Trump just made? And what is the punishment for making threats...

And to tie it back to the comparison in the OP... If a citizen makes a threat with their gun, "any intruder that tries to break into my house will be shot dead by my gun"... Should they be arrested? Should their gun be taken away?

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

North Korean WMD programs must be eradicated for safety of all mankind.

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Who do you mean by "other countries"? Do the North Korean people have a right to own firearms? Switzerland's people can legally own firearms but they're not a threat.

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Chalk up another pro NK lib.

Equating or personal right to a firearm with NK having nukes. Pathetic.

No quite mr mike, yet again you seem to completely miss the point of the OP. Try again.

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Here's a thought. NK has gun control. Should we be more like them? If they didn't have gun control maybe they wouldn't be the problem they are today.

You want to take away gun control in the US yet control the weapons of a different country... Isn't that ironic?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, Nk. Korea did threaten to bring nuclear destruction to the US. Yes, you CAN go to the gun range and shoot off your weapons. It's where the proper place is to do that.

However.................you CAN'T discharge a weapon in the city limits here in Amarillo, because there is a chance of hitting your neighbor. N. Korea is basically firing a weapon in the city limits, as well as threatening it's neighbors.

Sorry, but your analogy doesn't work very well. If N. Korea hadn't threatened the US, and if they had kept all their tests in their own country, then there wouldn't be much of a problem and your analogy would work.

However.................N. Korea is the equivalent of the redneck neighbor that likes to go in their backyard and shoot off guns for celebrations, as well as threatens to shoot any neighbor they don't like.

Thats an interesting comparison... But NK is not firing weapons here in the US they are doing it in their own country so I don't think your analogy of firing within the city limits is comparable. I haven't seen reports that the missile tests they are doing as being an immediate threat to harming anybody.

Now your point about their threats is interesting. Im curious about what laws they are breaking by making threats? How their threats are different than the ones that Trump just made? And what is the punishment for making threats...

And to tie it back to the comparison in the OP... If a citizen makes a threat with their gun, "any intruder that tries to break into my house will be shot dead by my gun"... Should they be arrested? Should their gun be taken away?

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

Ok, fair points. How is N. Koreas "brandishing" different from what Trump just said?

Also, are they the only nation that is or has testing missile that have landed in the Ocean or cross over other countries?

All Trump has done so far is scream about N. Korea and what he would do if they launched against us. Kinda the equivalent of standing on your own front porch and yelling at the neighbor that's doing the brandishing, that if they fire at you, you will fire back and probably tear down their house.

In the eyes of the law, who started it (N. Korea) and who is the larger potential threat, based on the evidence at hand? Currently, it's N. Korea.

And while shouting back at them "you better not do it" is a lot less likely to incite your neighbor than "yeah, go ahead and shoot, and I will level your house with my guns". The second is more likely to get a bad response.

Interesting, I'll do some research about what threats have been made. I'm curious to see what the back and forth has been. Do you think N. Korea is aggressing us for the hell of it or do you think they are reacting to perceived threats by our government to them?

Combination of both. Ever since the DMZ was created and there was a separation between the north and south, N. Korea has been painting the US as a bunch of blood thirsty savages. For them, hatred of America isn't just learned, it's actually a cultural thing. They have been taught for the past 60 years that the US is a big bad wolf just waiting to gobble up N. Korea.

And then, because hatred of America is cultural in N. Korea, if the president says something that can be railed against, they will do it on a regular basis, because in the eyes of the country, it makes the leader look stronger.

So, to answer your question, it's a bit of both.

 

[Slade3200]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

 

[Slade3200]

Thats an interesting comparison... But NK is not firing weapons here in the US they are doing it in their own country so I don't think your analogy of firing within the city limits is comparable. I haven't seen reports that the missile tests they are doing as being an immediate threat to harming anybody.

Now your point about their threats is interesting. Im curious about what laws they are breaking by making threats? How their threats are different than the ones that Trump just made? And what is the punishment for making threats...

And to tie it back to the comparison in the OP... If a citizen makes a threat with their gun, "any intruder that tries to break into my house will be shot dead by my gun"... Should they be arrested? Should their gun be taken away?

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

Ok, fair points. How is N. Koreas "brandishing" different from what Trump just said?

Also, are they the only nation that is or has testing missile that have landed in the Ocean or cross over other countries?

Because you as an American should believe your country is right, and that globalism and communism is and has always been a threat to your way of life.

