Quote from: FirstAscent on August 23, 2012, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on August 23, 2012, 08:24:02 PM

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 07:23:08 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 23, 2012, 07:02:10 PM

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

Yes the example is ridiculous.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen.

How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world.

Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system. Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest. The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents. There is the big, pink elephant in the room. That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way. So we are under threat every minute of our lives. So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight. But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding. I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time. A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun?

You have failed to address the fact that governments point nukes at each other precisely because governments, taken as entities, exist in an AnCap society. In an AnCap society, there are households, with parents, guardians, etc. who lay down rules for the rest of the residents. Likewise, in the AnCap society of this world where the governments are the households, there are rules. In general, in a household, or a within a state, the rules are that no member should point a weapon at another.

What needs to be addressed about that? Nation states function in an environment of functional anarchy, kept in check by their own sanity and the consequences of aggression. I'm not an anarchist, though, so I shouldn't have tp defend that position. I was merely pointing out the double standard among gun control advocates, for I have met exactly zero that advocate disarming the police.