“After the killing of two journalists on air in August 2015, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders stated that he would introduce ‘constructive gun control legislation which most significantly gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,'” Paul Gherkin writes at firstonethrough.wordpress.com. “Similarly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented that she is in favor of ‘reform that keeps weapons out of the hands that should not have them.'” Gherkin wonders how Democrats can hold this position . . .


when they’re happy enough to support a deal that enables a profoundly unstable nation to possess the ultimate weapon.

Would Clinton and Sanders enable “violently unstable” Americans that have a constitutional right to bear arms, keep an entire weapons making assembly line? Why do they promote a “half standard” for a “violently unstable” country to maintain a vast nuclear weapons infrastructure?

Answers below.

Recommended For You

64 Responses to Iran Nuclear Deal Reveals Democrats’ Hypocrisy on Gun Control

    • “No one needs more than 10 nukes in a MIRV to kill the great Satan! Stop the madness!”

      “The United States is sending violence interrupters Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Whitey Bulger to Iran.”

      “Iran is implementing a universal background check system. We have sent them all the information from our FBI system database to help them get started.”

      “To ensure they don’t accidentally build a nuke, we have sent them several plans detailing how nuclear fission might happen, guaranteeing they won’t accidentally a bomb.”

  1. Iran is going to, for the most part, be their own oversight so what could go wrong? I am sure they will report back if they aren’t following the deal.

    • Liberals unflinching faith in the state, any state. Even one that admits it wants to nuke it’s neighbors; remember that to them the 2nd amendment ensures the right of the state to have an army, so this is them exporting western democracy!

      • I think still calling the leftists liberals is the wrong definition of who and what they really are, which is straight up communist now. Honestly, what is different from what these “liberals” are saying and what Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, or Saul Alinsky said decades earlier?

        The only one who might not be a communist is Hilary Clinton as she is more of a sociopathic feminist mob boss.

        • You are a counter-revoloutionary hate-mongering capitalist that must be sent to a re-education camp to liberate your mind.

  2. Isn’t it obvious that only a legitimate state has a right to keep and bear arms? You know, like the Islamic State, or Somalia or the various . . . stans and North Korea.

    If you are a woman or adolescent or a father with a family to protect, you must submit to the state for its protection.

  3. That violently unstable country hates freedom and loves totalitarianism. Freedom on one side, ultimate government power on the other. Easy choice for a Democrat, they want the latter so this is where their empathies and envies lie.

  4. Essentially that’s the difference in our viewpoints.
    The left doesn’t have an issue with a state wielding terrible power, just individuals with power. They don’t see that a state can do anything wrong. They see themselves, as the state, being above the abuse of power.

    Unfortunately states corrupted by their power abuse it in horrific ways. One of the reasons individuals have to remain amed is because we just can’t trust the state with a monopoly.

    All they’ve shown here is a preference towards keeping their monopoly of force.

  5. Funny how Liberal policies are pushing separate groups with completely different ideologies into exercising their nuclear options.

  6. Everything They Do or Say Reveals Democrats’ Hypocrisy about Everything.

    FIFY.

    BTW, Hillary says that all women claiming sexual abuse have the right to be believed. I guess she forget about that when her husband was the accused.

    • But even we recognize the importance of keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable – (especially the religiously violent variety).

  7. Cause clearly there is some hidden financial benefit to them for the Iran deal while support of the 2nd doesn’t pay them anything

  8. >a profoundly unstable nation

    Compared to the US, where every four years the political class get selected based partly on how many people they promise to murder overseas. 🙂

  9. >a profoundly unstable nation

    Compared to the US, where every four years the power lords are selected in part by how many foreigners they promise to murder in order to support the military-industrial complex.

  10. Bernie thinks only people who work for government in certain capacity should be armed. Everyone else fits into that shouldn’t have them category. Maybe Vermonters will wake up and toss him after he goes back to the senate. They and we deserve better

      • Yeah, I think we tend to forget the people of Vermont are not the Vermonters of old like those who fought in the Revolution or Civil War. Vermont people today are by in large whacked out liberal morons who escaped NYC over the years to escape taxes, like Bernie Sanders. The reason Bernie will never go away is because the people in Vermont are just like him.

        To some extent it’s the same in New Hampshire where people escape Taxachusetts, but bring their liberal ideology with them. Twenty years from now, Northern New England is gonna be a hellhole of liberal lunacy and the first thing to go will be “assault weapons.”

        • Knock it off. There is absolutely no benefit to that kind of defeatist self-fulfilling fortune telling.

          This country will be what we make it, so long as get out there and DO instead of sitting back and complaining.

