Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes? Don't you have a right to bear arms? Don't you claim to be a free country? Lmao
>>78077060
Weapons of mass destruction are different from regular arms. The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.
>>78077060
>>78077060
do you really want to make me cry?
>Doesn't know what "arms" meants
Niga u wot
>>78077182
Then how can you own grenades?
>>78077182
>The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.
Why not? Arms could mean anything from a pocket knife to a nuke. Nothing in the constitution specifies guns
>>78077060
I wish I did. I'd turn Canada into a parking lot for the northern US.
>>78077060
because for some reason i feel if i were to answer an ad on craigslist for a barely used nuke, it would be a bad idea
ITT: gunfags and conservashits delicately balancing their cognitive dissonance
It's glorious to behold.
>>78077349
Grenades aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. For example you can't use a hand grenade to wipe out a city or commit genocide.
In the words of the SCOTUS themselves:
>Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
>>78077440
Don't you know what nuclear fallout is?
>>78077336
>doesn't know bullets are covered under 2nd amendment
Gunfags everybody. They don't even know wtf they're talking about. To no one's surprise.
>>78077694
in other words "Shall not be infringed" is totally infringed.
>>78077645
liberal faggot with college debt detected
>>78077694
>>78077694
OK, well explain to me why nuclear proliferation (among states) is any different to individuals with guns.
>>78077060
I realize that "arms" is an ambiguous term, but nukes definitely are not "arms."
>>78077060
You can own them, you just need to jump through a bunch of regulatory loopholes. You pretty much need to create a company that contracts the nuclear arsenal to the US Gov't.
>>78077060
Are you stupid?
>>78077883
>college debt
Nah, not dumb enough to do that.
>>78077907
Why not? Arms is just another word for weapon. Nuclear weapons are a type of weapon. Nothing in the constitution specifies which types of arms are ok and which arent
>>78077886
Because nuclear weapons aren't the same as guns? Are you playing dumb on purpose or are you actually retarded?
>>78077907
Then what defines and arm?
>>78077060
armies dont shoot nukes, arms is the soldier class.
>>78077907
Are bullets? This is a trick question because you're a fucking idiot.
>>78077962
no, he's "Canadian"
>>78077356
They meant weapons the military uses.
>>78077962
>doesn't understand his own constitution
>calls someone else stupid
>>78078112
Make a constitutional argument other than "they are different you retard"
>>78077829
Are you surprised that a bunch of jews on the Supreme court are jews?
A well-regulated militia = Upstanding citizens (not criminals or mentally ill)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Don't forget that you have the right to keep arms at your place of residence and the right to bear(carry) them as needed.
>>78078192
Arms is defined as military/knight weapons, the military's infantry/knights do not shoot nukes.
>>78078077
>hah bro cognitive dissonance is glorious
>>78077182
Shit post. This is shit you say when you're an American in 1st grade. Among other thing like "We're not really free because I can't punch jimmy"
>>78077060
Gun enthusiasts have no rational response to this.
>>78077182
>A right to bear arms
>Means only some kinds can be banned
>No not that kind!
>Well but later we established a difference between this kind and that other kind
>No you can't establish a difference between this kind and that other kind!
>>78078089
>>78078124
>>78078145
Arms imply that it is something you can physically carry and wield.
>>78077060
There are citizens that own yellow cake. Nuclear weapons are not a locally controlled thing. They are international. Hence the sanctions on Iran and north Korea.
Where could you practice shooting it?
>>78077060
>Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes?
I hate idiots who bring this up as if you can store it in a basement or garage like theres nothing to it. They don't realize how many huge regulations there are behind owning fissile uranium let alone refining non-fissile uranium.
>arms
I think military equipment should be free market and corporations should run any kind of protection force.
I am serious, think about it, you could choose who protect you from what at the price you want.
Everyone is a nation and a nation is everyone.
>>78078476
retards, arms means the weapons the knight class uses.
>>78077886
only a jew would argue this obnoxiously and still think he won because nobody wants to debate him
>>78078534
That is neither rational nor true.
Arms are not defined that way, and members of the military shoot plenty of weapons that it is not legal for an individual to own.
>>78078177
The military uses nukes. The citizens were given the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. If the government has nukes, its only rational that civilians should have nukes to defend themselves from government, so that theyre not fighting at a disadvantage
>>78078287
Cannon are arms.
>>78078406
No it doesn't. Its just another word for weapon
>>78077060
Technically we aren't allowed to buy nukes. Like with guns, if you build your own nuke then the government couldn't take it from you. At best they might temporarily seize it on environmental grounds, but if you handle the nuclear materials properly they would have to return it.
