If the NRA was in charge: all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons for defence, but should be educated about the consequenses of using one.
America, after all, is a responsible owner and so is allowed to have 1000’s.
If the NRA were in charge of what? The U.S.? Why would that have anything to do with every other nation having one?
The world? Um… k.
I understand your point, but I doubt that there are many sporting uses for nukes.
Well, on the one hand, I don’t think the NRA is pushing for personal ownership of anti-tank weapons or man-portable surface-to-air missiles, or whatever the most destructive one-person weapon is.
And on the other hand, just about every country on Earth has a military force of some kind. So we live in the equivalent of some sort of completely anarchic village where there is no sheriff or town marshal or constable, and every one of the 200 or so inhabitants packs heat.
Nuclear weapons dont kill people, nuclear weapons kill LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people very quickly and then encourage other people to retaliate and use more nuclear weapons to kill lots and lots of people, after which the side-effects of nuclear weapons slowly kill a few more people and generally degrade the biosphere, further affecting future generations of people.
Um, sorry. What was the question again?
Sorry sinical, but a quick look through my NRA members guide found no statement by the NRA on Nuclear Arms ownership.
Welcome to SDMB. How about next time, you start a debate rather than proclaim your ignorance.
Wow, hold your horses JXJohns. I kind of like sinical brits OP.
After all I’m quite happy to live in a country that doesn’t allow any wacko to buy a gun.
So what exactly does your members guide state? “We need automatic weapons to enjoy our lifes”?
Well, you may like it and I’m happy that you are happy with your country’s gun control laws. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s free-for-all on setting up strawmen.
First off, the NRA doesn’t support guns for just anyone. It fully supports restricting access to those convicted of violent crimes. Cite. I’m not sure how that would translate into nuclear arms policy, though. Probably restrictions on those who have broken international law (don’t know what the US would do with it’s stocks).
Nor does the NRA oppose bans on automatic weapons (machine guns), at least not that I’m aware of.
Crowd control? How about the little grenade like nukes from Starship troopers? Seems like a great way to clear a field of trees/pests. 
While I’m not really for Nukes, the OP has it right, just like guns, the nukes need to be fired by a person. it’s not the nuke itself that kills, if left to sit in the silo/bunker, but the lunatic that launches it. It’d be better if the genie had never been let out of the bottle, but since it has, I’m for restricted ownership… (I only want a wee one)
-Butler
hehe... great. So if you kill someone then you can't use a gun ? Great restriction... kinda late no ? Machine guns are great for home defense too... I just love the NRA logic.Violent crime does not necessarily equal murder.
The NRA is not opposed to machine gun restrictions.
Understand what you’re mocking before you mock.
First off a gun is pretty much a personal weapon able to kill specific people. A nuke, tactical or not is an undiscriminating weapon of destruction that is not aim at a particular person. I’d get a new analogy.
Secondly, there’s this whole nasty business call history and the cold war that you may or may not have missed. Nasty business with polar opposite ideologies facing off. You should thank you lucky stars that the resulting balance of terror manage to prevent the scenario put forth by toadspittle. The fact that there were so many weapons made it inevitable that a surprise strike by one side would never prevent enough retaliatory power being launch to justify the risk. Think of it as stalemate.
Had the numbers been smaller the chance would have existed for a possible victor, the retaliatory devastation would’ve been insufficient to prevent the first strike opportunity from passing by.
Rashak Mani, should I point out that a person could be killed by something other than a gun, and if so that said killer would be considered a poor risk and so denied the opportunity to posses one? You take issue with that?
America is a responsible owner?
It’s actually the only one who’s ever used nukes against people.
To be specific: innocent civilians.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the OP is aiming at, exactly.
Non proliferation politics? NRA?
Not this again. The bomb was no worse than the continual fire bombing of Toyko. No not nice, but hardly right off the outrage scale for WWII.
As far as I know (goes to check cite) they are generally opposed to any felon owning a handgun, especially those who were commited of a violent crime.
I’m glad you enjoy living where you do, many people do not sadly. I enjoy my home as well. Technically speaking though, if someone is adjudicated a wacko here in the US, they are unable to purchase a gun. Please define wacko and we’ll see how things may be different between my home and yours.
As far as the OP goes, please note that the OP’er has not tried to defend him/herself or their statement. An ignorant OP does not a good debate make.
Shows what you know. Why, my buddies and I go asteroid shootin’ every weekend. You shoulda seen Jimmy’s face a month ago when he barely missed the Hubble! His $250 billion liability policy had just lapsed, too…
What’s that got to do with anything?
I’m just saying: What evidence do we have that the US is a more responsible owner of nukes than any other nation?
If anything, we’ve got negative evidence.
But why not?
Let’s face it, the NRA’s most frequently used argument (at least among members of the SDMB) is the old reducto ad absurdum (probably spelled incorrectly) argument:
“You can’t ban guns because they can be used to kill because knives can be used to kill too and if you ban guns you’ll have to ban knives and if you ban knives because than can kill then you have to ban fists because they can kill and if you ban fists then everyone will be running around with stumps…”
So, if guns aren’t bad, because they’re really no more dangerous than knives, which are of course no more dangerous than fists, why doesn’t it go in the other direction?
-Joe
“So, if guns aren’t bad, because they’re really no more dangerous than knives, which are of course no more dangerous than fists, why doesn’t it go in the other direction?”
Because the Second Amendment to the US Constitution pertains to Arms, not ordinance. Rifles and pistols are considered arms. Cannons, LAW rockets, nukes, etc. are considered ordinance.
The NRA stands for protecting its own coffers and the Second Amendment rights for US citizens.
In the end the problem is that guns make it way easier for people not only to defend themselvs… but to kill other people. Stabbing people to death isnt as easy as pulling the trigger…
If people get angry for silly reasons and have a gun handy they might be tempted to use it… whilst if they didnt have the gun… the handy knife wouldnt be as dangerous.
Correction - Oh ! Got it… I understood the NRA was in favor of machine guns ! Thou some easily converted stuff isnt banned also…