North Korea vs Gun Control

[Slade3200]

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

That has nothing to do with the OP or this thread.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

OK, then go with that one. Now apply that to my scenario...

 

[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.

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

I like that analogy... good one. haha

 

[Slade3200]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

I like that analogy... good one. haha

Thanks. Yeah, it is a good analogy, but I really wasn't trying to be funny with it. I was thinking about that poor bastard that got 15 years in a N. Korean prison for simply taking a political banner from the hotel. He was returned here in a coma after being kept over there for 2 years, and died 4 days after he got back.

Like I said, N. Korea is a bunch of paranoid idiots.

 

[JGalt]

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.

The only people I know of who supports no gun control, are criminals. I agree that some of the laws are archaic and restrictive, but enforcing most of them is necessary.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

Again..............depends a great deal on the situation. Yes, you can be paranoid and be allowed to have a gun. Matter of fact, most gun owners are paranoid about their safety. As far as the right to shoot in your back yard? Depends on where you live. Currently, I live in the city limits, so no, I can't shoot in my backyard. However, growing up in Montana, we lived out in the country and had a shooting range on the property. Do they have the right to tell the neighbors they will get shot if they mess with their property? Yes, it is called "no trespassing" signs, many of which warn about being shot.

The state has the right to take away their weapons when they act irresponsibly by breaking the law. Unfortunately, this is where your analogy breaks down, because there is no one world government that N. Korea has to answer to like people who live in this country. The citizens have to answer to the laws passed by the government. You could say N. Korea has to answer to the UN, but they have managed to largely ignore them because China keeps helping them out with the sanctions.

 

[JGalt]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

North Korea is not just shooting their missiles in their own" back yard". Some of them have landed inside Japan's exclusive economic zone. Japan is a military ally of ours and because the NORKs have also threatened us, this is a problem.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

Again..............depends a great deal on the situation. Yes, you can be paranoid and be allowed to have a gun. Matter of fact, most gun owners are paranoid about their safety. As far as the right to shoot in your back yard? Depends on where you live. Currently, I live in the city limits, so no, I can't shoot in my backyard. However, growing up in Montana, we lived out in the country and had a shooting range on the property. Do they have the right to tell the neighbors they will get shot if they mess with their property? Yes, it is called "no trespassing" signs, many of which warn about being shot.

The state has the right to take away their weapons when they act irresponsibly by breaking the law. Unfortunately, this is where your analogy breaks down, because there is no one world government that N. Korea has to answer to like people who live in this country. The citizens have to answer to the laws passed by the government. You could say N. Korea has to answer to the UN, but they have managed to largely ignore them because China keeps helping them out with the sanctions.

You're right on with all of that. The question become if we move forward to take away their weapons then what is the rationale? Is it international law? Is it because of something specific that they said or did? Is it simply because they developed more powerful weapons and we don't want them to have them? It's the last one that is interesting to me because I think many feel this way... And it is in contrast to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Do you understand the contrast that i'm talking about?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

North Korea is not just shooting their missiles in their own" back yard". Some of them have landed inside Japan's exclusive economic zone. Japan is a military ally of ours and because the NORKs have also threatened us, this is a problem.

When did that happen? Was that from the most recent test launches and is that the main reason why we are wanting to take away their Nukes?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

North Korea isn't just possessing a weapon, it's called "brandishing", which is illegal in most states. Or "using a weapon in a threatening manner".

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

 

[JGalt]

North Korea isn't just possessing a weapon, it's called "brandishing", which is illegal in most states. Or "using a weapon in a threatening manner".

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

Yeah. This whole thread is full of WTF?

 

[JGalt]

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.

No, I said that after the war N. Korea made America into a boogyman and their culture evolved into one of hate. N. Korea is more like the paranoid idiot down the road that has "No Trespassing" signs all around their property, and warnings about shooting people, but, they allow people on to their property under tightly controlled conditions to buy produce from them. N. Korea allows tourists, but they are an extremely paranoid nation. And, just like the paranoid idiot down the street, they will look at ALL actions happening around them as a potential attack, no matter what the other person is doing.

Lets go with the paranoid neighbor analogy... Do they have the right to own a gun? Do they have the right to shoot their gun in their back yard? Do they have the right to tell the rest of the neighbors that they will get shot if they mess with their property? At what point does the state have a right to take away their guns?

North Korea is not just shooting their missiles in their own" back yard". Some of them have landed inside Japan's exclusive economic zone. Japan is a military ally of ours and because the NORKs have also threatened us, this is a problem.

When did that happen? Was that from the most recent test launches and is that the main reason why we are wanting to take away their Nukes?

North Korea fires four ballistic missiles into Sea of Japan - CNN

 

[Slade3200]

North Korea isn't just possessing a weapon, it's called "brandishing", which is illegal in most states. Or "using a weapon in a threatening manner".

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

You bring up "law abiding citizens" so I guess my question is what laws are N. Korea breaking to disqualify them from being able to arm themselves with Nukes...

Also, i'm not making an argument saying that they should have nukes... i'm posing questions and observations for discussion.

 

[Slade3200]

North Korea isn't just possessing a weapon, it's called "brandishing", which is illegal in most states. Or "using a weapon in a threatening manner".

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

Yeah. This whole thread is full of WTF?

If you really don't understand what is being discussed here then you don't need to engage. Sailor and I are having a good discussion about it. He seems to get it.

 

[JGalt]

North Korea isn't just possessing a weapon, it's called "brandishing", which is illegal in most states. Or "using a weapon in a threatening manner".

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

You bring up "law abiding citizens" so I guess my question is what laws are N. Korea breaking to disqualify them from being able to arm themselves with Nukes...

Also, i'm not making an argument saying that they should have nukes... i'm posing questions and observations for discussion.

How about human rights violations, slavery, political prison camps, executions with anti-aircraft fire, explosives, and ravenous dogs, and the fact that they are the most prolific counterfeiters of $100 bills in this country. I could dig up a shitload more if you want.

 

[Rustic]

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

You bring up "law abiding citizens" so I guess my question is what laws are N. Korea breaking to disqualify them from being able to arm themselves with Nukes...

Also, i'm not making an argument saying that they should have nukes... i'm posing questions and observations for discussion.

How about human rights violations, slavery, political prison camps, executions with anti-aircraft fire, explosives, and ravenous dogs, and the fact that they are the most prolific counterfeiters of $100 bills in this country. I could dig up a shitload more if you want.

North Korea is the Pearl of socialism

 

[OKTexas]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

 

[Rustic]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

Like I said North Korea is the pearl of socialism