>>78077060
americans ARE allowed to own nukes
but you're such a loser you wouldn't even know where to start
>>78078672
Yes it is, and yes citizens should have all the military equipment necessary for a good war.
>>78078794
"Weapon" is too broad. A fighter jet is not an arm.
>>78077060
In theory there is nothing illegal about owning a nuke, however I don't think any one has had the balls to file a form 1 to make one. Also ignoring the development cost, the materials alone would be incredibly costly
>>78078287
At the time of the 2nd amendment, all weapons were arms. So there is not constitutional argument saying you can't own a nuke.
>>78078697
yes.
>>78078683
soldiers don't use nukes.
>>78077182
REEEEE LIBTARDS OFF MY THREAD
I WANT TO OWN NUKES NOW!
>>78078957
yes it is.
>>78078964
Arms means weapons armies uses.
>>78078957
No, its a vehicle that bears arms such as bombs or guns
>>78078932
give a case where an individual can privately own weapon class nuclear material. other than "they can own nukes"
>>78078406
You are finding this definition where?
Because I'll tell you where you aren't finding it: in the second amendment, which leaves it open to the broadest-possible interpretation, which you're claiming can be limited by your personal, "common sense" assumptions about what the definition is intended to imply. But under your rationale, it is every-bit as reasonable to assume it included only weapons in-use at that time and place.
>>78078936
It is not true that they do, and it is not rational to claim that citizens should have all available to the military except nukes. The military has nukes. And if you're claiming citizens should get them, too? Then you're an idiot. So your statement is either A) untrue and irrational or B) moronic.
Explain to me why you shouldn't be able to start your own private army?
>>78077645
>kills babies
>i-i-i-it's not living being
>>78077060
you cant own nuclear and biological weaponry world-wide leaf cuck
3/10 for making me laugh
>>78078978
>soldiers don't use nukes.
Then who mans the nuclear arsenal?
>>78079154
The individual soldiers don't use nukes, arms means weapons that soldier uses.
>>78079196
Why not? They're arms, and protected under the second amendment
>>78077060
That's a good point, if there exists a weapon the people can't be trusted to own, then the government shouldn't be allowed that weapon either. Although, I can imagine someone making the argument that once the government asserted the power to ban automatic weapons, we already lost the 2nd ammendment. Just like once the government made that retarded "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument, we lost the 1st ammendment. The history of any nation is the slow process of rights and freedoms being corroded by oligarch classes, until the state collapses and becomes something else, usually worse.
>>78077182
stupid argument, nuclear weapons offer a geniune bind; either everyone should own them to achieve parity with the government, or the government should not own them, and no one else either.
>>78079221
Not soldiers.
>>78079296
Fucking this.
What? Guns are okay because they never killed more than 49 people straight?
>>78077060
Why do every post with a leaf is a trashpost or a bait?
>>78077060
Americans can own nukes, they just need to go through the proper paperwork and make them themselves which is very expensive.
LEAF.
>>78078476
you can own uranium and such, however weaponry which categorizes as nuclear or biological is forbidden to be owned by citizens world-wide
>>78079296
Actually, I would argue there is a difference between an arm and a weapon.
An arm is something you individually use - RPG, rifle, etc. You actually can carry these on you and use them directly.
Nukes generally don't fall under this category.
>>78077182
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>78079296
Because the military class/knight class doesn't shoot them.
>implying private companies don't build and maintain the nuclear weapons
You really think the government is competent enough to build weapons like that? Where do you think nukes come from?
>>78079427
because you're a meme loving fuck
I have yet to see the day where I am shown EXACTLY what we are doing so differently than anyone else.
>>78079296
Armies don't use nukes for regular combat/occupation.
>>78077182
> The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.
Wrong.
I think op, rightly, is pointing out that you fucks have no idea where the line is. For instance, what about grenade launchers or flame throwers. They're arms. If a gun could shoot or release a nuclear device would it be available to all under the Second Amendment?
>>78078140
They tried to.
The M65 cannon fired nuclear warheads.
>>78077060
Any weapon that has the capacity to strike another country from hundreds of miles away is completely incomparable to being free to own a tank or a missile launcher
>>78077060
American children build functioning nukes for 7th grade science projects.
You just aren't allowed to purchase or own plutonium.
>>78079633
Fatman for everyone!
