Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 23, 2012, 12:53:57 PM

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 12:30:24 PM

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?

No, I do not want to prevent people from owning nukes. There are plenty of legit reasons to own, and even use, a nuke. As mutually assured destruction for muggers... no. Killing completely innocent people because you had a fatal accident is a terroristic act.

Someone with a regular gun can be disabled by shooting them. In the mean time, they, can only kill people one at a time. A nuke let off in a city will cause massive devastation. If you truly wish no harm, then don't take actions which may cause harm without your intent to cause it. That means don't cart around a nuke keyed to your vitals.

As to what right they have to order you to disarm your weapon, compare it to a loaded, cocked pistol being waved around. Just as in that situation, you are threatening everyone around you with random death. A disarmed nuke hurts nobody, but an armed one could kill everyone in the vicinity. The man waving the loaded, cocked gun around would be ordered to safe and holster his weapon unless he wants to get shot. It would be no different for some asshole with a bomb strapped to himself.

Now, are you willing to admit that your example was ridiculous?

Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Yes the example is ridiculous, but so is the notion that nukes should be available to whatever person or group wants one.

Myrkul has dragged you down the rabbit hole, into his world view, which:

- Lacks commons sense
- Prefers to be built upon ignorance
- Encourages absurdity
- Has not been tested on any meaningful scale (for obvious reasons)
- Is hypocritical
- Is contradictory
- Requires arguments supporting it that conveniently leave out practicalities
- Is coercive
- Leaves no place to go where one is not subject to the whims of others