>get in an argument with an anti
>they bring up personal nukes, every god damn time.
Why is this? First I try to explain to them how hard it is to make a nuke and that anyone with the resources to make one could just get one illegally because it would require a fuck ton of resources to make a god damn nuke. When they fail to understand that I just say any weapon the government has should not be regulated for the people.
Other urls found in this thread:
ucsusa.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
You are using words where you should be using bullets. Don't bother arguing with an anti, just write down their name and remember to go after them after the SHTF.
It's the logical end to the supposition. And personally, I'm in favor.
Bring up the fact that several governments have nukes and they arent annihilating eachother
Have a little fun and bring up that trump has control of the most sophisticated and functionally powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet and everything is fine.
see where they draw the line for people they trust less than trump with nuclear bombs.
The right to KEEP and BEAR arms.
Keep means you don't have to store it in a government facility.
Bear means you can carry it upon your person.
I am no nuclear scientist, but I don't think we are yet able to honestly make a portable nuke, and dirty bombs don't count.
suitcase nukes exist.
Point out that nothing would happen if we legalized nukes tomorrow. Full legalization, can buy sell and make them without any license, approval, or even ID.
Literally nothing would happen because none of the places that can build one would sell, and none of the people who would want to use one could afford it.
>what is the Davy Crockett
It literally fit the role you're describing.
Yea, but I think people should be allowed to own tanks, warships and jets
You could legalize nukes tomorrow like said, but not only does the price come up into question, but manufacture is so fucking regulated you'd need billions to do such a thing.
They are allowed to own those though.
It's still like 50lbs for the bomb alone
Uranium is denser than lead, and any nuke needs a certain bare minimum amount to function, plus all the other components like the explosive lenses, electrical gubbins, etc.
I guess it still counts if the bar for bearing arms is being able to lift them?
Very common and seemingly pervasive argument. Typically that's trailer trash tier women saying that because their boyfriend billy bob runs into the kitchen and grabs a knife or goes ape shit and rips out her plumbing so she thinks, what if this convicted felon borrowed a gun from someone? So instead of him damaging her house or threatening her with a knife they equate it with a bigger more dangerous weapon. It's not about that weapon, if they wanted to argue about nukes they'd just say ban it. Arguing that guns are anything like nukes is stupid and you're a stupider asshole for playing into that argument.
>The second amendment exists to give citizens a fighting chance against the government if shit goes south, nukes are not a necessary part of that because no government on Earth, even the most cartoonishly evil, would use nukes against their own fucking soil you absolute fucking moron.
Not with any real amount of firepower.
You cant own a 105mm L/52 M68
You cant own a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun
you cant own a JDAM
the vehicle yes but the armaments it has?
lmao no
Honestly that argument about nukes .vs guns. The people that come up with that argument, are the kind of people that serve as your waitress, they don't want to serve you food. She tells you she needs the tip to get buy even though legally her employer pocketing thousands and thousands of dollars is suppose to make up for what she doesn't get in tips if she doesn't get them. Is she going to spit in your food, serve it 30-60 minutes late, or just be a cunty person to you if you don't tip even though she's getting paid per hour and the boss will make up the difference if she doesn't get tipped? Is that the kind of person you want deciding whether you can have anything at all?
If you say no nukes they will say then you have a limit and why is your limit on nukes different than my limit on all repeating arms
Oh Yee of little fate.
Of course we made a portable nuke.
No that person is a retard and shouldn't vote or do anything besides hand over plates of food.
I'm not sure what foresight you have about my future, but I am completely unaware of any nuclear device that is able to be carried on a person. Unless all you fuckers are telling me your built like the fucking Rock or some shit. And again, the suitcase nuke is a dirty bomb, not a nuclear bomb.
Oh fuck off I do kitchen work all the time. Those fucking waitresses are sharing the tips with the staff they suck off in the alley by the dumpster and telling the boss "woops didn't make that much, you have to cover it" and they're not reporting it to the IRS so they can go buy some heroin.
>right to bear arms
>arms meaning firearms
>nuclear weapons aren’t firearms
>neither are bazookas
>neither are grenades
>neither are missles
>neither are RPGs
Because they are brain dead commies that gobble up the mainstream news despite claiming to be "rebels".
Do ya'll niggers even understand MAD? The chances of a first strike goes up exponentially the more nuclear armed groups there are.
The only limit to making a portable nuke is the fact that Uranium is extremely heavy, but it also carries a lot of energy in a tiny package. With the right amount of the right isotope I can see someone making a mini-nuke that could be pulled in a cart behind a donkey.
