BrazosRR

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu Had you said anything else we could probably go back and forth a few more times. I have mostly the same views, I just find that the severity of the weapon changes the calculus. Thanks for the good discussion.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu If you have a need to put pegs in holes, I don't identify as anything but a sovereign individual. I understand you are exploring the ethics of world ending weapons. My focus is individual natural rights and illegitmate authority.

No one has any legitimate authority to prevent you from owning a machine gun.

@ZeerosFate @VoterIndy A problem from the beginning, the court invents it's own powers.

@VoterIndy I just checked the 2A about 10 times and couldn’t find the phrase “common use”.

They aren't in common use because of a ban. We can ban them because they aren't in common use. Genius level intellect on the court and we actually defer to these clowns.

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu So, I like this conversation and find it fruitful, I think though we have to clear up things before forward progress can be made. Are you coming at this from an anarchist point of view? I am, and I'm exploring the ethical implications of world ending weapons.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu If I had a penny for every time I've seen a gun control advocate talk about indiscriminate spraying of bullets, I'd have a mountain of copper, well zinc these days.

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu A nuke is indiscriminate and non-proportional. It can’t be used in self-defense. If its only function is to threaten use, then its existence is the threat.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu Their exposure, fear and potential for being harmed are irrelevant if the bearer is acting peacefully. Possession is not cause nor grantor of authotirry.

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu I think the only fair way to move forward here is to agree that there is a difference between a nuke and a gun. If you won't conceded that we can't really discuss the finer points.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu That's the same argument for a AR-15.

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu It’s not fear. It’s that you’ve created a standing condition where others are involuntarily exposed to massive harm with no way to opt out.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu Fear does not grant legitimate authority.

@VoterIndy @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu Even in a voluntary, ancap frame, others don’t have to wait for use. A nuke isn’t just “property,” it’s a credible catastrophic risk imposed on everyone nearby. It's use is illegitimate so it's possession is too.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu Again, there is no legitimate authority for the people of those communities to disarm anyone, whether its a knife, a gun or a nuke as long as those bearers are acting peacefully.

@ImpossibleBob It’s not necessarily instability. It’s prioritizing worst-case risk reduction over individual autonomy, and trusting centralized control to manage that risk.

What kind of emotional instability would someone have to have in order to never feel "safe" unless everyone around them was rendered harmless by force? That's "school teacher" level psycho.

@soncharm @bryan_caplan I kinda wonder if your trying to make the case that this is all a psyop.

@soncharm @bryan_caplan So you agree that people do say those things, but now you want to narrow the scope further to prominent people. That's a goal post move. It's rather easy to Google anti-immgration arguments and find articles showcasing all this.

Think how you react to arguments of the form "Black Americans are worse than average on measure X, so we should ship them back to Africa." That's how you should react to arguments of the form "Immigrants are worse than average on measure X, so we should deport them."

@DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu @VoterIndy Not necessarily. That was my original point. Indiscriminate weapons are generally frowned upon and communities would ostracize those people. Nukes are an existential threat to everyone for that very reason. This is ignoring government and assuming it would be the same in anarchy.

@BrazosR @Didicoy_Tonttu @VoterIndy you know what. that's my bad actually. Let me just go all the way past you and stand on the other side for a min. Regulating it at all is an infringement and proboblly illegitimate on its's face.

@DickTrout @Didicoy_Tonttu @VoterIndy I think you need to prove that. Katko v. briney said that deadly force is not permissible to protect property unless there is an immediate threat to human life.

@BrazosR @Didicoy_Tonttu @VoterIndy You only have to disable lethal traps if and only when there is no living person on site to be protected thereby. Learn the law.

@Didicoy_Tonttu @DickTrout @VoterIndy No, landmines are indiscriminate and not capable of proportional response. That's why traps are generally outlawed.

@BrazosR @DickTrout @VoterIndy @TonyDocPotter As are landmines and you have the constitutionally protected right to own and deploy them on your property.

@BuenoForMiami Freedom is the ability to act according to your own choices without external compulsion.

How do you define freedom? What does that look like to you?

@DickTrout @VoterIndy @TonyDocPotter Once a weapon moves beyond targeted proportional response, it's no longer in the same category. Chemical/nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and affect large areas. That's why they should not be allowed.

@VoterIndy @TonyDocPotter Mutually assured destruction. Worked wonders.

@soncharm @bryan_caplan It's only a strawman if you think no one is making those arguments. Having been on the internet for a while, people make those arguments. I find it so incredulous that you have not seen them, I find it more likely your trolling me instead.

@BrazosR @bryan_caplan I mean, Bryan did a tweet, and i replied to that tweet saying it was a straw-man. The thing he wrote. I was responding specifically to the actual thing that he wrote. Is that 'pedantic'

@Capp00 @Top100Rick How wild. I look forward to playing with randoms. They are like a box of chocolates, sometimes there's nuts.

@Top100Rick The influx of golfers had made me get to play less. I do not want to be grouped with people I don't know. Having a 4some in front of me and a 4some behind me, with 7 minute tee-time split, rushes the game and ruins the fun.

To the “grow the game” proponents: Where do you expect these new players to play? To be clear, I want newcomers. But in most areas, new golf courses cannot be built. Driving ranges are packed. Land too pricey. This is Utah at 7PM. Packed to the gills.

@soncharm @bryan_caplan I did not realize your were being pedantic and wanted a quote from a single person. I guess no one is saying it. Immigration is not an issue. There's no reason to deport since no one is calling for it. Why are we even talking about immigration, amirite?

@BrazosR @bryan_caplan You still haven't addressed my actual question

@soncharm @bryan_caplan People that argue immigrants depress wages, have higher crime rates, different education outcomes, or use more welfare. Those are all examples of judging individuals by population level statistics.

@BrazosR @bryan_caplan You don't seem to be following or understanding the question I'm asking. Who is arguing for 'deporting immigrants' 'because' they do poorly on metric such-and-such?

@drakesmith__ What about throwing medicine balls to train rotational power?

I was asked yesterday. "Is there a piece of equipment you want to train golfers that you don't have?" My answer, no. Golfers need to train like athletes using normal gym equipment. All of the golf specific fitness equipment out there in my opinion is a waste of time and money.