Guntards, answer this question for me:
Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket. This put the average person on equal footing against the British and the newly formed government of the United States of America as well.
Even if you morons discount the fact that the 2nd Amendment is about a "well regulated militia" and not simply about everyone owning a gun, you can at least agree that the founders had no clue about assault rifles that can have one crazy sandnigger take out 49 people and injure a bunch more, right? They weren't thinking about the future of weaponry when they wrote this.
But, even if you STILL want the weapons that the founders didn't know would exist in the future, then how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons?
Checkmate, retards.
>But, even if you STILL want the weapons that the founders didn't know would exist in the future, then how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons?
If you can afford one, you should be able to have one.
B T F O
A
>>77749489
Look dude, if you try and take my shit or kill me I'll shoot you. Fair enough right?
>>77749637
BURNING
>>77749628
>If you can afford one, you should be able to have one.
So, you're saying that if a person COULD afford one, they should be able to have one?
I believe they had machine guns in the 1700s
>>77749628
So it is possible to own nukes legally if you can afford?
>>77749489
> Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
Do I?
>>77749489
>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
But I do
Nukes are the ultimate form of deterrence and people should own them if they can own them. If the military can use it, so can I.
>>77749819
Some people can, leaf. In USA, we actually have wealth.
>>77749489
Do you not realize that the musket was one of the most technologically advanced weapons on the battlefield, comparable with JDAMS and drone tech of today.
>>77749489
Cost of maintenance and construction is prohibitive, but theoretically, a citizen can actually have an atomic device legally.
I don't see why not anyway. What does it matter if a private citizen owns a WMD when a government (which is comprised of private citizens) is able to?
there's a huge difference between a nuclear ICBM capable of removing a society from the map, and a shotgun with a few rounds in it.
>>77749819
How retarded are you leaf ? That's almost exactly what he said.
>>77749489
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>Guntards
Stopped reading there. It's obvious you don't want a real discussion so just leave.
>>77749489
your nuke would get confiscated because it was stolen from someone
>>77749489
Same reason why you can't have a bazooka. You can't use it without causing irreparable damage to the surrounding area. The reason we can't have nukes is because they're fucking nukes. A nuke isn't a gun. It's the same reason you can't yell "FIRE!" or "I'VE GOT A GUN" in a crowded theater.
And let me turn this around on you. Why should you be able to type more than 30 words a minute? Back when the constitution was drafted, there were no high-capacity keyboards, they could only use a quill and paper. Look, I'm not trying to take your freedom of speech away, I'm just looking for common sense restriction of the speed you can type on your keyboard.
>>77749489
Lex Luthor pls go
>>77749834
They had gatling guns and a semi-auto rifle with 20 round internal magazine
Cannons and stuff... alot more than muskets
>>77749819
Definitely not. Many people can afford cocaine. I'm an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment however the thing about "being as armed as the government" only goes so far. No shit civilians shouldn't have nuclear arsenals. Yet no government on earth, not even scorched earth terrorists should have nuclear capabilities. It's just a shitty situation and people seem to forget that there isn't always, and almost never is, a perfect compromise. The moment you release your right to protect yourself, how are you going to protect your other rights? What stops us from becoming the next Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mao predicament? We are not beyond tyranny. The human race will never escape evil and the intentions to do harm despite what the media wants you to think.
https://youtu.be/E2tLVPVS0Bc
Childish argument
>>77750578
you can totally have a bazooka tho
>>77750492
But if they were made legal to the public, a company could theoretically produce them. Also, the governments of Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, France or England could sell them to you.
>>77749489
Ackchually the most advanced weapon of the time was the cannon and citizens were NOT allowed to own those.
>>77750578
>the fire in theatre meme
Good job confirming you're clueless. The speech isn't illegal, the call to dangerous action is. Also the 2A doesn't just protect guns.
>>77749489
Nuclear weapons are a straw man argument that liberals have been using for many years now.
Nuclear weapons and other "unusual weapons" have been determined to not be weapons protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court has already dealt with this.
You are not clever. Just a dumb fucking leaf.
>>77749489
OP is a historical illiterate who doesn't understand the difference between arms and ordnance.
His "well regulated militia" crack also indicates an inability to so much as diagram a sentence, much less understand the historical usage of regulate in the Founder's period (spoiler: it meant well equipped, not legally restricted).