What happened to Ghaddafi when he gave up his nuke?
>we're going to assume governments are evil but not that evil
Gaddafi never had nukes, but I don't understand what you're trying to say
Brain dead commies are supporting billy bob too so billy bob doesn't put holes into their walls. They don't like violence because billy bob. They call someone that can use violence like billy bob so billy bob stops doing what billy bob does. In their mind violence is what billy bob does. Not the violence people need to stop billy bob. It's a tragedy when little ol' billy bob gets hurt, who else is going to give them meth and herpes?
Couldn't I, theoretically, apply for a tax stamp for each armament?
Yes you could, if you owned them.
>the vehicle yes but the armaments it has?
Depending on the cannon and if you have a machine shop, you actually could reactivate the gun.
Your friend is right. Practical and moral are two different things. Even if it costs a billion dollars it doesn't matter.
Also, no. Nuclear programs are expensive. Nuclear weapons themselves are less so. The illegality of it prevents any large scale commercial production to individuals, but if it were it would be surprisingly cheap. Estimates for the W76 warhead is 2 million which would be within reach of many Americans and organizations.
ucsusa.org
You'd need a federal license. Also you'd have to get it after it was scrapped or auctioned off. Modern weapon system sales require congressional approval.
None of those things you listed should be regulated though, faggot
>With the right amount of the right isotope
There are only 2 isotopes found in any concentration and of the 6 that exist only like 3 are actually fissile
Now how exactly do you prove this?
Theoretical imagination land thought up by a bunch of communist niggers doesn't constitute objective fact. Last time I checked, a nuke has yet to be used since the US burnt Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Arms meaning weapons you fucking troglodyte.
Game theory? Or even just statistics. It assumes nuclear countries are rational agents trying to preserve themselves. The basic premise of MAD is that no rational agent would strike first for fear of massive retaliation, thus ensuring peace. BUT for this to work, there has to be a few rules all players abide by
1) A nuclear first strike must be met with retaliation
2) Retaliation has to be sufficiently massive to be unacceptable, which McNamara and the DOD guessed as 25%-50% of the target population.
BUT neither of these are certain or absolute. If all parties cannot fulfill these requirements, it would become logical for one agent to strike first. And the more players you get, the more the parties varies from these rules. For example, North Korea cannot destroy 25% of the US population, but they might not even care about the deaths from retaliation. This injects uncertainty into the situation, which destablisies the MAD balance of the world.
In an individual nuke concept, neither of these conditions exist. If an individual uses a nuke, it would be stupid to use a nuke against the individual. And the individual likely doesn't care about the population deaths since he just detonated a nuke.
We're still here because thus far MAD has held.
Honestly, if nuclear weapons and all the precursors and technology were legal to own and produce, pretty much anyone who wanted to own one badly enough would manage it. Cost would range from a decent car to a nice house in a nice neighborhood.
And that's not accounting for free-market and hobbyist innovation. This isn't the 1940s anymore. We've had all sorts of advances in chemistry and physics since then. Governments aren't using anything close to the most efficient possible methods. They don't want to develop efficient methods, since that would promote proliferation.
>the boss will make up the difference
lol no they won't
In their mind, governments are benevolent an infallible entities worthy of surrendering their rights to in return for a promise that they will be protected and cared for.
>implying I shoudn't be able to buy a goddamn nuke if I can afford it
Right, so like I said, you only have theoretical logic games. Armchair critical thinking that doesn't translate into the real world is more or less pointless. You are wrong in assuming that a nuclear capable state or group is so incredibly likely to be irrational. It is as if nuclear weapons require a ricidulous amount of resources and understanding to produce and maintain.... thus, assuming irrational states or non-state actors have the know-how or the resources to aquire nuclear wweapons is a little bit presumptive.
Uranium is shit for nukes. Plutonium is the way to go, which is why it's way WAY more tightly regulated by everyone.
However, you make plutonium by bombarding uranium, so it's a start.
With plutonium, you could easily make a sub 30-lb bomb with no reflectors and no primary explosives needed. Could seriously boost the output with tritium, reflectors, and/or shaped charges.
You're wrong that it's a theoretical game. MAD is tested every second multiple hostile nuclear states exist. In fact, the only part of MAD not tested is it's failure.
The likelihood of wealthy, irrational people is irrelevant. It just takes one to destablise MAD. And there are currently so many actors who would have the wealth to buy nukes if they were commercially produced, using the 2 million per warhead estimate earlier in this thread, and insane by our standards. Al Qaeda, ISIS, NK, to name a few. Saddam certainly could've.
