Until recently, I was an advocate for gun control. However, thanks to the arguments of the National Rifle Association, I now favor the adoption of the widest interpretation of the Second Amendment. The logic relied on by gun advocates is, as they say, bulletproof.
But I'd like to extend that logic one step further and make the national right to bear arms an international right. In other words, I see no reason to restrict in any way the right of any nation state in the world to own and use whatever weapons it likes.
After all, as the NRA contends, gun ownership is the best crime deterrent there is. If I have a gun, then you're less likely to use a gun on me. Similarly, if Iran has nuclear weapons, then we're less likely to use nuclear weapons on them and vice versa.
For example, just look at India and Pakistan. Now that, they both have nuclear weapons, they and have sensibly come to a mostly peaceful standoff. They might not like each other but neither dares risk starting a war which might result in the destruction of both states.
Similarly, it only makes sense to let any country in the world arm itself with whatever weapons it wants. North Korea won't attack us since they know we'll respond in kind. Similarly, Iran is not likely to launch nukes our way given that we'd likely obliterate their country in return.
But what about rogue states, I can hear the liberal gun control wusses saying. Well, what about them? As the NRA would say, the best way to protect ourselves from such crazies is to have as many nations in the world as possible armed and ready to kill if necessary.
Just as gun-friendly folk submit that teachers in schools should be given guns, so, too, should countries bordering unstable nations be armed to the teeth. Sure, there might be some collateral damage if nuclear war breaks out but it will definitely be a lot less than if such nations can't be quickly stopped.
As the NRA and others contend, guns don't kill people; people kill people. Same thing internationally. Nuclear weapons don't annihilate states; states annihilate states.
Sure, liberals can kid themselves that arms control treaties are a good and noble thing. They can hope that more countries enter into all kinds of weapons reduction agreements. But, to borrow another truism from my Second Amendment allies, if nuclear weapons are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. What good is a treaty when some rogue nation starts raining nuclear warheads down on us?
Personally, I prefer the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction. In other words, you won't use your gun on me knowing that I have a bigger gun with even more ammunition than you. And even if you do take that crazy risk, you'll pay an enormous price but we won't. As General Buck Turgidson said in the movie Dr. Strangelove when arguing for war with the Soviets: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops....depending on the breaks."
Let's face it; it's a crime-filled world and it won't do us a lot of good to walk around like a naive kid thinking we can come to some peaceful resolution. The best defense against a country with a nuke is your country with a bigger nuke.
So I recommend that we take this matter to the United Nations and urge them to pass a resolution modelled on the Second Amendment: The national right to keep and bear weapons of any kind shall not be infringed. Once we're all armed to the teeth, peace can reign throughout the world. At least that's the plan.Suggest a correction