What right do we have to tell Iran they can’t have nuclear bombs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What right do democrats have to tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15?

Given that the only use for an AR-15 is to mow down many humans at a high rate of speed, if you intent is to kill humans, then, no, you should not have one.

Then why is there an AR-15 in every single police car in this country?

Who are these many humans that we’ve made sure every cop in the country can mow down at a high rate of speed?

Do you think that’s appropriate for police?

Or are the police miss-using their AR-15’s since they’re not mowing down large numbers of humans?

Please explain.

The dems want an armed to the teeth government and a totally disarmed citizenry.

That is the secret about the dems - they love guns as long as the purpose of guns is keeping the unwashed little people in line. When the unwashed little people have the guns, the dems don’t like it so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you need an ar-15 for? It’s not for hunting or self protection and there’s no zombie apocalypse.

Actually I in fact do hunt with my AR, and use another one for home defense.

Zombies? I’m a medical professional. I know zombies are a biological impossibility.

Hm. What caliber is your AR and what are you hunting? The most common .223/5.56mm cartridge is not really suitable for deer or hogs so I question why you are using an AR and not a simple bolt action in a larger caliber that will drop a deer with one shot. Are you playing soldier while hunting and the AR makes you feel cool or something?

I use a .300 BO for deer, and a .458 SOCOM for hogs, which are both large and aggressive, and travel in herds, so you have an opportunity to take several in quick succession, and need the capability to fire much larger rounds than 556, more quickly than a bolt action. At home I have a 9mm for home protection. I like the AR because it’s familiar to me. And I didn’t “play” soldier - I am a United States Army combat veteran. But your smugness is noted.

And I do own bolt actions. I have several Savage 110 precision rifles for long distance shooting. I guess you’d probably call them “sniper rifles”, since you’d have to come up with some way to insinuate they were something evil, too.



Now, let’s talk about something you own that I don’t think you should be allowed to have, and it’ll be my turn to attack you. Deal?

Don’t worry you already do attack my personal freedom. As a soldier you were a part of the effort to restrict the free access to cannabis. Cannabis has never killed a single person and yet you have no problem taking away “something that you don’t think that I should be allowed to have.” You talk about freedom but you can’t see your own hypocrisy right in front of your own eyes.

I don’t want to take your dope away, silly pothead. I want you to be as stoned and stupid as you wish. And I want your kids stoned and stupid, too. It puts me and my kids at a competitive advantage over you in the workplace and in school. I work in ocular medicine. Are you alright with me smoking a big fatty right before I laze your cornea? No? Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is in the Constitution, Article VI.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what Iran has consistently claimed to want to do, yes.

Go study up OP, did you just crawl out of a cave for 100 years?

More likely crawled out of an undergrad program from Oberlin or W&M 😆

LOL.
I think OP is very young and very naive. She needs to do a little dive into the history of Iran. She doesn't need to go too far back... She can start with the 1979 hostage crisis.

Oh yes, i made Christmas cards in elementary supposedly "to send to the hostages."

You must support Israel. Only those guys think pulling up stuff from 50 years ago should be used to drive U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

DP.

How ‘bout Iran’s support for repeated attacks on US forces in Iraq over the last 15+ years?

How many Americans need to die before you’re convinced that the Iranian government is our enemy?

The US created a coup and installed a dictator, The Shah. This brutal dictator killed thousands of innocent Iranians during his reign until the revolution in 1979. You have to wonder what the country would be like if they were able to keep the democratically elected leader. Less violence, more freedom. But the US didn’t care. Its decision revolved around oil. US can stay out of everyone’s business and focus on US problems.

PP here.

All true and all totally irrelevant. Today’s Iranian government presents a clear threat to America and Americans.

If they want an apology for Cold War meddling, fine. “Death to America” not fine.

DP no Iran’s government does not represent any threat to the US. You can say it but it is not true. Maybe Israel see Iran as a regional arrival but that’s about it.

Seriously your premise is preposterous.

Preposterous?

Every single President (D and R) for the last 55 years agrees that Iran presents a substantial threat to US security.

As does every threat analysis that I’m aware of.

As does the evidence: Iran indisputably sponsored (and perhaps directed) multiple attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Literally every single shred of available evidence confirms that Iran presents a threat to the US.

There’s certainly room to argue about how to best address this threat (Obama diplomacy vs. Trumpian aggression), but pretending that the threat doesn’t exist is foolish and/or disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What right do democrats have to tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15?

Given that the only use for an AR-15 is to mow down many humans at a high rate of speed, if you intent is to kill humans, then, no, you should not have one.

Then why is there an AR-15 in every single police car in this country?

Who are these many humans that we’ve made sure every cop in the country can mow down at a high rate of speed?

Do you think that’s appropriate for police?

