North Korea vs Gun Control

[Slade3200]

How are they using it in a threatening manner? How is it different than when our military tests its weapons, or when a citizen shoots guns at the range?

Live in South Korea for a while and you would understand.

I understand and don't support N. Koreas actions in the least. I'm drawing a comparison between why we want to take away their nukes verses, domestically, taking away our guns, by looking at actions and the law.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens has no parallel to denying nuclear weapons to rogue nation. Using your reasoning ISIS should be able to have them or the Taliban.

You bring up "law abiding citizens" so I guess my question is what laws are N. Korea breaking to disqualify them from being able to arm themselves with Nukes...

Also, i'm not making an argument saying that they should have nukes... i'm posing questions and observations for discussion.

How about human rights violations, slavery, political prison camps, executions with anti-aircraft fire, explosives, and ravenous dogs, and the fact that they are the most prolific counterfeiters of $100 bills in this country. I could dig up a shitload more if you want.

All horrible things, but is that the criteria of who gets WMD's or not? Should it apply to all countries that committ those offenses? Who enforces it and how far do we go?

 

[Slade3200]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

Like I said North Korea is the pearl of socialism

indeed it is

 

[OKTexas]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

quite embarrassing as well --LOL

 

[OKTexas]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

quite embarrassing as well --LOL

Regressives prove daily they are mutants, they lack the gene that causes embarrassment, otherwise they wouldn't be so hypocritical.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

Oh did you think I was equivocating? Did you read the last line of the OP? You're little insults aren't working out very well for you... do you want to try and throw out some intelligent arguments to shut me down or are childish retorts all you have?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Chalk up another pro NK lib.

Equating or personal right to a firearm with NK having nukes. Pathetic.

No quite mr mike, yet again you seem to completely miss the point of the OP. Try again.

What is the point? Having guns is equal to a country having nukes?

What is your point?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

quite embarrassing as well --LOL

Regressives prove daily they are mutants, they lack the gene that causes embarrassment, otherwise they wouldn't be so hypocritical.


.

It's not my fault if this discussion went over both of your heads. The fact that neither of you could address the topic or add anything that resembled an original idea or intelligent argument says a lot.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Here's a thought. NK has gun control. Should we be more like them? If they didn't have gun control maybe they wouldn't be the problem they are today.

You want to take away gun control in the US yet control the weapons of a different country... Isn't that ironic?

Not really. Why would I care about another country like NK? We have gun laws here to keep criminals from getting them. Why does that not apply to another country when it comes to nukes?

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Chalk up another pro NK lib.

Equating or personal right to a firearm with NK having nukes. Pathetic.

No quite mr mike, yet again you seem to completely miss the point of the OP. Try again.

What is the point? Having guns is equal to a country having nukes?

What is your point?

No, thats not my point, I was pretty clear about my point in the OP, and I specifically said that they are not equal in my last line.

 

[theHawk]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

It is equivalent to some degree I suppose. Thing is Kim boi-king wouldn't pass a background check due to mental illness and a violent history. He is wanted for war crimes and would be behind bars or executed already in any normal society.

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Here's a thought. NK has gun control. Should we be more like them? If they didn't have gun control maybe they wouldn't be the problem they are today.

You want to take away gun control in the US yet control the weapons of a different country... Isn't that ironic?

Not really. Why would I care about another country like NK? We have gun laws here to keep criminals from getting them. Why does that not apply to another country when it comes to nukes?

It should apply in my opinion, I don't like the idea of NK having nukes. So take a small country that isn't considered "criminal" in your eyes say Chile, Qatar, or Haiti... Are you cool with them getting a few nukes in the ol arsenal?

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

It is equivalent to some degree I suppose. Thing is Kim boi-king wouldn't pass a background check due to mental illness and a violent history. He is wanted for war crimes and would be behind bars or executed already in any normal society.

I imagine the same is true for Putin and Khamenei... right?

 

[OKTexas]

Is there not a hint of hypocrisy in the USA, the holder of the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world, telling others they are not allowed to equip themselves with similar 'defenses''?

