Quote from: AntiCap on September 02, 2012, 08:48:32 PM

1) You expect me to act rational?

Yes, actually. Though based on our previous conversation, that's clearly an unreasonable expectation.

Quote from: AntiCap on September 02, 2012, 08:48:32 PM

2) No threat in unholstering and taking the safety off my gun, right? Not even aiming it in your general direction. I'm not aiming at you, you see. Honest. When does it go from a subjective threat to an objective one? When the bullet leaves the gun? Or just before that, when I actually take aim at you? At which time you're allowed to aim back, right?

Well, let's say I'm armed as well, and watching you. You unholster and unsafe your weapon. The logical thing for me to do is the same thing. You start pointing it in random directions, I might get into a ready stance and ask you to put your gun away. You point it at me, and that's a threat, and I will respond in kind.

Quote from: AntiCap on September 02, 2012, 08:48:32 PM

3) Yet I can carry an AK47 or similar on the streets, and that's not a threat, right? Safety on, not aiming at anyone. How long does it take me to aim and fire that gun? Am I threatening everyone within distance?
Someone determined to shoot while there are people between him and the target is clearly not reasonable. If he can shoot at targets on the other side of the park, ignoring people that might be in the way, I can clearly do something similar and empty my gun into the ground, ignoring someone just out for some target practice.

You understand that you can carry an AR15 right now, right? Slung and safed, it's hurting nobody. You're not threatening anyone until you are ready to fire, ie unsafed, and pointing it at people.
And yes, You clearly can. But just like him, if you hit someone doing that, you will have to pay the consequences, which will be much more severe for you, because there is no way you can prove you didn't notice you were pointing your weapon at someone, while all the witnesses will back up the fact that whoever he hit was moving into the path of the bullet. He is ignoring the risk of hitting someone, you are ignoring the fact that you will hit someone.

Quote from: AntiCap on September 02, 2012, 08:48:32 PM

4) A rapid fire gun in a quick draw holster is a threat? Or not?

Nope. The speed with which you can ready your weapon is immaterial. Only a readied weapon is a threat. And an armed nuke is "readied".

Quote from: AntiCap on September 02, 2012, 08:48:32 PM

5) You didn't answer what you expected the end result to be if we were to give nukes to Al-quaeda and similar organizations. And how many mushroom clouds do you think will be necessary before people assembles some bounty hunters? And let's hope the seller doesn't sell in bulk. You know that OBL considered it a religious duty to acquire nuclear or biological weapons? Do you think he was the only one? And we're not powerless to stop them now. It's just hard. Only states have nukes now, and they're very regulated. North Korea is the only one that has managed to build them lately, and they're torturing their population to be able to do it.

Yes, thank you for proving my point. Nukes are hideously expensive, and developing them is an extremely capital intensive process. Very few people will be able to get one, and those that do will not waste them on terror attacks. A "dirty bomb" is much more effective, and cheap, for a terrorist's purposes. Even for your stated purpose, a conventional explosive would be more effective, and less likely to incur "collateral damage", as you put it. (And no, calling it collateral damage does not excuse it, no more than calling rape "a roll in the hay" does)