Tuesday, January 17, 2006

A Global Second Amendment

There is a lot of hand-wringing right now over the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Liberals are blaming Bush for the situation, saying he is distracted by the War in Iraq. But Bush is doing exactly the right thing: Nothing. Because what we really need is more nuclear proliferation, not less.

Have we forgotten the ideals this country was founded on? All of our rights derive from one amendment, the Second Amendment, which guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms. How can we say we want to spread democracy around the world if we leave out the most important right? And on a global scale shouldn't the right to bear arms include the right to bear nuclear arms?

Everyone knows that gun control takes guns away from law-abiding citizens and creates a situation where only criminals have guns. Gun control laws have led to many law-abiding citizens being killed because they were unable to defend themselves. But when everyone has guns, the crime rate goes down. Wouldn't that be true for nuclear weapons as well? If Kuwait had had nuclear weapons, Iraq probably would not have invaded. If Iraq and Iran had nuclear weapons, they might still have had their war, but we certainly wouldn't be worrying about them now if they did. India and Pakistan have not had any wars since both of those countries became nuclear powers.

Instead of worrying about whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons, we should just give the weapons to them--and to all of their neighbors as well. Iran would then certainly think twice about using them. And when I say "give," of course I mean sell. Becoming the largest nuclear arms dealer in the world would certainly help our economy.

It is the Second Amendment that makes our country free. A Global Second Amendment would make the world free. Nuclear proliferation could be the key to making the world safe for democratic proliferation.


, , , , , , , , ,


6 comments:

grndrush said...

While I actually agree with you concerning a GLOBAL 2nd Amendment (and have for a long time, although not in those words), your argument about personal possession of weapons completely ignores the actual evidence. By your logic, Canada should be a shooting gallery and Texas a blissful place where only criminals are killed with weapons, by law-abiding citizens.

It's not exactly a big secret that the REVERSE is MUCH closer to the truth.

- grndrush/cdn

Barba Rija said...

" But when everyone has guns, the crime rate goes down."

Sorry I couldn't help it to get a good laugh for some minutes just out of this sentence. I live in a country that gives no right to its citizens for purchasing guns and a thing that stuns me is the incredible high rate of CRIME and WEAPON MURDER VIOLENCE that exists in both US and BRAZIL, where in the first 10 000 + people die every year with guns and in the second 35 000 +. Guess what? They have such amendment.

In my country we are 10 million, we are small. But we don't have 400 murders per year (wich would be the equivalent number to compare to US), we have 32 (11 times smaller!).

If you compare any country wich has a weapon liberal law with one wich has not you will find that your reason is completely false and unfounded, and unreasoned.

Most weapon crimes are made out of PEOPLE, wich are not good nor evil, perhaps just scared of something and with fear of someone. Such GOOD-EVIL simplism is junk philosophy made up to cover up the obvious truth: violence and access to violence only allows and raises more violence.

David said...

You know, one of my professors at UC Berkeley, the very well-respected Kenneth Waltz -- "the dean of realist theory in international relations" -- advocated much the same as a corollary of his Theory of International Politics.

An often-linked article of his -- "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better" is here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

Unlike most academics, he's quite readable.

Sohil said...

You are inaccurate.

India conducted its first test in the 1970s however went serious is '98 (and the Paks followed)

Ever heard of Kargil ?

Although it's technically a mini-conflict, it still counts doesn't it ?

Hmm a Conservative. Nice, I'm Conservative in some issues but Liberal in most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

wangzi said...

Breitling's access is a bit altered than Bell & Ross's in that the app promotes a individual fake watches rather than the accomplished brand. The Breitling app focuses on one watch; the company's newest alarm alleged the Chronomat BO1. With the absolution of Piaget's iPhone app, things alpha to get interesting.

Samantha said...

Pretty effective material, much thanks for your article.

Google