> 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: a community
> of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more
> or less defined territory and government c: 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.