On Jul 17, 9:55 pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 17, 1:30 am, CanopyCo
aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 10:14 pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 13, 2:15 am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>> The individual - nation analogue is used by the top political
>>>> scientists including Alexis DeTocqueville, whose brilliance is
>>>> unquestioned.
>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>>> The individual is not a nation and the nation is not
>>> an individual. The second amendment refers to individuals
>>> not nations. Why would a government bother to give itself
>>> the right to be armed? Of course you'll never admit that you
>>> might be wrong on this or anything else.
>
>> Nations are made up of individuals, therefore a group of individuals
>> is a nation.
>
> So therefore me and my sister are a nation. In fact a "nation" does
> not
> exist, only governments do. The government is certainly not the
> individuals
> it supposedly represents, otherwise how could the government punish
> individuals without punishing itself, which it never does?
>
Look Nation up on line at
http://www.merriam-webster.com. These two
definitions specifically state a requirement of people. b:Â a community
of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more
or less defined territory and government c:Â a territorial division
containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually
characterized by relatively large size and independent status
No people, no nation.
And how do you do something to a Nation without doing it to its
people?
>> Exactly how are you going to disarm a nation without first disarming
>> all individuals?
>
> I am not suggesting disarming the nation, I am merely pointing out
> that
> the second amendment gives no rights to government, nor does any other
> part of the US constitution.
>
The second amendment as a law in fact does not give anything to anyone
outside the USA, however, the fact that we demand that right for
ourselves would make us at least hypocritical if we did not others to
also demand that right for themselves.
>
>> As to the second amendment, it was entered into our constitution
>> because it was considered a "God given" right. One that is the right
>> of everyone. Like the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has the right to
>> try and have a tolerable life instead of hating life every day.
>
>> Therefore, regardless of if it was an American or any other nation,
>> the individuals in each of them also have the same "God given" rights
>> as we do. Not because they are given to us by law, but because they
>> are inherited by us as civilized humans.
>
>> The right to defend ourselves.
>> The right to be left alone.
>> The right to think what we want.
>> The right to warship what ever we want.
>> The right to leave a place we don't like being in.
>
>> Stuff like that.
>
>> Otherwise, it is not a right, it is a privilege granted you by your
>> government.
>
> Well yes, but that doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT has a right to
> nukes. It doesn't
> mean the government has a right to a sawn-off shotgun.
It does if the nuke is used to make power that the people need.
It does if the shotgun is used to defend someone.
The bigger question is, why are they wanting the nuke, and what sort
of nuke are they wanting.
There is a bigger need then that of the individual.
And that is the need of the planet.
They are a hot country, so nuke is not there best choice for making
electricity.
If they are wanting cheep electricity, then make solar heated steam
towers.
That is the present technology.
Don't try to cook your food over a burning cow chip when we can use
electric ranges.
The nuke thing is just an excuse to get something dangerous and mess
up the world.
Like a monkey that wants a gun.
Should we give it to them?
No, because they do not need it and it is to high a technology for
there primitive society to be capable of handling without messing up
the neighbors.
Everyone has the right to own a gun.
No one has the right to shoot there gun out the window in the city.
If you are someone that will shoot your gun out the window, then you
loose your right to a gun, for the safety of all those around you.
Should we stop others from giving it to them?
No, we do not have the right to dictate our beliefs to other nations.
They have the right to be left alone to live there lives as they see
fit.
The question is, how did they get it themselves if they are primitive
enough to not see that these guys do not need it and will mess up if
they get it?
Should we attack them if they get it?
No, because they have not threatened us with it.
Just like with all the other nuclear capable countries, we should wait
until they show that they are using it themselves, then turn there
land into a nuclear waste land.