>>78079213
>has no rebuttal
>h-heh
Your 'shall not infringe' means nothing if you only use it selectively
>>78079633
There is a very clear line, everything army uses for war citizens use, nukes are not a tool for soldiers you can't provide protection or occupy with them.
>>78079574
This desu.
Same thing with Hollywood and all their explosions and "weapons of war." Do gun grabbers think Hollywood is a government agency? They're private people with private property doing private business.
>>78077060
>>78077060
1% of the posters create 99% of the shitposts
Ban canada today
>>78077356
nuclear and biological weaponry is forbidden to be used and owned by citizens world-wide for the same reason nerve gas is forbidden.
nuclear and biological can damage the area and make it uninhabitable for years if not tens of years.
>>78079412
Ok fine, call them airmen or sailors whatever. They're still military personnel and under the control of government
>>78079740
Arms means weapons that knights/infantry/cavalry/artellery uses, not everything that can cause harm, arms = infantry weapons.
>>78079110
good luck filling out all the paper work and proving you have a fucking facility to store U235 or U239
>>78079154
Nukes shouldn't be allowed since they are not used in the defense of a free state, but rather in the destruction of it. When individuals are allowed to own nukes, they are suddenly able to destroy the free state. When nukes are commonly available to the general public they are suddenly able to make unreasonable concessions out of those who don't (give me money or I destroy your property/city). A single person with a rifle cannot make that sort of demand because they must physically be present in a location to use a rifle.
Secondly explosives and WMDs are not discriminatory. You can't control who is caught in the radius of an explosive with anywhere near the same level of precision as a firearm
tl;dr Nukes being commonly available destroys freedom rather than creates it so therefore it shouldn't be allowed under the 2nd.
>>78079787
>There is a very clear line
No.
That's that whole point.
You corn greased fuck.
>>78079836
They aren't part of the infantry, they are the people who use the nukes and may belong to the military but not the battlefield infantry.
>>78078140
Also the M-28/29 Davy Crockett system if you want something a smaller unit could carry
>>78080020
Yes, it is extremely clear ignoring autistic leaf posters.
>>78080059
Legitimately though, what is the effectiveness of these? What yield do they have?
>>78079486
>>78079914
Again, that isn't a requirement for something to be 'arms'. Arms is a very broad term meaning weapon
>>78077060
>>78077060
we are slaves
>>78080171
>lalala can't hear you
Wow did I intruded your safe space bro?
>>78077060
Nuclear weapons cost millions of dollars and if you can afford that there are a million more effective ways of getting what you want than using a nuclear weapon.
>>78079462
>I would argue there is a difference between an arm and a weapon
>An arm is something you individually use
That's an opinion. If you look at the dictionary definition, it makes no such distinction
>>78077060
We could technically, just ones without the radioactive materials. The weapon itself is just another bomb, its the core and materals that are restricted, and I'm sure keeping a partially active bomb at home is illegal to outside of maybe Utah or Montana.
>>78079787
That is not a constitutional argument. At the time of the 2nd amendment, all weapons were arms. including warships and cannons.
>>78079462
>You actually can carry these on you and use them directly.
Ahem.
>>78080184
Anything can be a weapon, arms as defined by the constitution meant Army weapon, and Army means people who occupy and arms are what they use to occupy with.
>>78080455
>arms as defined by the constitution meant Army weapon
Except it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. You're making it up
>>78077182
what part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?
>>78080348
warships and cannons are arms, they are all for occupation and defense.
>>78077060
>>78077645
>>78077752
You can own a nuke. If you are very very rich
>>78080322
Alright, I suppose the dictionary might not make such a distinction, but generally I haven't seen "arms" cross into things like bombs, ICBMs, etc.
>>78080446
Answer my question >>78080180
It might qualify as an arm, but is it actually that effective?
>>78080545
Arms means tools to defend occupation and or occupy with, you can't occupy with a nuke only destroy it is a tool of destruction it serves no purpose to an occupying army.
>>78080552
Nukes are for defense as well. You aren't going to fuck with me if I have a nuke. Thus the term "Nuclear deterrent"
>>78077060
>Says the Leaf
>>78080715
No it can't be used like that, you can't occupy with nukes.
>>78077060
Even if they could own them who would sell them?
Countries struggle to get their hands on nukes.
>>78080708
Armies were used to conquer, and all the tools used to conquer are arms, nukes aren't a tool for conquest.
When I found a country I'm going to put it in the constitution that you can own your own nukes.
>>78080686
>Answer my question
22k Tons
Would Vaporize a city block and create local fallout.
