Why do Cons think everyone having a gun makes things safer but every country having nukes doesn't ?
I'm a liberal who is fine with not as much gun control because Canada has easy access to guns too but not as much gun deaths.
I just wanna know, why do Conservatives think everyone having guns makes things safer, but on a larger scale wouldn't that mean that every country should have nukes as well?
- AndyLv 49 years agoFavorite Answer
Valid point. Government needs to stop worrying about what other countries are doing just as much as it needs to stop worrying about what its citizens are doing.
- The BobsterLv 59 years ago
That's a pretty absurd comparison, one is a simple tool and the other a weapon of mass destruction.
FYI I'm a libertarian not an con.
Statistically in the US states and cities that have the most lax gun laws have the lowest violent crime rates and states and cities that have the most restrictive gun laws have the highest violent crime rate. So they believe that gun freedom makes things safer because the facts prove it does.
As far as the nuke thing, well, I think we don't have much moral ground to stand on when we try to deny other countries the right to have things we have. But I think it comes down to just plain power, dominance and fear. And while I can't justify it morally I can't get too interested in arguing against it either. I do think we need to try to stop nuclear proliferation, but I think we'd have a much better argument ourselves if we worked with the Russians more seriously towards drastically reducing and eventually getting rid of our own.
I guess we need to keep some in case aliens attack or something.
- 9 years ago
Your first point is a Constitutional Right here is the US.
Your second point is many countries have signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) therefore giving up the ability to posses nuclear arms. Breaking treaties has caused wars in the past.
But it is not just a Cons opinion, right now the President also sees a few countries that want to build nuclear arms as a threat, and has done nothing but strengthen gun rights in this term.
- 5 years ago
Sure. If every body had a gun, there'd be no crime. All people did have a gun in most elements of the united states unless the twentieth century. And, there definitely was no scarcity of gun violence. And your question is worded improperly. The correct analogy would conclude as...........'Then there could be no nuclear battle" ----EDIT-- To comment on one other poster, MAD (collectively assured destruction) is a improper premise that assumes sanity. Many of the worst wars are initiated by people quick a number of marbles.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Well you said it yourself your a liberal. I'll bet you don't know why the right to keep and bear arms was written into the Bill of Rights. I'll bet you don't know it doesn't even mention guns. You haven't taken the time to reason it out if you are in favor of every nation having nuclear weapons. You quite possibly have never contemplated the consequence of nuclear war. In the naive duck and cover routine that used to be exercised in the 1950s people had a better understanding of the nature of nuclear war. In the first second of a nuclear attack those in close proximity have their eyeballs fried and then we hear people say if he can have it why can't we as if the big kid wouldn't share their candy. The reason for the second amendment has been explained enough times here and in Civics classes for a moron to be able to understand it.
- ?Lv 69 years ago
Most of the world is armed... haven't you seen the photos from around the world with people holding AK-47s? There is a difference in a weapons that can kill tens or even thousands and one that can kill millions and render the land unusable for decades or centuries.
If you can not grasp this then you probably think giving children dynamite is fine because we give them firecrackers.
- 9 years ago
Conservatives support the 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives do NOT support countries having nukes who openly call for the "annihilation" of other countries.
- IceTLv 79 years ago
Statistics show that the states with the strictest gun laws have higher crime rates.
So you see no difference between a gun and a nuclear weapon which can kill millions of people? Interesting!
- Anonymous9 years ago
Epic fail. Noone thinks everyone owning firearms is a good idea. Try thinking above a third grade level next time.
Heres the reason: someone with a gun can be stopped... shoot them. Someone with a nuke cannot always be stopped.
Also, because you are not smart, I will tell you this. People who are messed up in the head are not allowed to have guns (they have intent to harm innocent people). Radicals and crazy people should not be allowed to have nukes (they have intent to harm innocent people).Source(s): WHY would you even defend terrorists?
lets see.........obamas failures
his overspending put us in debt in the trillions..
caused high inflation
record number of entitlements=welfare state
blames bush for everything even after 3 years.
did nothing to slow down crime
illegals taken over. 50 million strong now - hispanics n the usa. barrack heusin is for amnesty
roads and infastructure falling apart
increasing our healthcare costs to pay for people who dont want to pay for themselves
high gas prices now 4 / gal in the summer 5/gal
look up online layoffs for 2009-2011. the liberal media only reports job creation from there messiah.
belong to a racist church against whites for 15yrs. he quit going once he got caught.
13.7 million americans unemployed. 10 million underemployed.obama says the recession is over lol.