The Nuclear Iran Situation

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

    Wait. What?

    What would it be?

    An executive decision to not enforce the Iran sanctions? If Congress hasn't passed any, then he might be right.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Wait. What?

    What would it be?

    An executive decision to not enforce the Iran sanctions? If Congress hasn't passed any, then he might be right.

    Really? Well I guess I see your point if the sanctions weren't legislated.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah, I can see some wiggle room that gets back to the fundamental structure of our nation. Congress can pass legislation, but it ultimately depends on the executive for enforcement.

    If not legislation, then ... well, it actually makes me wonder what the basis WAS for Iran sanctions?!
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,573
    149
    Scrounging brass
    Same as for penalties against BP - executive fiat.

    All nations might be "entitled" to equal weaponry, but not all are equally capable of controlling it or using it with discretion.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,197
    113
    NW Indianapolis

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,197
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    While I agree in principle that nations have the right to arm themselves for their own self-defense, in the case of our current world situation, where it's not the threat of nation-states getting nuclear weapons, but the threat of them passing such weapons off to trans-national terrorists that is concerning. If the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, Britain, or France launch a nuclear strike, the world will likely know from whence the strike emanated and be able to take definitive action. If terrorists have access to nuclear weapons and smuggle them into a foreign nation to be detonated - the culprit may be inferred but may not be proven. That the leading sponsor of terrorists in the world today might be in a position to do just that within even 10 years is like letting that crazy neighbor of yours point his shotgun at you and squeeze the trigger on an empty chamber; how often would you let him get away with it before you took the damned shotgun away from him? And if he'd been threatening to kill you and your family all along, what would possess you to let him point the shotgun at you in the first place?
     
    Top Bottom