The Second Amendment says I have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. So why can't I own a nuclear bomb?
>>67857520
Can you make one?
>>67857520
Good luck getting the materials.
>>67857520
I tend to say yes but might be cost prohibitive
must be some kind of expensive upkeep too
>>67857520
Because you have no money
>>67857520
Is it legal to own sarin and anthrax?
>>67857520
Read The Probability Broach, it's fun
>>67857520
I doubt you can get the materiel's, to make one but if you can, go for it.
The kids at school will surely stop picking on you and calling you "Peckerwood Petey"
>>67857520
you can buy one of these
more fun anyway
>>67857520
sure if you can get an army of scientists, engineers, geologists, etc to work for you
>>67857520
Maybe it says that you only can bear your own hands, in fact.
>>67857520
Because it's financially infeasible
But if you have the wherewithal to pull it off, go for it
>>67857927
No. Bear arms. The arms of a bear. Because bear arms are fucking awesome. How could anyone get confused by this?
>>67857520
You can own tanks and artillery if you have enough money
Guy in my town owns a private museum full of it and he drives his tanks on the weekend for fun
>>67857520
>>67857635
More importantly can you carry it? bear it?
>>67857520
>right to bear arms
tank top
You could technically own one right now if you bought an old soviet one.
The government will probably keep tabs on you though, owning a fucking nuclear warhead is probably enough to make you a suspected terrorist.
>>67857520
>So why can't I own a nuclear bomb?
To bear arms implies a weapon that can be that can be carried and brought to bear by an individual.
A pistol is covered by the second amendment
A rifle is covered by the second amendment
A rocket launcher... in some loose interpretations... is covered by the second amendment
A cannon is not.
An attack aircraft is not.
An intercontinental ballistic missile is not.
A nuclear bomb is not.
http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks
Buying a tank online is awesome.
USA USA USA
>>67857520
Hey retard, the founding fathers allowed trading ships to have cannons to fend off pirates.
A nuke will never be used in self defense, whereas a tank a gun and a cannon can.
>>67857520
You can, so long as you follow all the rules and regulations required to own such a device. Entire countries are not even allowed to just "have" them, you have to follow the rules.
>>67858757
>A nuke will never be used in self defense, whereas a tank a gun and a cannon can.
den why duz americuh have dem if ur duh gud guys lol
>>67858995
I expect better shitposters.
>>67859126
>A fucking leaf
I don't. It's not a classic aussie flag with classic aussie bantz.
Just a fucking leaf.
I'd expect better of you... but you know, common core.
>>67857520
You can't afford it you useless fucking neet.
>>67857520
You can own one. Good luck affording it though.
>>67858602
NOPE. Privateers owned armed galleys back when those were relevant. It's meant to cover just about anything that could be considered a weapon.
>>67858602
there is historical evidence of cannons you fucking retard
>>67858243
+1 for bearable arms.
>>67857520
Because you are a pussy.
If you have the money, manpower, facilities, equipment, and the political clout, sure.
Go ahead.
>>67857520
START 1 and 2. Treaties once ratified are effectively appended to the constitution.
>>67857753
Not based on current 2nd amendmant law. The don't fall into the class of arms in common use by the military.
>>67857866
I'd never find a holster for it.
>>67857635
Yes, I figured out how to make Plutonium about 10 years ago. Seems easy enough, so I'm not sure why people aren't using the method. Probably cause the gov thinks big and has nuclear power plants.
>>67858602
Tanks, cannons, artillery, fighter jets, and yummy Surface to Air missiles are all allowed.
I'd have a Javelin but Raytheon won't sell me one.
>>67857520
>The Second Amendment says I have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. So why can't I own a nuclear bomb?
The purpose of bearing arms is for the militia. The National Guard is the organized militia. That should be the marker of what the unorganized militia is supposed to be armed with. The National Guard does not have nuclear weapons, so there is no reason for any member of the unorganized militia, that is to say, the public, to think they have a right to own a nuke.
>>67857520
Cause your poor.
>>67863946
That's actually pretty close to how the Supreme Court ruled it here in the 1930's. We're only denied machine guns because the NFA registery for them was "closed" in 1984.
And I really have been trying to by a SAM for years, but the manufacturer's just refuse to sell to you.
>>67857520
>right to bear arms
>right to be able to blow up hundreds of thousands od people in an instant.
I'd like to have a nuke, but honestly the line needs to be drawn when it gets that dangerous.