1000x LESS powerful than Nagasaki.
>>78080708
Dictionary definition of arms
arms
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
>>78080708
Youre like a broken record. I'll tell you one more time. In the constitution, it doesn't say anywhere that 'arms' means only weapons carried by infantry or weapons that can be used to occupy a country. It just says the right to bear arms, without any restrictions
>>78080790
Occupying isn't defense. You aren't defending your home if you are invading your neighbors house. Occupation is a hostile act.
>>78080955
and the definition of the costition and of the founders weren't weapons it was army weapons.
>>78080924
Lol a single city block.
You can get conventional bombs that powerful already, and I think they might even be cheaper.
Even if we ignore the all the laws and hoops that you would have to jump through to somehow acquire a privately owned nuclear weapon, nukes are extremely expensive considering you would need to maintain it, guard it, acquire a delivery device for it, etc., it would basically be impossible for anyone outside of a few billionaires to own one.
>>78077182
It allowed canons.
>>78081082
And your scholarly source for that?
>>78081064
yes and all the tools for occupation the citizenship should have as that's the purpose of the army.
>>78077060
>Implying we don't have personal nukes under our mattresses for WWIII
This is common sense, arms meant the weapons the knight class used to defend/dominate the peasant class, all citizens having arms meant to equalize the peasants power to the knights.
>>78077060
Are nuclear explosives classified as arms?
>>78078112
god god,americans are so dumb I'm losing my shit right now
>>78081448
police don't use nukes neither does the army.
This is a bait thread but nukes are governed under many international laws and take millions if not billions of dollars and significant R&D resources to make
>>78081521
nukes aren't arms, explosives are.
>>78079166
But you can?
>>78081600
so international laws get to override our rights? when did we put that in the constitution?
>>78079282
So "arms" is open to interpretation?
Ok. So as long as we classify some guns as something other than arms, it's ok to ban them? Or is it ok as long as they aren't used by our military?
>>78079966
>Nukes shouldn't be allowed since they are not used in the defense of a free state, but rather in the destruction of it.
Ohhhhh, now I get your rational point. Whether or not we can ban weapons is dependent on how they are used. So if certain guns are only used in certain ways, then it's ok to ban them.
And your second point is that we can ban weapons that we can't control well. So, for instance, we can ban guns that are particularly accurate.
>>78081448
the power of nukes doesn't belong to the knight class/infantry but to the state the same as the power of the state to tarriff and do damage this can be seen as a weapon yet it was not classified as arms that citizens have access to.
>>78081035
We need more men like you in America and less cucks like
>>78080708
>>78081521
Arms are the same thing as weapons. Nukes are weapons, therefore they are also arms
>>78078536
New Mexico obviously
>>78077182
Fuck right off, lib. The purpose of the 2nd Amedment is for the citizenry to pose a serious threat to the government, to remind them who's boss. Anything the government can own, the people can own.
The minute you start drawing lines and saying >no, this weapon is too dangerous for individuals, is the minute you become an antiguns. Because they use exactly the same logic, they just draw the line a little earlier.
>>78081609
And we are legally allowed to own explosives: see tannerite. Not to mention actual cannons and other artillery pieces given proper permitting and the space to use them safely. Suck a dick and then fuck off, commushits.
>>78078384
Epic strawman.
Because the government doesn't want to sell you nukes. So it doesnt.
If you think you can build one you're delusional. If you think you can just handily get one, you are also delusional. You also likely don't know how nuclear physics work at all and just assume you do because muh internetz.
Building a nuke is top secret shit. You're not going to figure it out on your own.
>>78078536
Detroit :^)
>>78081701
This is quite simple, guns = arms, nukes /=/ arms, cannons = arms, = warships = arms fighter planes = arms explosives = arms
>>78081791
i would absolutly love davy crockets to be on shelf for like a week in burgistan
>>78079166
It's called a militia you fucking idiot
Nukes are ordinance not arms
>>78081791
incorrect, arms meant army weapons.
2nd amendment cucks BTFO
>>78077060
No one can afford one and the government is the only one that has the capability to build one. Any citizen looking to enrich uranium would go broke before they were able to build a nuke. Nukes are not easy to build otherwise everyone would have one
>>78081871
Guns are discriminate. Bombs are not.
You can use a gun to kill off exactly who you want given good enough aim. You can't do that with a nuke or bomb.
>>78081936
>arms = I get to define it a particular way without any rational defense of that definition that I have arbitrarily chosen, which is not supported by the constitution
Your claims are, at best, irrational. In truth? They are simply baseless nonsense.