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

Oh did you think I was equivocating? Did you read the last line of the OP? You're little insults aren't working out very well for you... do you want to try and throw out some intelligent arguments to shut me down or are childish retorts all you have?

You asked for thoughts on your BS OP, I gave you mine. If you don't like them, tough.


.

 

[Aletheia4u]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Gun don't kill. Cars kills....
If we want our gun rights from Hillary? All we need to do is, it is to fill up her pockets and stuff her bra to have our 2nd Amendment rights. The more money we give her, the more rights we will have. It is plain and simple.


Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department


How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

 

[Slade3200]

I don't mind efforts limiting other countries from developing Nukes, especially wild card countries that are not part of the civilized world. Same concept of why police and security guards can be armed in areas where citizens can not... Responsible actors earn the right to have more power than those who have not earned it.

I do find some hypocrisy for those that don't support any kind of gun control in this country yet they support controlling the firepower of outside countries, which is why I started this thread.

You're not very smart, are ya? This is a guy that used artillery to kill his uncle and a nerve agent to kill his half brother in a crowded airport. No one knows how many he has murdered or starved to death in his own country. The country has agreed to abandon their nuclear ambitions multiple times for payment of tribute, three US presidents paid, how'd that work out?

If China or his own regime doesn't take him out, we will most likely have to, and it won't be pretty. Reagan, GHW Bush or Clinton should have done it, now we are where we are, it's up to the Kim regime what happens form here.

BTW, your analogy sucks.


.

You call me stupid and then follow to show no understanding of my OP and then you go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the OP... Saying my analogy sucks is an argument a low IQ grade schooler makes... You're not doing yourself any favors with that response. Want to try again?

I fully understood the childish OP, you obviously have no understanding what is going on now or the history of the peninsula. Your attempt to equivocate real weapons of mass destruction in hands of evil to Americans having guns is below 4th grade reasoning.


.

Oh did you think I was equivocating? Did you read the last line of the OP? You're little insults aren't working out very well for you... do you want to try and throw out some intelligent arguments to shut me down or are childish retorts all you have?

You asked for thoughts on your BS OP, I gave you mine. If you don't like them, tough.


.

No, I asked for thoughts about the comparison between N Korea and domestic gun control. Not my fault if it went over your head. Feel free to piss off

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

Gun don't kill. Cars kills....
If we want our gun rights from Hillary? All we need to do is, it is to fill up her pockets and stuff her bra to have our 2nd Amendment rights. The more money we give her, the more rights we will have. It is plain and simple.


Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department


How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

This thread is so far away from anything Clinton... Please stay on topic or join a different discussion

 

[theHawk]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

It is equivalent to some degree I suppose. Thing is Kim boi-king wouldn't pass a background check due to mental illness and a violent history. He is wanted for war crimes and would be behind bars or executed already in any normal society.

I imagine the same is true for Putin and Khamenei... right?

Why would the same be true for Putin? Has he threatened the US with nukes? No.

Khamenei yes, he is a batshit crazy Islamist and hostile to the US.

 

[Slade3200]

There is an interesting parallel between the NK situation and the gun control debate that I want to throw out there...

Based on the slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" does that also apply to Nukes? "Nukes don't kill people, people who push the button kill people" So does the rationale apply to both situations?

Is North Korea breaking international law by testing and developing weapons? Are they breaking laws by talking shit and making threats? If so, what laws are being broken? If not, then does the fact that they are developing weapons and threatening to use them if attacked warrant a military response like Trump has proclaimed?

Last time I checked it isn't illegal for a US citizen to threaten to use lethal force if they are attacked or if somebody threatens their life or family.

I know it isn't exactly apples to apples but thought it would stir an interesting debate. thoughts?

It is equivalent to some degree I suppose. Thing is Kim boi-king wouldn't pass a background check due to mental illness and a violent history. He is wanted for war crimes and would be behind bars or executed already in any normal society.

I imagine the same is true for Putin and Khamenei... right?

Why would the same be true for Putin? Has he threatened the US with nukes? No.

Khamenei yes, he is a batshit crazy Islamist and hostile to the US.

I brought those two up for their war crimes and the background check statement you made. I don't think either of them would pass the test either