Saturday, August 11, 2012

"Banning-the-bomb" - dumber than "banning" guns

George Jonas:  Don’t ban the nuclear bomb, or else…
... A press release this week called it “fitting” that the anniversary of Hiroshima, Aug. 6th, should also be the day for the 600th Member of the Order of Canada to sign an appeal to the government “to join in an international effort to eliminate nuclear weapons.”... [Which speaks poorly of the quality of Order of Canada recipients.]
If the "ban-the-bomb" crowd of naifs got their way the world would be much more dangerous:
The result of nations agreeing to abide by such a ban would be no nuclear weapons in the hands of any nation except North Korea. [and soon, Iran]
That's dumber than the "ban guns" idea in the sense that at least gun-ban proposals allow for good-guy law-enforcement to carry guns.  In a "nuke-free" world only certifiable lunatics would have nukes.


Patrick Ross said...

Personally, I like the idea of banning the bomb. But can it ever work? Hell, no.

JR said...

Good question, correct answer.

But personally, I hate people pushing ideas that are unworkable and dangerous to boot.

RJ65 said...

That is about as loony as wanting the US and S. Korea to agree to no land mines on the cease fire line with N. Korea.

Anonymous said...

The bleeding heart left always want to limit the fundamental freedoms of every citizen. The Colorado shooting was horrible but it is not an example of why guns should be banned but an example of why every law abiding citizen should bare an arm.

Just imagine for a second if 5 law abiding people were armed with a legal concealed weapon when Holms opened fire…… just one of those 5 law abiding citizens could have returned fire in self-defence and the only one dead would be the criminal.