Or are the police miss-using their AR-15’s since they’re not mowing down large numbers of humans?

Please explain.

The dems want an armed to the teeth government and a totally disarmed citizenry.

That is the secret about the dems - they love guns as long as the purpose of guns is keeping the unwashed little people in line. When the unwashed little people have the guns, the dems don’t like it so much.

“Power flows from the barrel of a gun”

-Mao Zedong, Role Model of American Democrats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what Iran has consistently claimed to want to do, yes.

Go study up OP, did you just crawl out of a cave for 100 years?

More likely crawled out of an undergrad program from Oberlin or W&M 😆

LOL.
I think OP is very young and very naive. She needs to do a little dive into the history of Iran. She doesn't need to go too far back... She can start with the 1979 hostage crisis.

Oh yes, i made Christmas cards in elementary supposedly "to send to the hostages."

You must support Israel. Only those guys think pulling up stuff from 50 years ago should be used to drive U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

DP.

How ‘bout Iran’s support for repeated attacks on US forces in Iraq over the last 15+ years?

How many Americans need to die before you’re convinced that the Iranian government is our enemy?

The US created a coup and installed a dictator, The Shah. This brutal dictator killed thousands of innocent Iranians during his reign until the revolution in 1979. You have to wonder what the country would be like if they were able to keep the democratically elected leader. Less violence, more freedom. But the US didn’t care. Its decision revolved around oil. US can stay out of everyone’s business and focus on US problems.

PP here.

All true and all totally irrelevant. Today’s Iranian government presents a clear threat to America and Americans.

If they want an apology for Cold War meddling, fine. “Death to America” not fine.

DP no Iran’s government does not represent any threat to the US. You can say it but it is not true. Maybe Israel see Iran as a regional arrival but that’s about it.

Seriously your premise is preposterous.

Preposterous?

Every single President (D and R) for the last 55 years agrees that Iran presents a substantial threat to US security.

As does every threat analysis that I’m aware of.

As does the evidence: Iran indisputably sponsored (and perhaps directed) multiple attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Literally every single shred of available evidence confirms that Iran presents a threat to the US.

There’s certainly room to argue about how to best address this threat (Obama diplomacy vs. Trumpian aggression), but pretending that the threat doesn’t exist is foolish and/or disingenuous.

55 years of a substantial threat, and no damage yet. Longer than the Cold War against USSR lasted.

Iran attacked US forces in IRAQ, the neighboring nation that the US invaded on false pretenses?
Perhaps the US needs to stop manufacturing threats all around the the world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what Iran has consistently claimed to want to do, yes.

Go study up OP, did you just crawl out of a cave for 100 years?

More likely crawled out of an undergrad program from Oberlin or W&M 😆

LOL.
I think OP is very young and very naive. She needs to do a little dive into the history of Iran. She doesn't need to go too far back... She can start with the 1979 hostage crisis.

Oh yes, i made Christmas cards in elementary supposedly "to send to the hostages."

You must support Israel. Only those guys think pulling up stuff from 50 years ago should be used to drive U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

DP.

How ‘bout Iran’s support for repeated attacks on US forces in Iraq over the last 15+ years?

How many Americans need to die before you’re convinced that the Iranian government is our enemy?

The US created a coup and installed a dictator, The Shah. This brutal dictator killed thousands of innocent Iranians during his reign until the revolution in 1979. You have to wonder what the country would be like if they were able to keep the democratically elected leader. Less violence, more freedom. But the US didn’t care. Its decision revolved around oil. US can stay out of everyone’s business and focus on US problems.

PP here.

All true and all totally irrelevant. Today’s Iranian government presents a clear threat to America and Americans.

If they want an apology for Cold War meddling, fine. “Death to America” not fine.

DP no Iran’s government does not represent any threat to the US. You can say it but it is not true. Maybe Israel see Iran as a regional arrival but that’s about it.

Seriously your premise is preposterous.

Preposterous?

Every single President (D and R) for the last 55 years agrees that Iran presents a substantial threat to US security.

As does every threat analysis that I’m aware of.

As does the evidence: Iran indisputably sponsored (and perhaps directed) multiple attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Literally every single shred of available evidence confirms that Iran presents a threat to the US.

There’s certainly room to argue about how to best address this threat (Obama diplomacy vs. Trumpian aggression), but pretending that the threat doesn’t exist is foolish and/or disingenuous.

55 years of a substantial threat, and no damage yet. Longer than the Cold War against USSR lasted.

Iran attacked US forces in IRAQ, the neighboring nation that the US invaded on false pretenses?
Perhaps the US needs to stop manufacturing threats all around the the world

No damage? Except for the hundreds of dead Americans?

GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What right do democrats have to tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15?

No one has obliterated your AR-15

I trust Iran more than I trust Trump and sycophants.