>>78081701
>So as long as we classify some guns as something other than arms, it's ok to ban them?
Good luck convincing Congress (or anyone else) that a weapon that shoots bullets is totally different from another weapon that shoots bullets faster.
>>78077060
>Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes?
There's no such law banning that. You can get destructive devices if you fill out the paper work
>>78081915
>Building a nuke is top secret shit. You're not going to figure it out on your own.
Ahahahaha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips
>>78082279
Why dont Canadians own nukes?
Why can't you walk out side with a gun on your hip?
>arms
swords, spears, and a whole lot of other arms are also forbidden so it's not just infringing on guns either.
>>78082238
>My position doesn't have to be rational or make sense, because I've shifted the goal post and we are no-longer discussing why the position on the 2nd amendment is nonsensical, and we have instead moved into the realm of discussing congressional approval of a federal bill
Nice job demonstrating that you can't defend the position of gun enthusiasts, though.
>>78082136
The "designed" ability to discriminate means nothing, only the actual use. I can indiscriminately fire a rifle into a crowd. I can discriminately blow up a car with a single target inside.
Going down that road is using antiguns logic.
>but that weapon was DESIGNED to kill people, nobody should have that regardless of what they actually use it for
>>78082136
ameritards are allowed to have grenades and flamethrowers
>>78081701
No it is about how the weapon CAN be used not how they actually are used. A rifle cannot individually be used to maintain a state of tyranny. It requires many rifles and the will of the people fighting. A nuke can be used, by an individual or a small number of individuals, to threaten, coerce, or even destroy the free state. The bill of rights is about preserving freedom and nukes do not assist in preserving freedom because they allow an individual to destroy society. This destroys freedom.
>And your second point is that we can ban weapons that we can't control well. So, for instance, we can ban guns that are particularly accurate.
Actually weapons that can't discriminate between targets should be banned. A rifle being accurate would actually embolden my claim to it being allowed.
>>78081663
>>78081997
I am still restricted on the equipment I can buy and where I can operate and for who I operate.
aka: can't nuke the moolime cube for the ''ants people of Vanaingarh''
>>78082412
Because our government is full of cucks, as is most of the country. We can legally OC an unloaded rifle in public, but it's a great way to spend the rest of the afternoon in a police station explaining to them the laws they're supposed to enforce. And still probably getting hit with a disturbing the peace charge or some shit.
>>78082492
You're going full retard, which I suppose is what a lib would do.
It's not about design. It's about function. A gun has the *capability* to be discriminate. A bomb does not (single target inside meme aside)
>>78082544
Both of which are an order of magnitude more discriminate than the smallest nuke, which I did admit would be ok.
>>78077695
Do you know what half life is?
>>78082414
The point I'm trying to make is that anti gun control people have no legal or logical backing to their argument since their rights are already being infringed anyway. Either the second amendment needs to be revised or the government needs to lift its bans on certain types of arms
>>78082572
>A rifle cannot individually be used to maintain a state of tyranny.
So your position is that the consitution's 2nd amendment is consistent because it provides only the private ownership of guns based on the assumption that "arms" can only be defined as "weapons that cannot be used to maintain a state of tyranny?"
Because you're just fabricating nonsense, at this point.
>The bill of rights is about preserving freedom
So if we define a weapon as a non-freedom-preservative, THEN we can reasonably ban it without threatening the 2nd amendment?
>A rifle being accurate would actually embolden my claim to it being allowed.
Yeah, that was a typo. I meant "aren't particularly..."
>>78082572
>A nuke can be used, by an individual or a small number of individuals, to threaten, coerce, or even destroy the free state.
A nuke can also be used, by an individual or a small number of individuals, to threaten, coerce, or even destroy a tyrannical state. I presume you're suggesting that if those individuals fighting for freedom are heavily outgunned and outnumbered, they might as well give up, since nukes are scary and nobody but governments should have them?
>>78077060
there is no law that currently bans us from owning nukes, plenty of laws pertaining to the transportation and disposal of nuclear waste. im not saying that its plausible but its definitely possible.
There is no law in the US that prevents someone from owning a nuclear weapon. However, since it's considered a destructive device and there are some regulations that you would need to comply with. Also, the only ones in possession of nuclear arms are a few governments of the world. Good luck getting one to sell one to you or for that matter, get the materials required to build one.
>>78082691
>a lib
No libs here but you, m8.