Also...Puckle guns and privately owned cannon were both features of the period.
I do support the right of private citizens to own nuclear weapons.
>>77750578
You can own a bazooka though... also rpg, grenade launchers ect
>>77749489
>When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced communication technology that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a printing press. This put the average person on equal footing against the British and the newly formed government of the United States of America as well.
>Even if you morons discount the fact that the 1st Amendment to "petition the government" and not simply about everyone writing a blog, you can at least agree that the founders had no clue about the internet that can have one crazy sandnigger preach preach islam to 4900000 followers, right? They weren't thinking about the future of communications when they wrote this.
Go home leaf.
>>77749489
When a single gun is capable (and thats 1 single gun - not a collection of events) of killing between 100,000 to millions of people through nothing other than its own decay process you might have a point of comparison.
Until then, you are just going to have to accept that criminals aren't going to turn in their guns because your feelings tell you they should.
>>77750775
Madison explicitly allowed private citizens to arm their ships with cannons to kill pirates. Fuck off with your lies.
>>77749489
You're a shit-wit. Shouldn't you be out cuckolding?
>>77750742
Yeah, but not without going through a fuckton of shit. And, it's not protected by the second amendment. It's not like a gun. You can probably get a nuke too, it'd be next to impossible though.
>>77749489
>well regulated militia
>>77749489
>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
I do though? So long as you can afford the facilities to safely store them. Why are you leafs so fucking stupid?
> year 2184
> have a doomsday device capable of ending the human race.
It's my right, as long as I don't tread on someone else's rights.
>>77750762
a well armed society is a polite one
>>77750970
Yes is protected. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. Fuck off libtard.
>>77750829
This
they're called nuclear ARMS and it says right to bear ARMS so what's the issue exactly
>>77749489
This is a non-argument, there is no possible way for a citizen to legally purchase a nuclear weapon even if they were technically allowed to own one and could afford it. Its like asking if people should be allowed to own Death Stars, they cant get one even if it was allowed
Niggas taking the easy bait.
Also:
>Dude muskets lmao
>What is the puckle gun?
>>77749489
>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
I do. Anyone who can afford to design, build and maintain a nuclear weapon deserves to own one
>>77750775
>and citizens were NOT allowed to own those.
There were privately owned cannons then and even now.
>>77751102
>>77751012
if the definition of "arms" is every kind of weapon or thing that can be used offensively or defensively, do you also support the people's rights to have biological and chemical weapons
>>77751353
Yes you fucking idiot.
>>77750860
Yep they're classified as destructive devices
>>77749489
hehe if you think its okay to own guns then you have to think its okay to own nukes. There is literally no difference between nukes and guns hehe so gotcha stupid right wingers.
>>77751208
>he doesn't have his own death star
>>77751469
The left are like children.
>>77750726
>>77749686
COUNTRY
>>77751469
It doesn't matter what you think. What the law of the land says matters.
>>77751469
>>77751559
are you guys just ignoring the people who are saying yes to this question
Personal kawaii nuke would be nice tho
>>77749489
>the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket
Wrong.
>well regulated militia
Doesn't mean what you think it means.
>They weren't thinking about the future of weaponry when they wrote this
Conjecture.
>how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons
Because if you take anything to it's extreme it sounds stupid. The right to free speech doesn't exclude beaming your thoughts directly into everyones brains (or twitter, or facebook for that matter). How can you justify that?! HOW. HOWWWWW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
See? I can be retarded too.
>>77749489
Because faggots shouldn't have access to weapons that could kill millions.
I'd rather we just have guns.
>>77751673
No, I see them. What about them. I am not them. They are making a good case though.
>>77750578
>implying he could type more than 30 words per minute.
Probably took two weeks to type that post.
Holy shit this thread is full of retards who don't even know the constitution of their own country.
No the second amendment doesn't allow you to have nuclear weapons, it doesn't apply to arms that can't be hand carried, it specifically say to bear arms, non bearable arms are not there, shit like cannons is not considered under the second amendmendt.
I recall an american explaining that you could legally have a missile because of it being treated as an explosive (ie grenades etc) and that the main problem is simply acquiring one and finding proper storage for it.
This was 3-4 years ago so i don't remember it very clearly, any burger willing to correct me on this?
>>77751673
>if you're against me, why aren't you defending someone elses position?