Of course you do. Not even the least little bit surprised to hear you say that.

You Progs hate other Americans far more than you’d ever dislike an enemy of our country. We know that. We’ve always known that. You’d rather see us dead instead.


We know.

No one is trying to take away your rifle or pistol and Iran isn't shooting up our kids in schools or churches or grocery stores every other day. So weighing the bigger threat, it's 100% Americans with guns meant for war.

I love how libs always start posts like this one ^^^ with something like “nO oNe Is tRyInG tO tAkE yUr gUNz aWaY!”…. And then they proceed to explain why we should take everyone’s guns away. That’s some hilarious sh!t right there 😆

Wow. Talk about a lack of comprehension. We used to have an AR ban and mass shootings were down. ARs are directly connected to our mass shootings. Can we own bombs? What about grenades? Define "Arms"?

WELL REGULATED is a phrase that's a part of the 2nd amendment. But whatever, cling on tight to that machine gun. It's what Jesus would do, right?

Oh my comprehension is just fine, thanks.

Here’s a homework assignment for ya:

Look into what the phrase “well regulated” meant in the context of 1791 prose.

Hint: it doesn’t mean “subjected to lots of rules, laws, regulations or……. infringements.

1791 the US military was under 1000 people. Therefore the govt wanted militas as a backup plan made of citizens. Well regulated didn't mean red tape but it did mean rules, structure and training. Not to mention it took 30 seconds to reload a gun then, an AR can slaughter a classroom of kids in 30 seconds.

Fast forward to now, you have twisted it to desperately cling onto your machine guns and we have the largest and most robust military in the world. At the very least we should have background checks and training requirements and a limit on what type of weapon an average citizen can own.

One thing the Founders could agree on is that we are absolute fools for using their Constitution 250 years later, instead of making our own.
Thomas Jefferson expected the Constitution to last 19years.

It's the height of insanity to treat the laws of revolutionaries as sacrosanct. The main achievement they are famous for throwing away a government and making a new one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What right do democrats have to tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15?

No one has obliterated your AR-15

I trust Iran more than I trust Trump and sycophants.

Of course you do. Not even the least little bit surprised to hear you say that.

You Progs hate other Americans far more than you’d ever dislike an enemy of our country. We know that. We’ve always known that. You’d rather see us dead instead.


We know.

No one is trying to take away your rifle or pistol and Iran isn't shooting up our kids in schools or churches or grocery stores every other day. So weighing the bigger threat, it's 100% Americans with guns meant for war.

I love how libs always start posts like this one ^^^ with something like “nO oNe Is tRyInG tO tAkE yUr gUNz aWaY!”…. And then they proceed to explain why we should take everyone’s guns away. That’s some hilarious sh!t right there 😆

Wow. Talk about a lack of comprehension. We used to have an AR ban and mass shootings were down. ARs are directly connected to our mass shootings. Can we own bombs? What about grenades? Define "Arms"?

WELL REGULATED is a phrase that's a part of the 2nd amendment. But whatever, cling on tight to that machine gun. It's what Jesus would do, right?

Oh my comprehension is just fine, thanks.

Here’s a homework assignment for ya:

Look into what the phrase “well regulated” meant in the context of 1791 prose.

Hint: it doesn’t mean “subjected to lots of rules, laws, regulations or……. infringements.

1791 the US military was under 1000 people. Therefore the govt wanted militas as a backup plan made of citizens. Well regulated didn't mean red tape but it did mean rules, structure and training. Not to mention it took 30 seconds to reload a gun then, an AR can slaughter a classroom of kids in 30 seconds.

Fast forward to now, you have twisted it to desperately cling onto your machine guns and we have the largest and most robust military in the world. At the very least we should have background checks and training requirements and a limit on what type of weapon an average citizen can own.

You have failed.

That is not the period-correct definition of the word “regulated”.

That's exactly what it meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to me how DCUM comes out of the woodwork to support the premier terrorist nation of all time, just because they hate Trump so much. DCUM also loves their Trans-men, who definitely would be “obliterated” under Islamic rule. Seems hypocritical to love both.

Interesting to me how Zionists comes out of the woodwork to support the premier terrorist nation of all time (Israel), just because they hate Arabs so much. Zionists also love their international law when it suites turn, but has definitely been “obliterated” in Gaza under a genocidal regime. Seems hypocritical to love both

Pop Quiz for you:

What’s the only nation in the Middle East with a democratically elected government, with a legislature composed of members who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze and LGBTQIA+ ?

Pop Quiz for you:

What’s the only nation in the Middle East with a "democratically" elected government, who's been committing a genocide against Palestinians composed of members who are Christian, Muslim, Druze and LGBTQIA+ ?