>It's about function
I just described a bomb's capability to discriminate. But regardless, if you do not think bombs are acceptable because they cannot discriminate, then do you argue that militaries should not use them either, since they cannot effectively discriminate between combatants and civilians?
>>78078089
weapons are meant to cause bodily or physical harm, nukes like most bombs are
anit-city/resource/sometypeofstructure
>>78082800
no, nukes /=/ arms in any traditional defined military doctrine.
>>78077060
Not even against it. If a nightclub got nuked you bet your ass a sharia zone would
>>78083134
>weapons are meant to cause bodily or physical harm
Care to invent any more unique definitions to suit your argument, or is that it?
>>78082457
Congress passes the gun laws, hon.
>>So as long as we classify some guns as something other than arms
Machine guns, assault rifles, (whatever you want to call them) are currently classified as "arms" under our current laws.
Also
>rational
>make sense
>shifted the goal post
>nonsensical
These are not arguments, these are safety net buzzwords used for when you're losing a debate.
>>78078089
arms = infantry weapon.
>>78081202
People can, and do, own cannons, tanks, fighter jets etc
>>78083265
Someone ban this fucking leaf.
Arms = Weapon that the Knight class used against peasants end of story, right to bear arms means the rights of the peasants to protect themselves and have all the powers of the knights, nukes don't belong to the knights they belong to the state it is a non arm and a tool of the state.
>>78081685
we did not the globalists imposed it on us
>>78077060
How the fuck would we get one
>>78077182
WELL THIS ISNT CALLED THE BILL OF NEEDS
>>78077060
Typical Canadian shit poster, making irrelevant shit posts.
>>78083283
>Arguing about whether or not the 2nd amendment can rationally be justified to defend gun ownership and not nuclear-weapon ownership
>Lemme talk about getting bills through congress, because that's relevant
>Lol, "logic" is a meme
Tits or gtfo
>>78083429
That are disarmed. A tank is just a glorified bulldozer without weapons.
>>78083434
>Weapon that the Knight class used against peasants
>in 1791
American education, folks.
>>78083085
>There is no law in the US that prevents someone from owning a nuclear weapon
Actually there is. The government regulates who is allowed to possess nuclear fissiles, and there's no way they're going to allow a private citizen to get ahold of those
The founders didn't define any tool of the state that can cause harm as an arm, nukes are tools of the state and do not belong to the soldiers/knight class.
>>78082828
>So your position is that the consitution's 2nd amendment is consistent because it provides only the private ownership of guns based on the assumption that "arms" can only be defined as "weapons that cannot be used to maintain a state of tyranny?"
>Because you're just fabricating nonsense, at this point.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Nukes do not make the free state more secure. Weapons that cannot be used by an individual subjugate a free state and society. You, as an individual with a small arm (Assault Rifle, Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol) or some military vehicles such as Tanks, cannot single handedly use it to bring others under tyranny. If someone wished to use it for mass extortion, they could. It deters from freedom. With a nuke they could ignore others and simply kill others with the threat of MAD.
Tell me how having nukes empowers the people to be free.
>So if we define a weapon as a non-freedom-preservative, THEN we can reasonably ban it without threatening the 2nd amendment?
If it prevents people from being free then yes.
>>78083563
Explain to me how its irrelevant that there's a massive logical gap in the second amendment?
>>78079166
What is Blackwater?
>>78083651
knights = soldiers that protect the non soldiers or fight on their behalf their tools are arms, the power of the state to starve their people isn't an arm.
>>78081035
You're right, they also don't define bare in the constitution so they probably just meant we have the right to eat guns.
>>78083125
>I'm a lib because I don't want anyone to have access to bombs that could start nuclear holocaust in which I will surely incinerate
>You're not a kike shilling for "le nukes are first ammendment meme" such that libtards can scream "SEE? THEY WANT NUKES NEXT!" and fearmonger the fuck out of things.
>I just described a bomb's capability to discriminate.
Which was completely shit. If we were taking it by volume, to kill one target you need to have, let's say, 5000 cubic meters without any other targets you do not want to hit. Shit discrimination.
A bullet has way better discrimination than that, its path hardly covers a full cubic meter at short ranges.
>But regardless, if you do not think bombs are acceptable because they cannot discriminate
I just gave you (above) a metric for this. You could comfortably set the maximum discrimination to 5000 cubic meters as I said above (or whatever a city block is).
And yes, I do actually think weapons should be restricted in very few instances. I would, for example, be quite against legalizing a WMD that could destroy Earth with very little effort; by your tastes, it should be 100% legal because NOTHING could possibly go wrong.
