Does the 2nd amendment give me the right to own a nuke?

No
Nuke tech is a born secret, even if you piece it together from wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc.

Attached: mrpepe.jpg (631x355, 37K)

Funnily enough this is more apt than you think
You don't need rights to own Nukes, Nukes are the guns of nations.

what about a fallout nuclear grenade launcher?

I’m not actually sure on what the laws are. Can somebody genuinely explain.

Nukes aren't even weapons, they're strategic land-denial devices.

That said, probably. The world would unironically be safer if anyone with the money to do so could purchase nuclear weapons.

>Terror groups in the ME pool their resources
>Purchase nukes
>Hamas nukes Israel
I actually can't find fault in your statement.

USA lost count of their number of laws somewhere in the 90s

grenades are not legal

tanks are not legal

second amendment is vague bullshit that frightened betas cling to so they can hide behind guns, a coward's weapon

One cannot bear a nuke. Besides your a monkey nigger.

Technically it should, but... I can see the benefit of not letting that one go through.

Nukes and related explosives are not arms, they are ordnance. You cannot “bear” ordnance.

You don't have a second amendment. If you did your country wouldn't be a shithole.

Attached: DSCN6657.jpg (3264x2448, 1.73M)

I unironically think it should if it doesn't. However good luck finding a way to import the materials.

Uranium is mined in the USA. Just sneak into a mine or something

What about a gun that shoots asteroids that have the force of one gorillion sun's exploding into black holes which stuck up everything including your tiny little penis.

Big medic tried this in international waters... Look what happened to him.

Fallout's Fat Man was based off of the Davy Crockett.

Attached: 800px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg (800x1067, 163K)

why would anyone respond to this thread

Sure, except the radiation would violate the nap of half the people in the state.

dumb dumb that is why others also have nukes and send them back if they get radiation on them

Because we're concerned citizens. Who is your supplier?

*unsheathes katana*

Sage

>grenades are not legal
>tanks are not legal
Both of them are legal, kike. They're just expensive. Same with nukes. Anyone with enough money to buy one can get one. The (((International Community))) will kvetch and try to bribe or threaten you into getting rid of it, but they can't stop you with "muh laws."

Tanks and grenades are legal you idiot.

Technically yes.
This is an area where you will want to adhere to every last detail of the safety regulations in place. This is also why the DoE hands out Q clearances to teenagers and postdocs like candy.

Yes.
It's expensive and practically impossible for an individual to possess or deploy a nuke. Only a government, backed by a coercive taxation system, is able to liquidate millions of people via nuclear warfare.

technically you do own the nukes

your tax dollars subsidize the mining and purification of the uranium

your tax dollars pay for the delivery systems and housing

your tax dollars pay for the personnel to fire them

your tax dollars pay the man to order their usage

they are your nukes, you just share them equally with everyone who pays for them too

The Nuclear material used is considered an energy source controlled by the DOE its not a weapon.

what about 40 megawatt plasma rifles?

>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.
Where does it specify firearms?

The second amendment does not mention firearms. It mentions ARMS. As in ARMAMENTS. A bomb is a form of ARMAMENT.

Well the founding fathers probably weren't talking about nukes

Yes it indeed does it also gives you the right to build or hire an army to do your bidding.

No, it is a weapon of mass destruction, not for private ownership.

No and the NAP doesn't either

International law gets in the way along the process, doesn't it? I don't think it is as entirely personal of a matter as just buying a gun, grenade, tank etc.

Does the first amendment protect violent speech?

Does the 2nd amendment do? :^)

No?

Well no, as long as we're being autistic about it, a bomb is a form of ORDINANCE.
There is a subtle difference between armaments and ordinance, for the explicit purpose of keeping bombs out of the hands of citizens.

My cock is a wmd.

That's some postal 2 level shit right there

Right, they were talking about whatever weapons are available at the time, which is why they used a broad term like "arms".

Dune coons are under three inches there buddy. Womp womp.

>as long as I don't violate the NAP of my neighbors.
can you not read?

You can 100% own a nuke if you can deal with all the regulations and asterisks attached that make manufacture, transport, upkeep, and use a pain in the ass.

