I'll rank them from least combat effective to most and you just draw the line or voice your opinion. I'm looking to get a concensus of see what people think on this. Preferably draw the line between two weapon types.
no weapons should be legal for Iran to possess, Bottle Rockets, BB guns, Bow & arrows, medeival throwing devices like catapults and trebuchets, low powered rifles(22), shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, high powered hunting rifles, sub-machine guns, assualt rifles/sniper rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, RPG's, combat vehicles like tanks, scud missiles, fighter jets, chemical and biolotical weapons, nuclear warheads, ultra small and powerful but not yet existent antimatter bombs, or there should be no laws against Iran's possession of weapons...
You may also argue that I have them in the wrong order if your line can't be drawn.
2006-09-12 11:27:02 · 10 answers · asked by JonFugeEverybody! 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Whoa, tough one! If I say they should not be allowed Nukes, I contradict my earlier answer to your civilian weapon ownership question. Clever boy!
I will stick with my previous answer. There should be no law against them owning any sort of weapon, but should be more difficult for them to get a permit for one. That being said, if they are going to go ahead and develop nuclear weapon technology (and I don't think we can stop them) they should be carefully monitored to make sure they don't use it on anyone.
When I say "monitored", I mean with phone taps, spy satellites and covert ops, not UN bureaucrats with a badge on their jacket.
2006-09-12 11:52:28 · answer #1 · answered by shomechely 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find it a little hypocritical for us to think we can demand that other countries should disarm.
Don't get me wrong, Iran is a definite threat but so is Syria.
Syria is just smarter about how they do their private business.
I wonder what will happen to us when another country comes to dominate us?
2006-09-12 18:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by lostintheclover 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
none, all should have the right to have weapons, just make sure yours are bigger, eventually people would think it over and realise, hey, we have nukes, but if we use them we'd get nuked by every other country on the planet and there's enough nukes in existance right now to blow the entire planet up(litterally, this is true), so how much damage would that do to our country........
2006-09-12 18:32:13 · answer #3 · answered by sikn_shadow_420 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing more aggressive than camel dung throwing should be allowed for Iran's population.
2006-09-12 18:32:38 · answer #4 · answered by exert-7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who is to say the English,Americans,Chinese, Russians,french,,Japanese?all these countries have blood on their hands.on these countries have invaded other countries and stolen land from other people.and they have the nuke.Iran has never in modern history invaded another country.this entitles it to any weapons including the big one
2006-09-12 18:38:14 · answer #5 · answered by miraclehand2020 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why can't we call for a global ban on all weapons and just permit Swiss knives?Butter knives? They can have a knife to knife fight over pita bread.
2006-09-12 18:32:58 · answer #6 · answered by Egroeg_Rorepme 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any weapons that they don't use againt other counties are legal.
Any weapons that they do use against other countries makes them fair game for being attacked by those countries and their allies.
2006-09-12 18:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Limit the camel fellators to paint ball guns...
2006-09-12 18:29:35 · answer #8 · answered by juandos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why shouldnt they? If america can have them with a terrorist in power, so should everyone else!
You dont seriously think that the US has stopped *its* nuclear program do you??
2006-09-12 18:29:58 · answer #9 · answered by psychstudent 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fly swatter. That's about it.
2006-09-12 18:42:05 · answer #10 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