26-03-2002 03:25									#121
	Tired of ads?

quote: [q]I suppose if one haf a few billion dollars - which begs the question of why would someone blow up the country, if doing so would cost him his entire fortune. Country collapses, banking system and world economy collapses. Unless you're gonna tell me he has that much cash

Do you know how much a single ICBM with thermonuke warhead costs? With a production line like the US was running in the 60s, it's probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-20 million. There are thousands of people around with that much cash.

	26-03-2002 03:31									#122
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse There are (and always have been) limits placed on individual sovereignty over private property (real and chattel). I'm not allowed to own private property that poses a genralised threat to members of the public. I can't store anthrax in improper conditions. I can't set explosive booby traps on my front lawn. I can't stockpile chemical weapons ready for launch. All these are independent of whether or not the anthrax escapes, the booby traps go off or the mustard gas is fired at New York. Society has the right to set reasonable limits on what individuals can own or do with their property, based on the potential for physical harm.

Small firearms pose a general safety risk to society when in the hands of individual citizens.

No, David, I am not opposed to the right to own property. I am opposed to people believing they have the right to own small firearms, which are made for one purpose -- to kill.

	26-03-2002 03:34									#123
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Where it gets really interesting is if a rich person, a.k.a. Bill Gates decides to nuke Bejing in order to get them to pass copyright laws so that he can make more money. If he nukes another country, who does China go after, the US, or Bill? I'd wager the US, meaning that anyone with enough firepower (bomber plane, etc.) can start a war between the US and any country they want.

	26-03-2002 03:35									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Do you know how much a single ICBM with thermonuke warhead costs? With a production line like the US was running in the 60s, it's probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-20 million. There are thousands of people around with that much cash.

Point A - Find someone with $20 million willing to kill millions of Americans and reduce his personal fortune to whatever the metal his coins in his pocket are made of are worth, then come talk to me.

Point B - The federal government is under no obligation to sell nuclear weapons to anyone, and are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do business with any defense contractor who does (or rather, defense contractors who sell missile and launching equipment - corporations don't, AFAIK, put together nuclear weapons), and are free to pressure foreign nations not to either. What they are not free to do is prevent people from actually developing or owning their weapons, which, once acquired, become private property.

	26-03-2002 03:38									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Where it gets really interesting is if a rich person, a.k.a. Bill Gates decides to nuke Bejing in order to get them to pass copyright laws so that he can make more money. If he nukes another country, who does China go after, the US, or Bill? I'd wager the US, meaning that anyone with enough firepower (bomber plane, etc.) can start a war between the US and any country they want.

If he really wanted to, Bill Gates could purchase a former Soviet Bloc nuke and pay someone or a group of someone's to set it off in Beijing, as things currently stand.

MrFun, you can't support property rights but make exceptions for things you don't like. That's sort of like saying someone is free to do anything in their private life except be gay, which both you and I would agree isn't Constitutional.

	26-03-2002 03:39									#126
	Inflate your Upload Space

"Guns don't kill people

bullets do."

	26-03-2002 03:40									#127
	Support Apolyton

quote: Point A - Find someone with $20 million willing to kill millions of Americans and reduce his personal fortune to whatever the metal his coins in his pocket are made of are worth, then come talk to me

In a population of thousands of rich folks you claim there's not one wacko enough to do it given the opportunity? Your total disregard for reality is stunning, and I find it hard to take you seriously.

	26-03-2002 03:42									#128
	Got spare money?

quote: Point B - The federal government is under no obligation to sell nuclear weapons to anyone

I wasn't claiming the gov't would be the one to do the selling. The knowledge is easily accesible to anybody, and free trade in primary materials would be enough to build one pretty cheaply.

	26-03-2002 03:44									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In a population of thousands of rich folks you claim there's not one wacko enough to do it given the opportunity? Your total disregard for reality is stunning, and I find it hard to take you seriously.

No, I simply find it irrational to the point of absurdity that someone rich enough to acquire nuclear weapons would blow up his own money for some random reason. Further, you can't justify making a good illegal for everyone on the assumption that someone, somewhere might use it to kill some people - see if that holds up in the Courts

	26-03-2002 03:46									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I wasn't claiming the gov't would be the one to do the selling. The knowledge is easily accesible to anybody, and free trade in primary materials would be enough to build one pretty cheaply.

Sure, if you have enough advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and probably a bunch of other stuff too - I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon.

	26-03-2002 03:47									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Until this discussions steps away from an alternate plane where people can always be trusted to do what's in their own best interest, I'm not participating.

	26-03-2002 03:53									#132
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Until this discussions steps away from an alternate plane where people can always be trusted to do what's in their own best interest, I'm not participating.

It's not an alternate plane. Statistically, wealthy people in the US generally do not commit violent crimes - I think their biggest one would be domestic violence.

	26-03-2002 03:53									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sure, if you have enough advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and probably a bunch of other stuff too - I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon.

Didn't you ever see that move 'The Manhattan Project'?

Huh, HUH?

	26-03-2002 03:55									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Sure, if you have enough advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and probably a bunch of other stuff too - I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon

There are at least 10 people here who could do so, and you're talking to one of them. GP could probably do it with his eyes shut and his hands tied behind his back. Rogan and Dr. Spin, at least, could probably design one from scratch. The physics is 1940s and 50s stuff, and is easily accessible to even those in the undergraduate stages of their education.