You are naive if you automatically assume that your country is always right. What makes us grow is by questioning and scrutinizing and evolving our system for the better. We used to be a slave owning nation. That wasn't right. It was questioned and it was rebelled upon and we progressed. But we need to be capable of honest and civilized debate to contest ideas and search for the best solutions. So far I'm having a very hard time getting that kind of engagement out of you.

As former military, my country is always right. No matter what.

They were right when they had slaves? When women couldn't vote? When blacks had to sit in the back of the bus? Was all the right?

 

[Slade3200]

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

North Korean WMD programs must be eradicated for safety of all mankind.

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Overall I don't give a shit about other countries what they have and don't have, but the problem is socialism. There is one essential element to socialism - control freaks… They cannot tolerate any other view of any sort.

So you hate socialism and commies, great... The discussion is about whether they should have nukes or not and the parallel about gun control in this country.

 

[JGalt]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

Not legal here to shoot someone for stealing your property. It is in Texas though. You might ask a Texan.

 

[Slade3200]

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

North Korean WMD programs must be eradicated for safety of all mankind.

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Who do you mean by "other countries"? Do the North Korean people have a right to own firearms? Switzerland's people can legally own firearms but they're not a threat.

We are talking about NK having Nukes. The other country is NK, the weapons are nukes

 

[JGalt]

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

Ok, fair points. How is N. Koreas "brandishing" different from what Trump just said?

Also, are they the only nation that is or has testing missile that have landed in the Ocean or cross over other countries?

Because you as an American should believe your country is right, and that globalism and communism is and has always been a threat to your way of life.

You are naive if you automatically assume that your country is always right. What makes us grow is by questioning and scrutinizing and evolving our system for the better. We used to be a slave owning nation. That wasn't right. It was questioned and it was rebelled upon and we progressed. But we need to be capable of honest and civilized debate to contest ideas and search for the best solutions. So far I'm having a very hard time getting that kind of engagement out of you.

As former military, my country is always right. No matter what.

They were right when they had slaves? When women couldn't vote? When blacks had to sit in the back of the bus? Was all the right?

Right for the times, I suppose. Times change.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

That isn't really communicating a threat, that is more like giving them a warning, because they have already done something against you.

Now, if you saw someone walking down the street, and said "you better not come on my property or I'll shoot you" is a bit different, because they aren't doing anything to you, they are simply minding their own walking down the street. In this case, it's communicating a threat because they haven't done anything to you.

Interesting topic by the way. Kinda like the conversation with you as long as we can keep it civil.

 

[JGalt]

North Korean WMD programs must be eradicated for safety of all mankind.

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Who do you mean by "other countries"? Do the North Korean people have a right to own firearms? Switzerland's people can legally own firearms but they're not a threat.

We are talking about NK having Nukes. The other country is NK, the weapons are nukes

I dunno. Do you have a problem with North Korea having nuclear weapons?

 

[Slade3200]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

Not legal here to shoot someone for stealing your property. It is in Texas though. You might ask a Texan.

You can shoot somebody for trespassing and/or breaking into your house right? So apply that to my scenario...

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, fair points. How is N. Koreas "brandishing" different from what Trump just said?

Also, are they the only nation that is or has testing missile that have landed in the Ocean or cross over other countries?

Because you as an American should believe your country is right, and that globalism and communism is and has always been a threat to your way of life.

You are naive if you automatically assume that your country is always right. What makes us grow is by questioning and scrutinizing and evolving our system for the better. We used to be a slave owning nation. That wasn't right. It was questioned and it was rebelled upon and we progressed. But we need to be capable of honest and civilized debate to contest ideas and search for the best solutions. So far I'm having a very hard time getting that kind of engagement out of you.

As former military, my country is always right. No matter what.

They were right when they had slaves? When women couldn't vote? When blacks had to sit in the back of the bus? Was all the right?

Right for the times, I suppose. Times change.

They didn't change by people believing in your "our country is always right" philosophy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it me or are Progressives bending over backwards to defend their hero, KJU?

 

[JGalt]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

Not legal here to shoot someone for stealing your property. It is in Texas though. You might ask a Texan.

You can shoot somebody for trespassing and/or breaking into your house right? So apply that to my scenario...

You generally wouldn't shoot someone for trespassing. Breaking and entering or a home-invasion is a shootable offense.

 

[Slade3200]

I've carried a concealed weapon for 8 years and the last thing I would think of should I feel an eminent threat, was whether or not I should debate the attacker's right to threaten my safety, or the safety of my family. Lofty ideals are all well and good, but whether North Korea has the right to threaten the US is not debatable..

If there were robbers breaking into houses in your neighborhood would you threaten to shoot them if they entered your house or tried to steal your property?