Yes 100%. Any restriction on any arm whatsoever is tyranny and a violation of the 2nd amendment.

www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2#currency=USD

Which tank would you buy, Jow Forums?

It should.

Yes. But you need the money and you need to find someone willing to sell it to you.

Tanks and grenades are legal, you must simply have authorization for every explosive device. And one for the intact firing mechanism of the tank. These are informally known as tax stamps and cost 200 dollars in addition to the actual cost of the explosive/device. So every shell, every grenade, every mortar Shell, every rpg, and supposedly every nuclear device has to be declared and a stamp obtained for them.
I don't think a singular citizen has ever applied for a nuke but I'm pretty sure a city in Maryland or somewhere around there has a nuke sitting around.

(((explicit purpose)))
thats funny, I missed the part where they banned bombs when they founded america and banned citizens from owning cannons, a weapon that can destroy a castle wall.

it gives you the right to nothing, since you are not American, but a degenerate cannibal monkey

Attached: brazil.jpg (475x958, 60K)

Is it an arm? Yes, it is.

>international law
doesn't apply to us

no law to stop you

You can own one. You just can't buy, sell, trade, manufacture, or steal one. Same goes for the parts necessary to build one.

>t.faggot.

Of course, they specifically only thought people should be able to own man'o'wars, cannons, Gatling guns and muskets. But definitely not ar15s or grenades.

fpbp

I just want bazookas, flamethrowers and granades. It would be fun to blow up shit.

Also, considering that D.C. vs. Heller expanded on the 2nd, mainly stating that it referred to firearms and their use for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense, you can't really defend yourself with a nuclear device or similar weapons of mass destruction.

>I have aids
the first step is admitting it mudslim.

There's a difference between small arms and tactical nuclear weapons. Not sure if you knew that.

Yes but not the consequences of that speech. Threatening someone is an impedement of their right to life and happiness. However saying nigger, while offensive to many people, does not impede anyone's right to anything, thus is allowed under first amendment

The second amendment actually protects the right of Americans to any kind of physical material or software, because anything can be a weapon if you use it right. The drug war is preposterous from this perspective, as a brick of cocaine can be a valid tool of self defense.

He's wrong, regardless. Explosives, like grenades, that are considered ordinance are still legal with your tax stamp. Same with "munitions." It's all legalese bullshit for various conventions.

Yes, the 2nd protects artillery, cannons, and warships in private hands, just like it did when it was written. The jews keep stealing power illegally, and no one has yet been willing to take it back.

You're welcome, faggot.

FPBP /THREAD

Ordinance is a type of armament. Technically ammunition of any type is ordinance, while the tool used to aim or initiate the propulsion is an armament. But ordinance is included in the definition of armaments.

It would be a poorly regulated Militia if they all had nukes, just as it would be poorly regulated if they only had Muskets. A well regulated Militia would be akin to a infantry unit with rifles, sidearms, grenades, explosives, rpgs, those would be the minimum a Militia would need to resist a modern invasion force.

depends on the threat. if I lived on Guam and the norks presented an imminent threat to the island, nuking them would be in defense of myself and others.

thankyou sir.

Attached: 925.jpg (680x383, 37K)

you in Alaska?

>it's a bomb
Also missile, artillery shell, rocket

the word "small" appears nowhere in the 2nd amendment

the 2nd amendment doesn't require you to be in a militia for your right to be protected.

if you turn brazil ancap, be my guest

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It makes it illegal for our governments to infringe on them. Read the bill of rights again.

Attached: .jpg (960x720, 73K)

The founding fathers were smart guys.

>Does the 2nd amendment give me the right to own a nuke?
You bet your sweet ass.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defense anywhere in the text, nor the requirement of militia membership to enjoy the right. The Militia is their justification for the right to bear arms. It does say regulated in the text though.

All creatures want to ensure their own survival. Look here for reference bong.

In the US every able-bodied man is legally part of the militia. It's still in the US code. The word "regulated" doesn't have "government" in front of it. The entire point was so the people can abolish the government when it becomes tyrannical. They just had a revolution themselves.