1) You're the one claiming that one can't be successful and irrational at the same time. I say sociopaths are good examples of the contrary. The kind of people who could do just what I described. Doing something with total disregard for others. If you just do it because fuck you, then it's not terrorism. Just disregard for others.

2) What indication? Why does drawing a gun indicate an intention to shoot someone? You say the same things over and over with different words. Just admit that there's no objective threat here and that you're responding to a subjective one.

3) So there is an objective threat now, from someone with a gun that isn't pointing at you and has the safety on?

4) So you get to decide how I use my property now? Very good. I've been saying that all along. We're getting somewhere.

5) Really? You don't think that giving nukes to someone with the stated purpose of destroying a specific region, nationality or ethnicity will have any adverse effect? What do you expect them to use the WMDs for? Decoration?

1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?

2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of agression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?

3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"

4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.

5) It's not perfect, but we do manage to stop them. Not all of them all the time, but most of them, most of the time. Why do you think there hasn't been an nuclear incident yet? I'm sure the black markets are well investigated, and most trades are allowed, only the high profile ones are intercepted. Every sane person is scared to death by these weapons, as they should be. Governments are at least semi-rational, and won't generally nuke random people. That can't be said for groups willing to bomb trains, subways, busses etc.
And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?

Adolf Hitler was a great believer in "survival of the fittest" and had the different branches of government compete against each other for maximum efficiency. I wonder how well that worked out. Anyone know?

1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy.  Not doing well you said?

2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.

3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?

4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.

5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?

And a little extra whitespace. Easier to read now? I simply forgot last post. Sorry about that.

Yes it does, in many ways, but not for the reasons you detailed above.
Good job defeating that straw-man though. I'm sure it was hard work.

1) The world is full of people who aren't rational. I thought you knew that. Or do you ignore it to fit the world into your ideology?
2) Why is that a logical thing to do? I'm not threatening anybody. Do you think I am threatening anyone? If not, why would you unholster your weapon? And if you think I am threatening you, then I can assume the same when you unholster your gun, and hence take aim at you. No? Are you saying there's an subjective threat here?
3) Slung? I don't know where you got your combat training, but I was instructed to keep my gun in my hands at all times. So, how much time do you think it'll take me to ready and fire that gun? A second? Two? And speed is immaterial, right? No threat in me carrying that around, but people around me would probably unholster their weapons and get into a ready stance? Or not, since I'm not a threat. Your lack of consistency is confusing.
4) Fine, so the nuke won't me armed. It'll arm itself and set a 90 sec timer after I push the button, or if I flatline. Better?
5) You still hasn't answered my question about what you think the outcome will be of allowing Al-quaeda or similar organization to acquire a nuke, or similar weapon of mass destruction. It's a free for all, right? OBL was very well financed. There are many people who'll gladly donate money to Al-quaeda. So, please explain why 3, or 1, mushroom cloud is better than none.
My purpose isn't terrorism. The purpose is getting back at the robber. If you're an APSD person others just don't matter.  Excuses are for people who care about others.
Yes nukes are expensive, but not out of reach for a well financed organization, which may or may not have benevolent purposes.

1) You expect me to act rational? I just told you I'm prepared to carry a nuke. I want to get the robber back. That's what matters to me. Others are collateral, and not my concern. I might even conceal my weapon if showing it means I won't get lunch.
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?
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.

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

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.

1) Well, at least I got the robber back, and that what matters to me. A shame about the others. Sucks to be them I guess.

2) A little quick googling does seem to indicate that there is such thing as subjective threat. As well as objective threat. You have a very strong opinion about what a threat is, but that doesn't make it true.

3) It's not my fault that people are afraid of a little fissionable material in my pocket. Why do you get to decide what a threat is. I see what I think is a gang member in a dark alley reaching for his gun, I'm not allowed to draw faster and shoot? I have to wait until he points his weapon at my head before I can shoot?
So what you're saying is that I can't defend my family, not until the park shooter kills one or more of them? Which is a bit late imho. I see where your system is consistent, it's just a dumb system. I have to wait until he does irreversable damage.

4) Again, your opinion. They're safe from my bomb until it goes off and I'm safe from their guns until they shoot me. See, everybodys safe. Why do get to decide what a threat is? Just repeating "because I say so" doesn't really convince you know.

