Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 8. (Read 10908 times)

Well a major difference is that they are working in a public service area rather than a for-profit environment.   Yes obviously companies have vetting, training and security.   But, government is not a for-profit business like private enterprise and they has a different mindset when dealing with public issues and common good.  Now what I not saying is our system currently in America is operating like that, it is out of touch and operating on a few major false assumptions.

I assume as you talk about AnCap in a theoretical sense I can talk about a democratic republic in the same sense, just so you understand where I am thinking from.

Guys, Dalkore's not coming back to this fight. He's at least smart enough to know when he's lost, though sadly not honest enough to admit it (perhaps even to himself).

While I am completely against the idea of anyone (governments or otherwise) having nukes/WMD's, the big difference between the two is the people/organizations they work for and how their power is obtained. The realities of how they are funded can't be ignored - government can undertake insane courses of action and it is the taxpayers who bear the cost. Those in the private sector would have to divert immense amounts of their own accumulated capital - and without the benefit of being permitted to threaten violence with impunity as a way to obtain continued funds from their investors.

I'm not asking how people are different, I'm asking how two people, who might otherwise be the same with the same interests, are different from the fact that one works for the government, and one works for a private sector?

(while not defending what they do, private military companies have quite a lot of training, vetting, and security as well, as do nuclear power stations).

What I am trying to get at is that you seem to be perfectly ok with allowing some people to own nukes, while not allowing others, and since I'm sure "because they work for a government" is not your ONLY reason for that claim, I'm wondering what the other reason, besides under what system of bureaucracy they work,  that is. And if the entire reason some people whould have nukes and some shouldn't IS only because some people get their paychecks from government and some down, I want to know what makes the people working for a government different from those who do not? (besides being underpaid and likely undesrkilled I mean)

I think the word you're looking for is vetted. Especially considering that the rest of the sentence is in past tense.

So, people in private industry would not be vetted or monitored?

You should ask the question, what safeguards would be different than for a private company.  Vastly different and more secure.   Many things make some people different than others.  

People in the government that are in positions to have access to sensitive areas like nuclear weapons and technology are vetted, monitored and routinely moved around.  Genetics and mental disposition are another two obvious answers to what makes someone different than another, but I assume you know that.

And, again, what makes a person working for the government different from a person working for a private company?


So... Your only concern then is with making sure that only some people being allowed to have nukes and not others...  I guess in that case, same question again: what makes those some people different from others?

1.  This is where you need to take in the current situation and when we are talking about someone like this, it is all the matters.   Like I said, this cat is out of the bag.  I would rather have the current governments safeguard the nukes then proliferate them to a point where someone who is dis-satisfied decides to use them and kill innocent people to try and prove a point or achieve their goals.

2.  Why do you think the person would say anything, another speculation with no reason to believe that it is the case.  Maybe the person selling it, gets informed about its end use and supports it so they are glad it happens.  Another option is that it could change hands.   I never said this was an anarchy state only problem, where did you get that from?   You are so caught up in your idea of Anarchy that you assume someone who doesn't support it is so colored in their thinking that they would think in that manner.   I keep seeing interesting patterns debating with you all, quite interesting.

Who told you that lie? I'm interested in one thing: Truth. I have no interest in believing a lie. If you can prove one of my beliefs a lie, I will immediately discard it.


Indeed. Those beliefs discourage aggressing against peaceful people. On the other hand, your beliefs encourage aggressing against peaceful people, and so are worth my effort to attempt to change.

And we can't have everyone agree not to own nukes and police each other for it, while having a private defense force in charge of keeping out outsiders, whom we entrust with owning a nuke for deterrent reasons because...?


If someone sold someone a nuke, then they know whom they sold the nuke to. If one of those nukes does go off, either whoever sold the nuke will have told everyone whom they sold that one to, or they would be held responsible. And yes, the price tag is the estimates cost of a nuke on the black market. But, regardless, why is covert action and black market suitcase nukes a problem in anarchy state, but not a problem in government controlled state? What makes people with a government paycheck different or better than people with a private company paycheck?

Liability insurance is part of your home insurance. I don't know of any specific liability insurance offerings out there other than for businesses. So, maybe a liability insurance for owning a gun just isn't offered and doesn't have a market for it.

Even if I did, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't change your mind.   Not worth my effort.   You can hold those beliefs all you want, that is your right.

First Issue:
Because of the destructive nature of nuclear weapons, obviously I would rather no one have them.   But in reality, the cat is already in the bag and because competing nation states have nuclear weapons in their possession, they would likely never relinquish them all because of the fear the another nation state was lying and held some back in their possession.  As for unstable people getting access that are in government, you should research the current safeguard we have in place so that only a few men have the ability to arm and launch nuclear weapons and those people are vetting quite harshly and are given continual physiological evaluations you mental stability.


Second Issue:
That is an assumption they would be found out, if you know what your doing you could be covert about it.   There are small tactical nukes are are as small as a suitcase.   Also in your example, you gave a price tag so I had to assume that person was purchasing it from somewhere not building their own.  Building your own it a whole other ball game and is very hard to mask because of the equipment needed, power consumption and raw materials.  You really need to understand, covert action happens everyday and it is effective more times than not.  History is filled with examples (that we know of) and it is only decades if not longer that we find out, or we seize records and read about them after the fact.  

I don't know any gun owners who do. Do any gun owners posting/lurking here have liability insurance? Are there any statistics on this?

Can you refute any of those?

What would you do about it? The only two options I see are
1) Give the power to control (and thus own) nukes only to a select few, whom we'll call "government," and hope that none of their members become unstable and try to set one off
2) Make it an acceptable community standard that no one in that community should own nukes, and make everyone be responsible for keeping an eye on each other, and report/stop anyone from trying to obtain weapons-grade nuclear materials

Personally, I think option 2 will be more effective.
I'm curious, though, why do you hold government in such high regard exactly? What makes a person who works for the government different from just any other person? And if they are the same - just people - then how will government employment prevent someone from becoming unstable?


Anyone setting off a nuke will very likely be found out. A nuke isn't just something you can build in secret. So if you were to blow up a nuke in your back yard, not only will you be losing your back yard and all your neighbors, but you will likely make sure that no one will ever buy oil from you again, and will end up with a HUGE price on your head.
Otherwise, how do you propose that whoever does that in your example manages to get away with it?

Wow, you're just a parrot of continual charges against government as a default answer to everything.  What do we have to talk about if everything you have to say is the same thing.  Just don't bother responding and instead just reply with a blank post and I will just make up a typical response for you that will:

A.  Indict Government that is basically thugs because you didn't get a chance to volunteer
B.  Give some reference to how a privately run system for everything is the best way to do anything
C.  You logic to make it that all human decision are in self-interest
D.  And most importantly remember, Greed is good.

What makes you think they don't? Perhaps lots of people do.

Having thought for a couple days about the points raised here, I retract my "compulsory insurance" suggestion, and am leaning towards simple restitution.

1. It's not aggression to forego insurance, so I can't argue morality.
2. The people I want to stop wouldn't be stopped, so I can't argue efficiency/effectiveness.

So why don't more gun owners buy liability insurance right now? It seems like the rational thing to do. (I don't own any guns myself)

Oh? Unstable people are, by definition, unstable. Are unstable people typically goal-oriented enough to put that much effort into something?

Ask yourself this: if what you fear is unstable folks getting control of nukes and killing people, why do you entrust them to people with proven track records of genocide?

You're right, you don't leave it to chance. You give the nukes to the unstable people.