You don't "threaten". The Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law in this and most other states doesn't require you to warn an attacker. You just shoot them. Period. Shoot them in the back five times if you want.

The police have the power of arrest, I don't. So if they want, they can warn someone to put the gun down. The Castle Doctrine doesn't work that way.

Ok, but lets say you catch somebody trying to steal your car, you run into your house to get your gun and by the time you run outside the dudes are out of sight running away. Do you have the right to yell "Come back to my property and I will shoot you!" and if you do is that breaking a law, should the state have the right to take your gun away?

That isn't really communicating a threat, that is more like giving them a warning, because they have already done something against you.

Now, if you saw someone walking down the street, and said "you better not come on my property or I'll shoot you" is a bit different, because they aren't doing anything to you, they are simply minding their own walking down the street. In this case, it's communicating a threat because they haven't done anything to you.

Interesting topic by the way. Kinda like the conversation with you as long as we can keep it civil.

I'm all about the civility im not here to insult or push a political agenda. I appreciate the ideas you have brought to the conversation as well.

Per our last post, you said the NK and US have a history of provocation so the person walking down the street isn't really an innocent bi-stander. It would be more like the ex-con that raped your sister that just got out of prison. We have our history and NK has their history and they obviously feel threatened and wronged by the US. It makes the "who is reacting to who" conversation interesting. And if there is no clear picture as to who "started" it then we have to look at international law. I just find it interesting to parallel these two issues. I, in no way, support NK, they are nuts and dangerous, but it is interesting to debate the details of these actions and policy viewpoints.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Thats an interesting comparison... But NK is not firing weapons here in the US they are doing it in their own country so I don't think your analogy of firing within the city limits is comparable. I haven't seen reports that the missile tests they are doing as being an immediate threat to harming anybody.

Now your point about their threats is interesting. Im curious about what laws they are breaking by making threats? How their threats are different than the ones that Trump just made? And what is the punishment for making threats...

And to tie it back to the comparison in the OP... If a citizen makes a threat with their gun, "any intruder that tries to break into my house will be shot dead by my gun"... Should they be arrested? Should their gun be taken away?

You're right, N. Korea isn't firing weapons here in the US. If they did that, it would be considered an act of war. But my analogy still stands, because the missiles that they have test fired so far have been landing in international waters (the equivalent of shooting in the middle of the street), and if they carry out their threat to land some within 20 miles of Guam, those missiles will be flying over other countries (equivalent of shooting at someone through someone else's yard).

As far as the threatening? Yeah, again the analogy stands and N. Korea is doing the equivalent of standing on their back porch with a bullhorn, and threatening to shoot the person across the street. If you were to do that in the city limits, you would be charged with threatening, and if you had a gun in your hand and were shaking it (or test firing missiles), that would be considered brandishing.

Ok, fair points. How is N. Koreas "brandishing" different from what Trump just said?

Also, are they the only nation that is or has testing missile that have landed in the Ocean or cross over other countries?

Because you as an American should believe your country is right, and that globalism and communism is and has always been a threat to your way of life.

You are naive if you automatically assume that your country is always right. What makes us grow is by questioning and scrutinizing and evolving our system for the better. We used to be a slave owning nation. That wasn't right. It was questioned and it was rebelled upon and we progressed. But we need to be capable of honest and civilized debate to contest ideas and search for the best solutions. So far I'm having a very hard time getting that kind of engagement out of you.

As former military, my country is always right. No matter what.

I'm retired Navy, over 20 years service, and I learned the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one when I was in boot camp. It was also taught once a year in Navy Rights and Responsibilities, and I learned that officers aren't always right, as well as learned that sometimes they might order me to do something that they can't. No, there ARE times that this country has been wrong before, and there are times this country will be wrong again.

 

[Slade3200]

Does the same logic apply to guns in America to a lesser degree?

Nope. The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess them. There's nothing in the constitution that gives an enemy the right to threaten us.

See, that was a fair point and a good argument. Would you say that other countries do have the right to possess any weapons that they want as long as they do not make a threat to us? And to further that, if a country does make a threat to us then do you think it should be policy that they have no right to have weapons?

Who do you mean by "other countries"? Do the North Korean people have a right to own firearms? Switzerland's people can legally own firearms but they're not a threat.

We are talking about NK having Nukes. The other country is NK, the weapons are nukes

I dunno. Do you have a problem with North Korea having nuclear weapons?

yes, NK having nukes makes me extremely nervous. But I also understand and support gun control within reason. The contrast i'm pointing out is with those who support no gun control in this country but support taking away NK's nukes. They seem to contradict each other.