          We are winning, and we will continue winning as long as we continue to get involved and make a difference.

  11. Not sure I follow the logic on this one…should we attack Iran cause they are building a bomb, whether we like it or not? Then, Russia good to go on a USSR reboot. Did we not arm Israel with them as well? You know, the right to defend oneself and all. Don’t get me wrong, those little Muslim fundamentalists pieces of crab will use their religion to justify anything and are evil, but I think we will all regret the day a Hasidic Israeli get their hands on the football – death to non-believers, and does not matter if you die, as it’s gods will and all.

    • “….I think we will all regret the day a Hasidic Israeli get their hands on the football – death to non-believers,…”

      You seem to be very, very confused.

      1) Humans will be human, but the Hasidic Jewish belief system is one of rigid pacifism (duh).
      2) Judaism is the only major world religion that has never engaged in Religious wars or ethnic cleansings in the last 2000 years.
      3) The Jewish state of Israel is the only nation in the entire middle east where civil rights are protected by law to the point where you can actually choose your own religion, sexual orientation, and wardrobe without fear of being beheaded, publicly stoned, set on fire, or thrown off a tall building.

      I’m really not sure what you’re smoking, but please, either pass it around or shut up. Your last statement is one of the most comically ignorant things I’ve read in years.

  12. The level of magical thinking in the gun-control camp is mind-boggling.

    If the world at large can’t stop an impoverished cesspit like North Korea from building and/or acquiring nuclear bombs — and they are not easy to make or to conceal — there’s no way on God’s green earth (and especially not on our present dystopian spheroid) that any government can keep guns out of the hands of people who will do bad things with them. NONE.

    What government can do is keep them out of the hands of people who are naturally law-abiding and would never hurt anyone in the first place. It can definitely do that. But ours won’t…not if I can help it.

    • Of course they failed, as have the Republicans…because bans simply do not work.
      Not on a national scale, not on a world scale. Not under threat of sanctions, nor threat of war.
      The only workable answer is to make clear that one wrong move gets Iran turned into a glass parking lot, and have people in office with the resolve to do it.

      • Well, while I agree, I would hope for a missile defense system in Israel as well, so that the nation could have a chance to survive Iran’s suicide.

  13. I will throw in an unpopular comment. Either we mount a full scale invasion of Iran or they get the bomb. And a full scale invasion ain’t gonna happen. Comparing this to gun rights is apples and oranges. I’m not a left winger or a right winger and this kind of stuff I find useless.

    • Right. If you want to guarantee Iran will never get the bomb under any circumstances, then invade. Just what we need. The distressing thing is how diplomacy and working with other countries is now somehow seen as weakness. There’s nothing inevitable about Iran getting the bomb or using it against our interests. There are ways other than war – they start with recognizing that Iran has its own legitimate interests, both economic and security related.

      Most of the commentary about the deal (not just here, in the media generally) is borne of ignorance. If you put yourself in Iran’s shoes and try to figure out the US’s actions over the last 60 years, it becomes less clear.

        • How do we know that? Because they are Muslim? Because Mike Fuckabee keeps harping on some domestic Iranian rallies where they shouted “Death to Israel”? Does everybody in Iran want the bomb? Would they want the bomb if they experienced massive economic growth and had more to lose? Does Israel having the bomb (outside the NPT by the way) affect their desire for it? Would they feel the same way if our government had not supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, where Iran lost 300,000 people, including around 75,000 soldiers less than 16 years old? To them, we are just as confusing and act just as irrationally.

          Several countries after WW2 had bomb programs and thanks to diplomacy, good security strategy, and other concerns, they realized they didn’t need to bother. There’s nothing inevitable here.

        • Well, the highest rulers of the country continue to promise death to Israel and death to America, I suppose that is not a rational basis to think they mean us ill … on some planet. BTW, I’m willing to bet Israel does not have a single fission weapon. Work on it …

        • NoKo is patently nuts, but they have not been universally sworn and devoted to killing tens of millions of innocent people because of a fruitcake cult, for the past 1500 years. Equating the two is nonsensical.

        • I have a friend who “immigrated” to the US from Iran. He came in under a student visa, but it was really just a way to flee the country before he was executed for being gay.

          We talked about this at length, and probably the most relevant point he made was the enormous disconnect between the PEOPLE of Iran, and the GOVERNMENT of Iran.

  14. That’s the next administrations problem, and hopefully the tea party republicans at that. They’re going to retire and collect all the bribes and payoffs they were promised while in office. Both from Iran and elsewhere.