Probably because I don't know these other retards any more than I know you. The only thing I can be sure of is you're all pussy faggots who would easily lose in a fight against me - a superior example of human strength and intellect.
>>77752010
>shit like cannons is not considered under the second amendmendt.
Tell that to seafaring merchants, nigger.
>>77752010
>being this stupid
I mean I could maybe understand if you don't understand english.
>>77750775
Yes they were
>>77752062
You need a license to own ordinance in most areas. There might be exceptions. I know Alaska has a law that states that federal firearms bills do not apply to them - dunno if that applies to explosives as well.
>>77750148
Thats the point OP is trying to make. The piece of advanced weaponry could kill 1 person before it becomes nothing but a knife on a stick. That constitution was also made with the threat of British invasion in mind. Nowdays an assult rifle can kill 30 people before the shooter spend 3 seconds reloading to kill another 30.
>>77749489
Because its an arguement from absurdity.
Since lefty cucks love watching black people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc
By the way, the militia is made of up CITIZENS.
Militias can be FORMED BY ARMED CITIZENS AT ANY TIME
Therefore all citizens worthy of being armed (of able body) should be armed in the event force is needed to defend the persons/property.
Nigger, did you not know about Puckle gun? The founding fathers did. See if you spent less time watching cuck porn and more time reading history then maybe you wouldn't be such a vapid tool. I don't care what they could think up in weapons, I care about their ideology and the laws of the land they instated and died for.
If you still want to argue for owning or not owning a nuclear weapon. I'd say those who have enough money to buy, maintain, and use a nuke should. After all, they're smart enough to know if they want to blow up everything around them in the defense of the greater good... thats the government's line of logic anyways.
>>77749489
>Guntards
Dropped. Didn't even get to the fact you are a leaf also.
>>77750809
Well, isn't that a flawed ruling, then?
How are you supposed to protect yourself from the government when they have nuclear weapons?
What about foreign powers that have nuclear weapons?
What if the King of England decides to invade you again? England has nukes, Skeeter?
Also, where in the constitution does it say that "nuclear weapons are 'unusual weapons' so citizens can't have them"?
>>77749489
>Nuclear weapons are the same as firearms
>Therefore people defending the second amendment want to privately own nukes
Go drink a big fat bottle of peroxide you fucking idiot. Sage the shills
>>77752010
Jesus, texas. I thought you were smarter than this.
That law was written at a time where our entire naval force (modest though it may have been compared to france or england) was privately owned. People privately owned arrays of cannons.
>>77751837
>See? I can be retarded too.
Well you should go with what you're best at.
>>77752263
The point of the amendment wasn't to allow citizens to have things that can kill one person at a time. The point of the second amendment was to give citizens as much of a level playing field with the government as they can.
>>77750191
Where do you draw the line? Not being purposefully obtuse, but there is a whole continuum of weapons in between a spoon and an H-bomb
>>77750634
Gatling gun didn't come around until the 1860's, homie.
>>77750970
You need a destructible devices tax stamp which is 200$
>>77752263
>30 people before the shooter spend 3 seconds reloading to kill another 30
>100% accuracy
I mean if the shooter was that good, then smaller clip sizes and semi auto wouldn't slow him down much
>>77752368
How is that related? The fact that people can privately own cannons doesn't mean that the second amendment protects it, just like there are hundreds of rights not given by the bill of rights that exist in the law.
>>77752194
>being this dumb
I do support it it's just a matter of being able to get your hands on the material to make them which I support being illegal for a person to obtain. I support a person being able to get a nuke so long as he can build it from scratch himself.
>>77752314
How are you supposed to protect yourself from anyone if they have nuclear weapons?
So what you are saying is that because nuclear weapons are impossible to stop we should just give our weapons to the government. We should have just given up and surrendered to the Soviet Union as well.
>>77752561
>clip
i mean magazine
don't kill me /k/
>>77752544
GET HIM OUTTA HERE
>>77751405
have you considered the consequences of any US citizen being able to own a biological weapon? in a time where we see an increasing number of homegrown terror attacks?
>>77749489
I fully support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons. If this were the case, there would be a lot less government oppression in the world. Your government should not be able to threaten you with any form of violence you or a reasonable militia cannot reciprocate. Anything else is just polite tyranny.
