BIBI, Armed Bears edition
Many folks argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not only Constitutional, but also self-evident: our right to our weapons exists beyond the framework of any particular government or document. With this in mind, I ask you this:
If we believe that there exists a true, self-evident right to bear arms, than under what framework can we oppose Iran (or any nation for that matter) pursuing nuclear weapons (or any arms of any kind)?
Let’s flesh this out a bit, shall we? If the individual has a right to keep arms for self-defense, why would a nation, itself a collection of individuals, not also have this right? If anything, it seems to me that a government’s charge to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens would require it to hold the necessary weapons to do so.
I am particularly curious to hear the responses of those among us who strongly believe in gun rights, in part because I think there is a lot of overlap between these folks and those who are most hawkish on Iran (or other nations) pursuing nuclear arms. Is there a logically-consistent, principled approach to such seemingly oppositional viewpoints?
A few preemptive statements:
1.) I realize that our Constitution does not apply to Iran or any non-US citizen. This is why I ask whether or not there exists a self-evident right.
2.) I realize that Iran, as a country, might be analogous to exactly the type of individual whose gun rights we would legitimately seek to limit. This is why I ask you to consider not just Iran (who is most in the news when it comes to their nuclear weapons programs) but any country.
So, what say you, folks? Can I argue on behalf of the rights of my fellow citizen to keep and bear arms because of a self-evident right to do so in the name of self-defense or whatever other reason but not argue on behalf of the rights of foreign nations/governments to keep and bear the arms they deem necessary?