>>78082624
yes you can dumbshit
you just need lots of money, something you dont have
>>78077060
But we are you mong.
>>78077356
for one, I don't actually think the supreme court has ruled on it
two, I'm not entirely sure that it's a US has a legal ban on it, rather that they agreed in the form of a treaty that they would not allow for it.
The government controls the production of the materials that go IN a nuke. Thus they control the sale of nukes.
>>78083725
An ar-16 is a tool of the state. It's a military weapon.
Thanks for playing.
>>78084054
it is a tool of the knight class, nice try.
FACT: if everyone was given a low yield nuclear weapon as their birthright society would be much more entertaining
>>78077060
>>78077182
>>78077349
>>78077356
>>78077645
>>78077694
>>78077907
>>78078201
>>78078287
>>78078384
>>78078542
>>78078608
>>78078672
>>78078683
>>78078839
>>78078932
>>78078959
>>78079154
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts
>SAGE ALL RETARD THREADS HERE IS THE ANSWER
>>78084054
All weapons of the military citizens have a right to own.
>>78077060
All retarded bait aside, I'm pretty sure that a nuclear weapon is an NFA item and you're going to need a stamp for that.
>>78083865
see
>>78082624
>>78083925
No you can't. Go back praying to mohamad you literal chinese nigger.
>>78083736
>Tell me how having nukes empowers the people to be free.
I don't think they do. To be clear: my position is not that private individuals should be able to own nukes. It is that there is no rationally defensible argument to be made that the 2nd amendment automatically covers all forms of guns, but excludes other forms of weaponry.
I would point out that, if you're going to hang your argument on the coat-hook of "necessary to the security of a free State" as being an intrinsic part of what arms therefore are and aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, you are setting the bar at demonstrating that a particular weapon is not necessary, for it to be constitutionally permissible to ban it. Which means you've gotta set up a litmus test of what qualifies a weapon as "necessary." Which means that it's either not going to cover all guns, or it going to cover a shitload of things that neither you nor I think it should.
Which is the point of the "why not nukes" question, by the way.
>>78077182
>implying there's any limit stated in the 2nd
You can have my Fat Man when you pry it from my cold, dead, power armored fingers.
>>78084147
>linking to other sites because you're too inept to formulate an argument yourself
>>78077060
You could if the Constitution wasn't toilet paper now.
National gun laws didn't exist before 1905. There were local ordinances but that was it.
>>78084187
Including nukes.
God you people are bad at logic.
>>78083570
Show me a single federal document that refers to nuclear weapons as "arms", then. If your argument is that the 2nd amendment is "irrational" because there are different categories of guns/weapons, then show me an example of someone with the ability to pass gun control legislation doing so based on arbitrary differences between firearms. The fact that you've resorted to using literal memes in place of empirical evidence is a testament to your position as a whole.
>>78084309
>78084309
Soldiers don't use nukes.
>>78084309
In this case, you have a broken constitution. Face it, eventually liberals are gonna catch onto it, shill it to fuck ("BAN NUKES! REPEAL THE SECOND AMMENDMENT!") and then you're not only not going to have nukes, you're not even going to have guns.
>>78084468
nukes aren't weapons of armies.
>>78084468
nukes aren't weapons of soldiers, soldiers don't have nukes in their power/control.
>>78084366
>>78084147
Can you tell me exactly where that article refutes the claim that nukes are protected under the second amendment?
>>78084584
we DO have a broken Constitution. People have willingly traded away many of our basic rights just to keep the 2nd Amendment, not realizing that it too has been whittled away.
>>78083917
>just gave you (above) a metric for this.
On what grounds? You've arbitrarily declared it to be 5000m3, a figure pulled straight out of your ass. Why not 1000m3? Why not 50? Why not 5?
And you didn't answer the question. Why should militaries be able to use them if they pose such a danger to unintended targets? Is there a fundamental difference between the kind of weapons it's ok to use when you're killing random shitskins overseas and when you're fighting for your own freedom at home?
>>78083570
Also
>this aspect of federal law is relevant but this other part is irrelevant because I said so
Other people can strawman, too.
That was never the argument you gay doublenigger.
>>78078089
>Arms is just another word for weapon
it's specifically a weapon one equips.
Which means when you arm a boat, it's the boat's weapon.
So in the context of the constitution, it only covers arms that an individual citizen carries on their person, and at most controls with their person (such as a vehicle)
a nuke requires additional stuff like a missile silo or a bomber.
