Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 12. (Read 10908 times)

One question is what motivates current "jihadists" to do what they do ? (that seems to be that their competing jihadists, also known as governments who likewise are willing to sacrifice lives of own soldiers for political or ideological goals, drew lines on maps and claimed by force "these are your borders now sucker". Not saying any of those 2 jihad groups are justified, they're both acting like small children fighting over toys, but if it wasnt for the governments interfering in their affairs the jihadists would find something better to do).

Keep in mind that the 2 main sponsors of "Jihadi groups" are the USA, and Russia. With some of their subsidiaries co-sponsoring, such as Iran, Israel, etc.

So how would ancap resist NGO jihad from aquiring means to cause lots of damage, the same way it would resist a Government-form of jihad. Social pressure, few ppl would trade with you if they see you aquire stockpiles and/or if you have a history of bullying. You'd have to pay a premium for your reputation, in other words the rest of the world would get their weapons cheaper than you and you'd never get to the point where you can do any damage.

What about tactical nukes (say 10KT to 200KT) for use against submarines?

On earth, there's little to no reason for anyone to have a nuke, for exactly that reason. But, like all bombs, it has plenty of non-weapon uses, particularly in asteroid mining. It could be potentially useful in mining here on Earth, but the fallout and such really limits the possible utility.

I draw the line at weapons of mass destruction - nukes, bunker-busters, etc, (you know, all those things that governments create and stockpile by the megaton). Basically any item whose use entails indiscriminately kill large swaths of people within a geographic area ("killing the righteous along with the wicked", as it were) is something that represents an aggressive threat against everyone. It is illegitimate to claim such a device is "defensive" when by it's very nature it ensures immense "collateral damage" for miles and miles.

But the government is nothing more than a big misinformation-based mafia. Take for example the terror attacks that are part and parcel to State Warfare - Dresden, Hiroshima, essentially any bombing campaign that was ever perpetrated. The lies and propaganda run so deep that the people don't even understand the madness inherent in the system.

This is the main reason I so hate the movie "Fail Safe", which has the President offering to nuke New York in order to make up for accidentally nuking Russia. What the movie should have had was the President offering himself and all of his warlord cabinet members up for execution, not murdering more millions (who happen to be unfortunate enough to live in a certain geographic area) in order to prove it was a mistake and he was "sorry". Would the filmmakers have even dared put forth such a statement? Of course not. /rant

You're not going to answer me, are you?

I know why, and I understand. Nobody likes admitting that they're a hypocrite.

Darra in Pakistan produce 400 rifles and other weapons a day with nothing more than drill presses and hand tools.

2 years ago they got a law against producing RPG's as they messed up the neighbourhood to severly during street brawls.

I do not support those specific programs.  I would not on the other hand would be okay with letting elderly people die because of the lack of basic essentials either.

That changes everything.   In a moment of crisis, I too would sacrifice myself for 100 people.  I would not on the other hand, go to be slaughter in exchange for 100 people in a per-planned act.

I actually am fortunately close enough to my work where that I do not need to drive.  Why?

If you support Social Security and Medicare and the policies surrounding those programs (such as whether to raise the associated taxes or change how much they pay out), then you are supporting equating someone's existence into money.

I say again, do you, or would you, have a life insurance policy?

What if I take the dollar value out of it? If I'm willing to die to save 100 people, does that also invalidate my opinion?

I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you drive to work? To me that seems like much the same thing, but to a lesser extent; you're accepting several micromorts in exchange for money.

Yes, I have to say someone who would equate the value of their existence into money as someone I have serious issues if they are discussing public policy.   If that is your perspective on the value of something I feel is most precious, you may have other ideas that would have a core fundamental assumption that life does have a price and with that, make some choices easier.


Sidenote:  My statement contains no underlining political comments about a "certain" wedge issue that is used in politics in America.  After reading my comments, I didn't want you to think I was even hinting at that. 

Maybe not, I just made a rough estimate. As the offer goes up, the chances of my accepting it approach 100%. So for $100 billion I would almost certainly do it, and $5 million almost certainly not. If it's the number itself that bothers you, and not the fact that there IS a number, then don't worry too much about it - I haven't calculated anything or thought too hard about the value.

I'm sorry my good sir, but I seem to have missed something you consider to be important. Why shouldn't I be willing to sacrifice myself to save others? Is it suicide that bothers you - would it be different if I worked in a hazardous environment or went on a one-way research mission to Mars?

"AnCap" doesn't, any more than "laws" do. Even today, it's down to individual responsibility. I'd think that manufacturers, held personally responsible for who they sell to, would be pretty discerning, yes?

Indeed it is... but something is better than nothing.

You're a discredited idiot to even entertain the offer.  How can we even seriously evaluate your opinion if you would even consider suicide for money.  

Then maybe 10 million isn't the price of a life (yours, in this case).

I'd like to say yes, but to be honest I'd think long and hard about that number if I got a serious offer.

How would AnCap deter jihadists from acquiring nukes? Or anyone else who would value the nuke more than their own lives? Restitution is capped at one's lifetime income.

So if someone offered you 10 million, you'd do it? Off yourself, that is?

As of this moment, I'd estimate about $10 million USD. That is to say, if my death would leave that much to my loved ones and favorite charities, their sadness would be outweighed by hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives saved. My wife would never work or go without health care again. There are things more important than me.

Do you drive to work? Do you sometimes go a long time without exercise, enough sleep, or a checkup with the doctor?