	26-03-2002 03:55									#135
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon.

I highly doubt that. Given thier physics experience, I think that either Rogan Josh or KittyHorse could build one if they had the materials.

	26-03-2002 03:56									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd It's not an alternate plane. Statistically, wealthy people in the US generally do not commit violent crimes - I think their biggest one would be domestic violence.

*rummages around to find a link to the du Pont heir who went crazy as a loon and strangled somebody*

	26-03-2002 03:57									#137
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I highly doubt that. Given thier physics experience, I think that either Rogan Josh or KittyHorse could build one if they had the materials.

GP almost certainly knows intricate details of the designs of current weapons.

	26-03-2002 03:58									#138
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Small firearms pose a general safety risk to society when in the hands of individual citizens.

Cars also pose a general safety risk to society. Just look at the large number of automobile fatalities, all of which could have been prevented if we only outlawed cars.

quote: I am opposed to people believing they have the right to own small firearms, which are made for one purpose -- to kill.

So you'd rather that criminals be the only people who own guns?

Regardless, as has already been pointed out on this thread, swords and poisons are also made for one purpose -- to kill.

	26-03-2002 04:00									#139
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse GP almost certainly knows intricate details of the designs of current weapons.

I'm ashamed that I forgot a person who actually worked with them.

	26-03-2002 04:01									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The debate on firearms needs to step back to reality. Guns are made to kill. The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

	26-03-2002 04:01									#141
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sure, if you have enough advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and probably a bunch of other stuff too - I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon.

I agree with KrazyHorse: Nukes really aren't all that difficult to build once you've got the proper materials, particularly if you're only trying to build a fission bomb.

	26-03-2002 04:02									#142
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: There are at least 10 people here who could do so, and you're talking to one of them. GP could probably do it with his eyes shut and his hands tied behind his back. Rogan and Dr. Spin, at least, could probably design one from scratch. The physics is 1940s and 50s stuff, and is easily accessible to even those in the undergraduate stages of their education.

Assuming these people could - which I still doubt, I'm sure you aren't all rich enough to afford the materials - do you think they would have any urge to use a nuclear weapon maliciously, or even build one in the first place? No? I would submit that is the attitude of everyone in this country both rich and talented enough to build their own nuclear weapon. For people fulfilling both criteria, the number would be very low indeed, which is why I feel I can say "no one" with a good deal of confidence.

But even if one of these few people had malicious intent, that doesn't justify preventing everyone from owning one, just as the fact that there are murderers out there doesn't justify banning guns, or the fact that there are drunk drivers and drunk criminals doesn't justify banning either cars or alcohol.

	26-03-2002 04:04									#143
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

You can't remove a right from an entire population, and by definition the *right* to bear arms isn't a privilege.

	26-03-2002 04:05									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

Is there any possible way to guarantee that criminals would not be able to gain possession of firearms after they are outlawed? If not, then the question is moot; a society in which only criminals have access to firearms is clearly inferior to a society in which everybody has access to firearms.

	26-03-2002 04:05									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

You have, once more, fallen into the trap of drawing false, "either/or" lines. Banning cars is not reasonable. Restricting access to nuclear materials is.

	26-03-2002 04:07									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You can't remove a right from an entire population,

That's correct. However, limits on rights can and have been put in place as a matter of course throughout the history of the US. So, defining something as a right doesn't automatically exempt it from being regulated.

	26-03-2002 04:10									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: You have, once more, fallen into the trap of drawing false, "either/or" lines. Banning cars is not reasonable. Restricting access to nuclear materials is.

Wrong. Both come down to private property rights.

quote: So, defining something as a right doesn't automatically exempt it from being regulated.

Yes it does, so long as you are not using that right to harm another. The simple act of owning a nuke harms no one, therefore it cannot be regulated. The act of setting off a nuke is harmful to millions, and thus can be regulated (unless you can confine the effects of the blast to your own property, I suppose).

	26-03-2002 04:11									#148
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Is there any possible way to guarantee that criminals would not be able to gain possession of firearms after they are outlawed? If not, then the question is moot; a society in which only criminals have access to firearms is clearly inferior to a society in which everybody has access to firearms.

In Britain or Canada it is relatively difficult to own a handgun. It certainly remains possible for criminals to acquire one, yet the difficulty they have in doing so certainly shows in the ratio of gun murders to total murders when compared to similar statistics from the US. Restricting access to guns does not just take guns out of the hands of "legitimate" users; it als disarms the criminal population. It is not, again, an all-or-nothing approach.

	26-03-2002 04:17									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

We can't even keep track of foriegn nationals here in the US; how the hell will we keep handguns out of criminal hands?

	26-03-2002 04:19									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yes it does, so long as you are not using that right to harm another.

The explain why we license drivers, doctors, teachers, etc. Is this not a "violation" of thier right to privacy? As you stated earlier.

quote: The simple act of owning a nuke harms no one, therefore it cannot be regulated.

It harms the international community because it makes that person a world power. Why do you think that Nation-States have been working so hard to keep them out of the hands of sub-national groups, ex. Al-Qaeda, ect.?