>>78084202
How is it retarded bait? There's a massive logical gap in the 2nd amendment that pro gun activists refuse to acknowledge
>>78084767
>Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. In his words, "....liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others....". You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.
Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.
Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent.
>>78084767
the definition of arms and what things people have a right to, they don't have a right to, context of arms = weapons of soldiers.
>>78084842
nope. you can carry one in a large briefcase, you nitwit.
>>78084619
Somebody tell the air force and navy, they're accidentally in possession of the country's nuclear arsenal.
>>78084462
so what the hell happened in 1905?
>>78084505
Arms is defined as "weapons and ammunition"
Tell me how a nuke isn't a weapon.
>>78084897
there is none, you just don't understand the definition of arms, well you do but you are anti gun.
>>78084842
That's not the definition of 'arms'. If you look at the dictionary definition, its just another word for weapon. In fact, its just an archaic term that means the same thing as weapon
>>78084219
yes you can you chink nigger bitch
>>78084545
Did you just claim that active-duty members of the USA's armed forces aren't soldiers?
>>78084505
Pic related. Sorry "hon," but you're resorted to calling logic a "meme." You're done now. Go to bed.
>>78085004
Do they have rights to fire or use them?
>>78077060
Nobody has ever tried really. SCOTUS might allow it.
>>78085110
Soldiers don't have nukes in their control, can a soldier have the right to fire a nuke?
>>78085052
>don't understand the definition of arms
YOUR definition. Fuck off, antigun shill. You people are the reason the 2nd Amendment is gutted today.
>>78085127
All military action can only be done with the approval of the government, so they only have the right to fire nukes, grenades, or even bullets, if the government says so.
>>78085326
kill yourself retarded leaf.
>>78077060
We have a supreme court that interprets the spirit of the law. It's not just about the printed text.
>>78085088
No you fucknig cunt you can just get a random bunch of niggers together and tell them to attack what you want, that's ISIS you fucking mudslime piece of gooks shit.
>>78077060
building a nuclear weapon is difficult. for starters, how is a private individual going to finance the uranium enrichment process?
This thread is bullshit bait and that "argument" has been spouted by leftards for years. But I actually don't give a fuck if citizens could own nuclear weapons. I mean, who in the world could afford one? A dozen person at most? And they would need a way to transport it on a target, ie an ICBM. Who the hell is going to bother owning such a thing anyway? There are no reasons to use one. As such there is no reason to ban the ownership of nukes, as no one would want to own those anyway.
>>78085387
Give up your citizenship and move to Bongistan if you hate freedom so much.
>>78084775
Conveniently ignoring the "Or whatever size a city block is"
I'd say any weapon that is capable of covering a city block's volume by itself is quite very much enough.
>Why should militaries be able to use them if they pose such a danger to unintended targets?
They shouldn't, and there are treaties ("laws", as far as they go for armies) against that.
Here's the clincher though, armies don't give a shit about laws. If you wanted to truly be on par with what the army can get away with (given enough political will), you'd have no laws - you'd be able to take anyone's property, rape, kill indiscriminately, because armies have done that and can do that regardless of any treaties.
There's treaties against nuclear proliferation, including against both of our countries, but other countries found loopholes. Whatever you do, it's going to be unlawful, violate some international treaty or another. That's not the point. If you're willing to step over all the laws just to get on the army's level, then you have stepped over all the levels. Heck, everyone else says making a nuke and owning it is technicallly legal - but let's be frank, there's a high likelihood the state's secret services will pick you up, lock you up and probably beat you to death.
That's not the point in any case. The point is that armies already "aren't" allowed to use indiscriminate bombing (some countries even signed treaties against cluster bombs, for example). That doesn't stop armies, because armies don't give a fuck in the first place. If you want to be on the army's level, you basically want anarchy, because that's the only way to get on the army's level legally.
>>78084941
The second amendment says nothing other than allowing people to bear arms, and that that right can't be infringed
>>78085110
>Shit, they realized that I have no evidence to support my bold claims
>Better resort to ad hominem attacks, that'll prove I'm "rational"
Lmao
>>78077060
That is a good question.
>>78085088
and no private army can use a fucking nuke or choose who they attack, blackwater is strickly for the US army and they can't just go out and attack who they want so fuck off
>>78085533
Forget about financing it, its illegal without government approval, which they won't give to a private individual
>>78085257
>have the right to fire a nuke?
The President of the United States of America is the active-duty, leader of the armed forces of the United States of America.