  15. Progressives have two major goals in office: make history and fund the welfare state. Obama pulled out of Iraq because he needed to save the money to fund the welfare state. Then we got ISIS. Trying get chummy with Iran serves both purposes. First, the progressives hope that Iran will move in, squash ISIS, and reestablish order in the region. That saves us from having to do it, hence money can be funneled to the welfare state. Second, making peace with a decades old enemy makes history, so it’s an accomplishment that Obama can claim for his legacy.

    Mind you, I don’t believe it’s going to work. But from talking to my progressive friends, this is their strategy.

    • By now it should be apparent that money really is power. The goal of most progressives, not the most radical, is to level the playing field. It is not anti business to say that us pions should be able to afford a few things or that the dirt-floor shacks of the 60’s are unacceptable. I’m a somewhat conservative minded voter but it has been proven to my satisfaction that we need to do better, not just because of fairness (or common decency) but also because lack of demand is harming the economy. I remember when conservatives weren’t anti-anything, they were just pragmatic people who wanted some evidence before they acted. Now they just want to dig in their heels.

  16. I read TTAG about five times per day. Great site. This article, however, is herpa derp. The Iran nuclear deal is not great, the alternatives are worse. North Korea has nukes for God’s sake. Iran can go on to trade with Russia and China and eventually get nukes anyway because the rest of the world was ready to ease sanctions. No they are not really self-inspected, there is a process where the IAEA inspects most sites. Americans who think any country is going to let us in any time, any place, to conduct improptu inspections anywhere in Iran, are engaging in fantasy. It’s called having borders. Anyway, Iran back in the 70’s signed the NNPT – created by the way by the West – which lets them have a civilian nuclear program. That was whole point of the NPT, you can have civilian nuclear energy but not nukes. AND signing this deal gives us the ability to work with allies to bomb their asses if and when they cheat. I’d recommend reading the actual deal, because almost all the Republican candidates seem to be engaged in a race to say the dumbest crap about this. It’s a farce.

    The article’s basic point – elites in our government are fine giving other people and countries arms but restricting the 2A – IS right on the money, but pointing to the Iran deal is just silly. If you want a good example, how about the Obama administration giving the Palestinian authority M16s while fighting the 2A. Or for that matter funding and arming the “Syrian Rebels” to the tune of $500 million (for 54 troops) and then having them run off 2 months later.

    • “Americans who think any country is going to let us in any time, any place, to conduct improptu inspections anywhere in Iran, are engaging in fantasy”

      Why? That’s how it should be, otherwise none of this works. If they truly really do just want nuclear power and not a nuclear weapon, the should be willingly letting inspectors in to keep tabs. And that’s exactly why the deal is sh!t, because Iran is planning on building a bomb.

      • While my gut agrees with you, what you are essentially saying is “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and that is NOT a sentiment we embrace in this country.

        I think this is where people start to realize the limits of their commitment to “liberty” – when someone else does something scary and suddenly “liberty lovers” are suddenly obsessed with having control by any means necessary.

        I’m not throwing stones, emotionally I am also somewhat conflicted about the situation. But logically we cannot dispute that there is a gross double standard being presented here – Liberty for me, but not for thee.

        • Well, kind of right. The international relations equivalent to liberty is sovereignty. Nations control the land and activities within their borders, and are under no obligation to just let government officials from other countries in based on a suspicion.

      • Why?? Because countries have borders, and they (hopefully – not on our own southern border LOL) control the flow of people across those borders. This is part of state sovereignty – i.e.:what it is to have a nation. They especially control the flow of foreign government officials across those borders. “Anytime, anywhere” inspections imply an American official could just show up unannounced in the country and look into any part of the Iranian government, and that the Iranian government would have no right to any secrets.

        What would you suggest we do if they refuse? Start another war? Continue to strangle their economy with sanctions forever? Nobody – well, nobody outside of FoxNews viewers in the United States – would think that appropriate. Neither would our allies who we were working with.

        Additionally, they don’t trust us. I served in Iraq and am proud of what my unit did there. But if you look at us from the Middle East point of view, their distrust is very understandable.

        It boils down to: we are not actually the world’s policeman. Certain people may think we should be, but that is not practical or a good use of our resources. Paradoxically, because we won the Cold War and other countries adopted capitalism, we are also less influential economically. In other words, we can’t just dictate to Iran forever based on sanctions either.

  17. Wouldn’t that make you equally hypocrite then??

    You are rabidly fighting for your right to keep masturbating to your assault rifles. Yet you deprive other sovereignty the right to bear arms and protect themselves. Or am I missing something here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *