Why Shouldn’t Sheldon Adelson Have a Nuclear Weapon?

July 24th, 2012

A thought experiment…


If you want to discourage domestic dictatorship,

It’s useless militias with assault weapons to equip.


A nuke would do the trick, on the other hand,

Which is why they, not assault weapons, should be unbanned.


All the folks at the NRA:

Better get on this right away!


If right-wing militias are allowed to arm themselves with automatic weapons, bazookas, and other such weapons, why shouldn’t Sheldon Adelson be allowed by have his own nuclear weapon?

If anything, it makes much more sense. Even the best-armed militia couldn’t hope to stand up against the U.S.Army if and when our government becomes dictatorial, as they predict it will (ETA: Sometime during Obama’s second term, if he’s reelected). But a nuclear weapon? Now that’s how you resist tyranny!

So if you believe that the Second Amendment is meant to shield us against tyranny, as the NRA and many gun nuts do, that’s a compelling argument to let Sheldon Adelson and others who can afford it get their own nukes. And what’s the counter-argument? Why not let Sheldon Adelson have a nuclear weapon?

It can’t be that a nuclear weapon would give Adelson too much political power: his ability and willingness to spend hundreds of millions on politics already does that.  Adelson wouldn’t have any reason to use his nuke, so it’s value would be purely deterrent: leave me alone, U.S. government. You know, like the Founding Fathers intended.

So why not let Sheldon Adelson have his own nuclear weapon? Can anyone give me a single reason not to that’s consistent with the rest of the NRA’s philosophy?


Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Republicans, What ails us | No Comments »

Get Music, Movies, and More With SuperPass - 14 Day Free Trial

Stream 7 million songs and download MP3s with free Napster trial Follow Newsericks on Twitter


Leave a Reply

 Comment Form