>>77752649
Too late, we already have the deer lovejam and the cum brownies to feed you your last meal.
>>77752752
The only consequence I see is fewer niggers, spics, kikes, and ultra-liberals.
>>77751405
>"Yes you fucking idiot."
>of course I support the ability of private citizens to own biological and chemical weapons, you moron
This is why Americans are the most hated and least intelligent human beings on the planet.
>>77752668
Hey, he said Gatling gun by name. If he'd have said Gatling gun-type weapons, then sure.
>>77751673
>are you guys just ignoring the people who are saying yes to this question
I've been wondering this too.
>>77752523
I draw the line at long range missiles.
People should be allowed to have fully armed fighter jets.
>>77749489
>49 people
Why is it that the death count keeps getting smaller each time I hear about it?
>>77749489
I want to kill all Canadians. And I will once I get my own nukes
>>77749489
Here's your order sir
>>77752921
>implying anyone would ever be able to buy a biological weapon.
>>77749819
You need to be able to afford to mine and produce the materials yourself and have the science to make one and gave the ability to safely store one. Its hard to obtain one legally.
>the only people who really have any to sell are the gov
>Mr government can I buy a nuke off you?
>not for sale
>>77753009
We aren't ignoring them. Why does it matter? Are we arguing the right to have nukes or are we arguing the right to bear arms? Are you sad that your little divide and conquer scheme isn't working?
>>77749489
Guns are used for personal defense
You as a person are entitled to guns
Nukes are you collective defense
We as a country are entitled to nukes (not as an individual)
The right to bear arms is derived from man's natural rights to self-defense and preservation. There's no possible scenario in which a nuclear weapon could be used for those purposes. In fact, the detonation of a nuclear weapon of any size would doubtlessly violate the property rights of others and their bodily sovereignty through radiation and pollution.
Thus, the right to bear arms does not apply to nuclear weaponry.
>>77753407
But guns are also for collective defense against the government.
>>77750829
Then you are a retard. Instead of a mass shooting with 30 deaths you end up with millions of deaths.
>>77749489
>the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket.
No, dumbass, it was a cannon.
>>77749489
Ok no one probably cares, but here is the way I look at this thought provoking question.
Carrying a weapon that is aimed at someone (or in the ready position) or someone's property is illegal, and a threat which violates the rights of the individual who is being aimed at.
So let's just draw a line from the barrel to the range of the weapon and say whoever this line hits are the people who's rights are being violated.
Now a nuclear explosion can be an infinite number of radial lines with a certain range. Now assume that this nuclear suitcase can be button operated with one action, not allowing anyone and everyone in its range to react/defend themselves, we can treat a nuclear suitcase or bomb as a gun at a ready position ready position violating the rights of whoever is in range.
So I do support your right to bear nuclear, or other extremely high explosive weapons. As long as you do it an explosion radius away from anyone else.
>>77753494
If they could get their hands on it.
>implying retarded muslims or crazy mentally insane people would ever be able to buy a nuke.
>>77753491
no that's what armored vehicles and anti aircraft weaponry are for
>>77751299
I wish this game had less dicks.
Attached: Important information concerning this post.
>>77753664
But also guns. You can't win a war without grunts.
>>77753605
Also as an addendum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts
Very good text file on the right to be unmolested vs the right to keep and bear arms
>>77749489
Fuck off you faggot.
>>77749819
Well it is legal to make your own explosive material?
If you can make gun powder you can make bombs, WHAT IS illegal I believe is the use and trade of nuclear materials as uranium and this is because how poisonous it is for the environment.
>>77749489
Bombs aren't guns you shit encrusted leaf
>>77749819
As long as you get the $200 stamp there's no issue. But good luck getting that stamp.
>>77749489
>When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket.
Actually private bodies owned automatic weapons and warships at the time the constitution was written
Honestly the question of whether or not a private citizen has the right to own nuclear weapons is irrelevant, because the thing about nuclear weapons is
*Whisper* when you have an armed nuclear weapon, your rights suddenly become negotiable :^)
>>77749489
A nuclear weapon is less of a weapon and more of a strategic asset in a way guns, armor, aircraft, and even conventional bombs are not. Nuclear weapons are a diplomatic weapon, not an actual armament.
>>77749489
Who said we don't support it? Problems is lack of shekels.
>>77749489
>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
Who is to say burgers dont?
