Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 9. (Read 10908 times)

And the difference between me and you on this is that I would never leave this up to chance.  With the amount of violence that is portrayed in the media along with many other cultural issues, I would almost guarantee this would happen if they would accessible.  Never mind people who feel we have too many people and they may being doing mankind a service.   You have a confluence of many ideas and agendas today and this item would easily fit into many of them.   I don't see how you can either not think about these things or dismiss in a manner where you can sit back and think "typically want to keep their money and power. Nuking people tends to go in the opposite direction for them, both financially and health-wise".

Just take that example, A. you would set it off in your backyard (hopefully) B. maybe you investments are in oil, setting that thing off would make the price go through the roof..... bam, profits.   Hell we even have major short position before the WTC disaster on the airlines that were historically way outside the normal size of the shorts, who ever held those made a ton of money.   Please, widen your horizon.

There is nothing rational with the argument that a dollar amount like $8mil is what will keep this type of weapon technology out of the hands of unstable people.   NOTHING RATIONAL.

Sure, there are rich people with agendas, but they typically want to keep their money and power. Nuking people tends to go in the opposite direction for them, both financially and health-wise.
I guess maybe some old fuck who failed near the end of their life and just about lost all his money, but still owns a nuke, may want to go out with a bang... I guess I would have to hope that whoever comes to try to repossess his items will start with the nuke though.

I'm really disappointed in you, Dalkore. You're not even trying to present rational arguments, anymore. You can do better.

You have no imagination or common sense.   You think there are not unstable people that are rich or have vendetta or agenda.   You're as naive as they come.  You must just be a troll to say this utter nonsense.

That may be true, but crazy rich trust fund kids are usually not looking to go to jail or kill themselves. The ones that have no sense are too spoiled for it. The ones that do have sense are usually too busy working and expanding their family empire.

Well, leaving aside the fact that what is and what is not defense has been rigorously defined, both by case law and by the good folks at Webster, here's how I would break it down:

The beginning state is either peaceful interaction, or non-interaction (which by it's very nature is peaceful).

Then one party uses violence in the interaction, either starting off the interaction with an attack, or escalating from verbal interaction to physical violence. This is initiatory force.

The other party responds with force, acting to end the threat posed by the first party. This is defensive force.

The first party, seeing that he is overmatched, flees. The second party, seeking to end the threat once and for all, strikes him down. This is retaliatory force.

To sum up:
Initiatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence. Never moral.
Defensive force: Violence committed upon someone who is committing initiatory violence. Always moral.
Retaliatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence any more. Usually immoral. (opinions differ on this one)

Adding in a third party complicates the issue, adding the possibilities of:
Choosing the wrong side: Violence committed against someone who is committing defensive violence. Never moral, honest mistake or not.
Keeping the Peace: Non-lethal violence committed upon both someone who is committing defensive violence and upon someone who is committing initiatory violence, so as to stop or prevent further violence. Always moral, and thus the best option when you're not sure who's in the wrong.

Note that defensive and retaliatory force are still options for a third party, but adding that third party adds these options to the scenario.

Because it doesn't matter what weapons law abiding citizens have, it's the criminals we need to worry about. They don't follow the law. No laws made will change this fact. Another fact is we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, that right shall not be infringed. This was not put in there for hunting purposes either.

Why? How is that an interesting question, and how does it help one understand another's political motivations?

Shouldn't the question really be: What "weapons" can't a criminal get?

I'm not really defending any position, just pointing things out that seem to me to be odd or illogical. Those things might or might not be illogical, which is why it's sometimes nice to have a discussion with someone who can explain the position without resorting to ad hominem arguments.


I just had a thought - how do you define "initiate"? Only instant retaliation (for example defending yourself or your property), or an ongoing feud that you know you didn't start but by god you'll finish?


I hope to have similar fun when I too have some beliefs.

You may not be a statist, but you do have the unusual habit of defending their positions.

I don't know about the rest, but I am indeed capable, and willing, to change my political views. That's a hard row to plow, though, since it will require convincing me that some people do have the right to initiate force on others. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's just that no one yet has been able to poke any holes in the foundations of my beliefs, and so, the walls hold.

It is fun to watch them beat their heads against them, though.

I'm not an anarchist? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my affiliation, and I've made clear to you previously what my preferred type of community would be.

As usual, I want to know what others think. If something someone says surprises me, I question it. How else am I to learn?

If I already had my mind made up I wouldn't bother conversing on this board - everyone has entrenched opinions, no one (apart from me it seems) is capable of changing their minds about their political beliefs.

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

Sorry, should re-phrase that, the governments you seem to support lol

The governments I support?

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

So, instead, we entrust them to violent monopolies with genocidal track records.

Good plan.

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense.

With no restriction on weapon type or use, something bad only has to happen once and a whole country will suffer.

Don't forget, that part right there implies someone actually has to work, and probably quite a bit, to obtain whatever it is they want. A simple pistol will cost them ~$300, a rifle probably $1k to $3k, and a nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.