5) How? The trade will obviously be done via a few more or less respectable individuals, many will disappear after the transaction, cash is good for making people forget. It took the US how many years to find OBL? Biggest army/intelligence network in the world? But I'm sure a few good men working on their spare time could do it faster. Unless they had to keep to the "non agression principle" and not coerce people to tell them what they want to know.

1) Yeah, that does sound reasonable. I might have to actually pay a few relatives then. I wonder if that brings the dead back.

2) So threat isn't subjective? Really? When an armed man enters a room, everyone will perceive this the same?

3) No, you've told me what you think. I don't accept your premise. I assume you wouldn't accept my view that any armed man in my vicinity threatens me. That's why I have my vest. I'm pointing my gun back at them.
I just want to empty my clip at a specific spot. He's at fault for lying around exactly where I want to do that. Same idea as the one you sported. He should just move if he doesn't want to get hit.

4) That the same thing you say with a "desert eagle" on your hip. So a gun is a threat now in your opinion?

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.

2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.

3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.

4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.

5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

Yup.
[/quote]

1) No I haven't. It's aggression to fight back? I thought that was defense. I haven't initiated anything.

2) I still think that the eventual deaths is a direct result of the muggers actions, not mine. And besides, it's just risk, not real harm. Until there is, but that's not my problem either. I'm vapor by then. Probably. Who knows.

3) But it is a park. Built as a park. Everyone but one has the intent of keeping it a park. He's waving a rifle around, preparing to shoot. Can I  shoot him back first? And wait what? He can shoot his rifle and that's fine but I can't carry my armed nuke around, because you consider that a threat? Either he's a threat to everybody in that park, or I'm not with my nuke. Make up your mind. Neither of us intend to kill anyone. We might put others at risk, but hey... you know the song.

4) See rifle shooting guy in park above. Earlier he wasn't harming anyone, but now he is? Or I'm not. Please be consistent.

5) What do you expect the result to be by giving such power to your local supremacist group, Al-quaeda or similar organization?

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up astroid mining?

The crazy is strong with this one, I can tell.

1) Yes, I can do whatever I want with it but no I can't? Make up your mind. I have certainly not pointed a gun at anybody, not even figurativly. I have a device that prevents you from winning a fight with me.

2) I'm incentivizing. You're the one calling it terror. I'm just carrying a big gun. There could be some collateral damage, I agree, but the mugger could miss me while shooting at me and hit the nursing home behind me, so that damage could happen anyway.

3) The park shooting wasn't my example actually, but I quite enjoy it. How can you fire a rifle without handling it in the open first (or waving it around if you will)?. So I can wave a gun around, and if someone kills me for it they will have to pay my family restitution? Let's just pretend you didn't want to ban me from my gun-waving earlier.
And the park shooting guy, he's preparing to shoot through the park right now, and I see this as a threat to my family and friends still in there somewhere, and he's adamant about shooting right now, assuring me that he will pay restitution if he hits anyone in my family. Can I use my own gun to shoot him before he hits anybody, or do I have to wait until somebody dies?

4) So a gun is fine, but a loaded gun isn't? Again, I'm not harming anybody. And if they feel that I'm somehow threatening them I'm cool with them pointing a gun at me. No biggie. They might percieve me as a threat, but that's not my problem. And anybody in that room with a gun could also pe percieved as a threat.

I also happen to have a few asshole cousins. They also love nuclear bombs and they hate your way of life. They will do anything to hurt you. Sorry about that. But I'm sure the nuke they're buying has a legit purpose.

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.

Ha. I know there were things we agreed upon. Well put.

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.

I'm sorry you think I'm an asshole. I don't think the same about you. A bit funny in a weird way, but not an asshole.

Advertising the device doesn't seem like a good idea then. I do like lunch.

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?

So that's how you win arguments? "Waah, you don't agree with me so I'm going to ignore you because I'd rather talk to people who agree with me".

There is a risk that people will get hurt if the bomb goes off, but risk != harm, right? Anything could happen. The trigger could click on the bomb, a divine intervention, anything.
The reasonable response here would be "No, we shouldn't allow people to carry nukes". But you can't say that. Can you?