In a follow up to my piece earlier this week on Iran, I am including links below to two good articles from the Christian Science Monitor. They provide more technical insight and detail into the specifics and implications of Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
Iran's Secret Site Missing Piece of Nuclear Puzzle: here
Iran Missile Tests: What they tell the West: here
3 comments:
Question: If you believe in the right to bear arms, can you also believe that you have the right to disarm others?
And if so, then is it morally acceptable for a a federal government to disarm those it perceives as a threat?
JP,
Yes, I do believe in a personal right to bear arms.
I also believe that there is a sovereign, not personal, but sovereign right to disarm some people.
For instance, if you've murdered someone or committed a violent crime with a gun (i.e. holding up a mini-mart) then I believe the government has the right to say you should not have a gun. In that instance, you have demonstrated that you cannot handle the responsibility.
One alternative way to address it could be to link it to the persons sentencing. For instance the offender has to go ten years without an incident and then can apply for reinstatement of the right. This would work like the sentencing of repeat DWI offenders in many states that have to go 5 or 10 years without a drivers license.
The idea of a federal governement right to disarm other nations it perceives as a threat is a little more complicated. However, I do believe that just as with individuals, there are some regimes in the world that have lost the right or ability to be allowed to acquire or possess weapons of mass destruction.
In the instance of Iran, a nation that has sponsored terrorist activities and pledged to attack and destroy other sovereign nations if given the chance, yes, I do believe there is a morally acceptable ability to forcibly disarm them if they refuse to give up a nuclear program.
There are many aspects to this issue or scenario that are harder to flesh out, do we go unilaterally, do we need UN permission, and so on. However, ultimately I believe there is a just right to protect ones own safety and the security of ones citizens.
The Constitution itself (Art. 4 Sect. 4) pledges that the Federal Government "shall protect each of them (the states) against Invasion". Finally, there is an implied Federal power to strike preemptively. This comes from the Constitutional grant of preemptive strike to the states when they are "in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".
This is a grant to the lesser must include a grant to the greater argument.
Touche
Post a Comment