What genocide? All I see is a country trying to free their hostages from terrorists. Don't like the casualties which ensue? Release the hostages. Hold hostages? Die. Simple.

+1

Not too mention the standing offer of $1M dollars and protected status and/or safe passage to anywhere in the world for any Gaza resident who brought out an Israeli hostage.


Not a single person took the offer.


Keeping Israeli hostages was worth more to them. To ALL of them.

Oh I'm sure I can trust these people, who are murdering my children in the street, and publicly demanding the extermination of my entire population, to give me a million dollars and keep me safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what Iran has consistently claimed to want to do, yes.

Go study up OP, did you just crawl out of a cave for 100 years?

More likely crawled out of an undergrad program from Oberlin or W&M 😆

LOL.
I think OP is very young and very naive. She needs to do a little dive into the history of Iran. She doesn't need to go too far back... She can start with the 1979 hostage crisis.

Oh yes, i made Christmas cards in elementary supposedly "to send to the hostages."

You must support Israel. Only those guys think pulling up stuff from 50 years ago should be used to drive U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

DP.

How ‘bout Iran’s support for repeated attacks on US forces in Iraq over the last 15+ years?

How many Americans need to die before you’re convinced that the Iranian government is our enemy?

The US created a coup and installed a dictator, The Shah. This brutal dictator killed thousands of innocent Iranians during his reign until the revolution in 1979. You have to wonder what the country would be like if they were able to keep the democratically elected leader. Less violence, more freedom. But the US didn’t care. Its decision revolved around oil. US can stay out of everyone’s business and focus on US problems.

PP here.

All true and all totally irrelevant. Today’s Iranian government presents a clear threat to America and Americans.

If they want an apology for Cold War meddling, fine. “Death to America” not fine.

DP no Iran’s government does not represent any threat to the US. You can say it but it is not true. Maybe Israel see Iran as a regional arrival but that’s about it.

Seriously your premise is preposterous.

Preposterous?

Every single President (D and R) for the last 55 years agrees that Iran presents a substantial threat to US security.

As does every threat analysis that I’m aware of.

As does the evidence: Iran indisputably sponsored (and perhaps directed) multiple attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Literally every single shred of available evidence confirms that Iran presents a threat to the US.

There’s certainly room to argue about how to best address this threat (Obama diplomacy vs. Trumpian aggression), but pretending that the threat doesn’t exist is foolish and/or disingenuous.

55 years of a substantial threat, and no damage yet. Longer than the Cold War against USSR lasted.

Iran attacked US forces in IRAQ, the neighboring nation that the US invaded on false pretenses?
Perhaps the US needs to stop manufacturing threats all around the the world

No damage? Except for the hundreds of dead Americans?

GTFO

How dare these people we are shooting at shoot back at us?!? It's not fair!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to me how DCUM comes out of the woodwork to support the premier terrorist nation of all time, just because they hate Trump so much. DCUM also loves their Trans-men, who definitely would be “obliterated” under Islamic rule. Seems hypocritical to love both.

Interesting to me how Zionists comes out of the woodwork to support the premier terrorist nation of all time (Israel), just because they hate Arabs so much. Zionists also love their international law when it suites turn, but has definitely been “obliterated” in Gaza under a genocidal regime. Seems hypocritical to love both

Pop Quiz for you:

What’s the only nation in the Middle East with a democratically elected government, with a legislature composed of members who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze and LGBTQIA+ ?

What's the only democratic country in the middle east house whose current leadership obtained their position by assassinating the previous leadership specifically because the previous leadership tried to stop genociding Palestinians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same reason why Israel can have nukes despite bombing six countries in the past year while actively committing a genocide

Great point.

The fact that Israel has nukes (lots of them in fact) but ISN’T using them is exactly why Israel CAN have them.

Israel drops 500lb bombs on Gazan hospitals and children. That's why Israel shouldn't be allowed to have them. And yet they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What right do democrats have to tell me I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15?

Given that the only use for an AR-15 is to mow down many humans at a high rate of speed, if you intent is to kill humans, then, no, you should not have one.

Then why is there an AR-15 in every single police car in this country?

Who are these many humans that we’ve made sure every cop in the country can mow down at a high rate of speed?

Do you think that’s appropriate for police?

Or are the police miss-using their AR-15’s since they’re not mowing down large numbers of humans?

Please explain.

The dems want an armed to the teeth government and a totally disarmed citizenry.

That is the secret about the dems - they love guns as long as the purpose of guns is keeping the unwashed little people in line. When the unwashed little people have the guns, the dems don’t like it so much.

lol are you even trying any more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given what Iran has consistently claimed to want to do, yes.

Go study up OP, did you just crawl out of a cave for 100 years?

Iran has been clear and consistent with their claim:

- they need to develop nuclear power generation to provide electricity for its people. What’s wrong with that?