If someone put a portable sub-1kt modern sporting hunting nuclear weapon on the market it would sell out within hours.
I think the idea of being able to say "keep it somewhere where it won't accidentally be a danger to others" is a perfectly reasonable and constitutional thing to ask people to do with any and all their weapons. Say you own a 500 pound bomb. I would disagree with anyone saying you shouldn't have the right to own it, but I would disagree with someone saying that also means you should keep it live in front of your yard. The fact you can own and use certain devices does not imply you should not be required a modicum level of safety effort if they could go off inadvertently.
>>77753456
>In fact, the detonation of a nuclear weapon of any size would doubtlessly violate the property rights of others and their bodily sovereignty through radiation and pollution.
What about the rights to life that are violated on a daily basis when citizens are killed?
>>77754896
The people who murder or harm others with guns are punished for it
>>77753718
When your leader is Mr "If you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau, then your opinion is invalid
>>77754896
>What about the rights to life that are violated on a daily basis when citizens are killed?
By what, cancer?
>>7774948
How is it that you don't know that there were bombs and cannons and grape shot and even primitive rockets when the 2nd amendment was drafted? There were even biological weapons and poison. Nothing was exempted. Why do you suppose they didn't call out each of those things individually as being prohibited? Or even just limiting the right to guns or knives.
>>77755081
We could catch the people who detonate a nuke, wrongfully, and try them too.
>>77754896
>>77749489
Hopefully the in flux of chinamen will raise the IQ of you tree saps
>>77749489
>most advanced weapon was a musket.
I know this is bait you fucking leaf.
>>77749834
Gatling gun was the first circa 1863 C.E.
>>77750182
You have to have permission from the AEC to even experiment.
>>77755953
Okay, how about you retards can have that clunky pile of shit and your muskets, and nothing else?
What a stupid, obscure thing to bring up.
Also, how pivotal was this weapon in turning the tide against the British in the American Revolution?
>>77749489
Because while the 2nd Amendment protects my right to bear arms, nuclear weapons are not traditional arms. They're weapons of mass destruction, controlled by countless treaties (nonproliferation among them) and acts of international law.
Also nice b8
>>77749489
I do defend it.
>>77749489
you want to ban nuke amend the constitution
If you give me back something in return I might actually support it
until then SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77756158
Well played, Candian, well played
HOWEVER
>>77752921
Not an argument, Chang.
>>77756158
There were more than 2 weapons available. I provided one example of many.
>why am I feeding the troll?
Why do you cucknadians insist on starting shit threads? Does your autism prevent you from having genuine conversation.
>>77750775
Actually they were subjects when they were forbidden. When they became citizens there were no restrictions.
The word 'firearms' was not in use in the 1700's. The word was 'arms' which means either weapons (rifles, muskets, shotguns, pistols, knives, swords, pikes, javelins, spears, hand grenades, cannons, etc.) or heraldry (coats-of-arms) depending on context.
>>77749489
but I do.
>>77749489
Difference between a destructive device and an armament.
>>77751208
A guy from Princeton came close to building one privately. Nuclear physics major.
>>77752523
>is it man portable?
Arms had a very specific definition when the 2a was written. Read the writings of the founders some time.
The actual reason, like >>77753456 has said, is that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. The owner of a nuclear bomb has no control over the damage caused by it. This is the same reason why landmines are illegal. I'm interested to see what you have to say in response, leaf.
>>77749489
i do support it. Any weapon my government can use against me i should be able to use against them.
>>77749489
>When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket
Repeaters already existed when our Bill of Rights was ratified. Some were lethal without powder. Most of America's artillery (cannons and mortars) and virtually all of her navy were privately owned. What I'm trying to say, leaf, is that you're wrong.
tl;dr go back to bending over for chinks and mudslimes with your weed cuck PM
>>77756858
Landmines are not illegal yet. Their deployment is not a war crime if rules of war are followed. Booby-traps are not legal.
>>77753494
owning a nuclear device is fully legal if you go through the paperwork and pay all the fees.
hell, Honeywell, which is a privately owned company, is responsible for making almost all of the nuclear arsenal in the united states. so yeah, it's perfectly legal. why dont people get that?
it is however, illegal to detonate a nuclear weapon within LA county, and you will be fined $500 for doing so
>>77750775
Go over to /k/ right now. There is a thread on buying personal tanks and APCs. Fucking bongs.
>>77752314
>How are you supposed to protect yourself from the government when they have nuclear weapons
>Shit, there is a rebellion sir, should we nuke them?
>HELL YEAH, PRIVATE SNUFFLES, NUKE THEM ALL
>nuke an entire area killing innocent civilians along with infastructure, historical landmarks, etc.
>activate nuclear defense systems around the globe which launch further nukes
OR
>other countries see you nuking your citizens
>they nuke you to protect themselves from the clearly tyrannical and power hungry corrupt government
It would be like stopping a rodent problem with...well, nukes.
>>77749489
I support the right of an average citizen to have a nuclear weapon.
But good fucking luck to them in getting it. There are COUNTRIES that have been trying to acquire nuclear weapons for DECADES and still don't have any.
>>77756158
glad to see the point went right over your head
>>77750860
Miniguns and flamethrowers are legal as well
>>77757275
You can get one of these bad ass M-60 machine guns with some paperwork.
>>77749489
Chemical and thermonuclear should be banned from the general population, since they absolutely pose a significant threat to a state.
A handheld weapon is both an offensive and defensive tool, chemical and nuclear weapons are not defensive.
>>77749489
The two obvious reasons are that
1) a nuke can't really be used for self-defence
2) the dangers of legal nuke ownership far outweigh any benefits of having that freedom
Note that neither of these statements applies to guns.
Oh God, would I like OP to take a stray nigger gang bullet to the head in Chicago. Faggot had no clue as to what he/she/ze is talking about.
Go suck start a Glock, libtard cuck.
>>77750775
Stupid fucking brit fag. You assholes are still bummed out that you lost the American Revolution and thus lost control of the most resource rich area on the planet.
Enjoy your Muslim problem, faggot. What's it like living in England where the most common name for boys is muhammad?
Yeah, fuck you.
>>77751353
We already can own personal chemical weapons with a destructive device stamp - see 26 USC sec 5845, definition 1.
The only thing is it has to be prepared as a form of ordnance (rocket, bomb, shell, etc.) - so no barrels of nerve or poison agents allowed - those would be subject to (probably) the EPA, and not permitted.
>>77749489
>the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket.
Try naval cannon. But that's not very practical is it? Just like your argument. Now go back to sucking weedman's cock
>>77758018
>a nuke can't really be used for self-defence
That is their primary application.
>>77759258
>lost the American Revolution
Nobody wants even partial ownership of your nigger filled shooting and Oxycontin festival.
>>77750970
>what is US v Miller?
>>77749489
Reductio Ad Absurdum.
/thread
>>77749489
>Leaf noises.
>>77753198
genetic engineering is only becoming cheaper and easier to do day by day
>>77749489
I would personally say that there is too much chance for collateral damage so civilians should not own nuclear arms.
However that doesn't not somehow magically mean that I think semi-auto "assault" rifles should be banned. I think owning an AR-15 should be legal and owning nuclear arms should be illegal. Problem?
>>77749489
If the government can have it then so should the civilian populace. If it scares you so much to have a nuclear bomb owning civilian then it should equally scare you to know that the government has them too and you should be in support of banning nuclear armament outright.
It makes absolutely no sense to be ok with some strangers in the government having access to something you wouldn't even trust your closest neighbor with.
Technically the government isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons, because of nuclear non-proliferation. But nukes made before the law are allowed to stay. And you should be equally scared of just anyone owning a nuke as you should of the govt'. Saying he people should have all the same weapons their government does not mean people should have nukes, but that govt' can't..
>>77749489
>not knowing the difference between arms and ordinances
gtfo
>>77749489
M.A.D
it applies to guns and nukes.
That's why the big G is scared of both.
yes, nuclear weapons for all, here here. thank you for pointing out the obvious.
>>77749819
What would be the cost of maintaining a nuclear warhead?
>>77749489
Actually, US law doesnt prohibit them.
>>77749899
I don't think there are even laws on the books for that. Though knowing the government they will find a way.
You can however purchase a main battle tank, attack helicopter, and fighter plane in the US
>>77749489
Right to bear arms =/= right to bear ordinance
>>77749489
I mean, if I have a cool 150 million to burn, what's to stop me from buying a nuke from some corrupt Paki Colonel?