Why would you argue such a ridiculous hypothetical? What firearm was ever invented that could kill over one hundred thousand people in the blink of an eye?
Why is the number of people killed relevant? Hundreds of thousands would die in an uprising anyway.
If your lucky we will never learn otherwise
>any nuclear device that is able to be carried on a person.
>Oh Yee of little fate.
I am sorry to be the baron of bad news, but you seem buttered, so allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment.
arms means arms
not firearms or nuclear arms or any other arms.
right to bear arms, all arms.
If they meant firearms they would have said it, they weren't fucking retarded.
>carrying a crew-serviced weapon
what kind of comic-book shenanigans is this
The absolute manlet
>the right to keep and bear armaments
>except for these dangerous ones
ok retard
>ywn carry a dead man's switch-equipped nuclear device around so that anyone who violates the NAP gets fucked
Feels bad.
this but unironically
>ywn be a Mad Monk from Wasteland 2
>ywn guide survivalists through a rotting hellhole mountain range
>ywn enforce the NAP between bandits and honest travellers through threat of nuclear bearhugs
>gun control threads belong on Jow Forums
how many times?
Nukes are not like any other weapon.
Fuck I wanted more Jericho. It was garbage, but I wanted it nonetheless.
Bring up the distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate means. Or disregard them for being a fucking retard and move on with your life.
>what is a truck
How portable are we talking? Hand grenade or suitcase?
nuclear weapons would be effectively illegal because of environmental hazard laws. and because no one would help you get one.
>they bring up personal nukes, every god damn time.
Just say yes. Double down and amplify.
Dude just tell him that if it becomes a problem, you can get a constitutional amendment to take care of it.
Until then, nukes are legal.
Nukes and small arms are not comprable in destructive power. Civilian nukes would be an existential threat to our country unlike guns. One mad man with a nuke could decimate a major city. One mad man with guns can commit a mass shooting and mass shootings are not an existential threat to the coutry. Grabbers will find this cold, but in terms of death stats or even gun death stats, mass shootings are nothing.
How about medieval siege weapons? In the uk, you can own smoothebore cannons with just a shotgun licence. Trebuchets dont need a lisense at all.
Nukes are bombs and bombs aren't legal to own or make. Nuf said.
i will pay the man who kills someone else with a trebuchet 100 billion internet points. it shows dedication and craftmanschip
>advocating violence on a Mongolian throat singing forum
negro negroidal units need to read snow crash
Yes, and..?
But semi autos and smokeless powder isn’t easy to make, most criminals and edge lords don’t have the money, skills and patience to make such things, that’s why most of them are criminals in the first place! The ones that do have such things will sell the guns for a very high price due to lack of economics of scale, and supply and demand. Might as well leave the Mexico boarder wall wide open because “hur hur visa overstays, snaking in though trucks, and home made submarines and air vehicles.” The point is to make less edge lords and gangsters be able to afford non shitty black market, just like the boarder wall is the country to get less illegals. Yeah a rich edge lord might find the right weed guy that also sells home made AR 15s and cartridges, but you can’t expect the average high schooler to become an mechanical and chemical engineer then shoot up the school, or buy a $10,000+ balck market AR 15.
Some typos at the mid-end ops.
Becuase you're comparing one singular firearm with one singular bomb that can wipe out a whole city in the blink of an eye. The atomic bomb made the possibility of unequivocal annihilation of mankind, by its own hands, a reality. No other weapon on Earth can replicate the magnitude of its devastation. To compare guns, which have been around for hundreds of years, to nuclear weapons is just grasping for straws. It doesn't matter that guns have killed more people than nuclear weapons; the difference in potential destruction means guns can never match nukes.
Nukes are ammunition. Not arms. Next argument please.
There are very good arguments for banning privately owned nuclear weapons, but they do not apply to guns. Guns are necessary to self defense and do not, in their ordinary use, harm innocent people. The same cannot be said of nuclear weapons.
Never heard of this as a set logistical theory but very cool.
>SHALL
>Has no actual opinion so just memes
You understand no one respects you, right?
I hate to erupt your undergarments but rudimentary exosuits are already produced. The nightmare is now if god's land promise wants to scoot one into whichever of its neighbors it's sick of.
ARMS means WEAPONS
congratulations, least intelligent post of 2018
>implying a fuckton of mongolian throat singing isn't about violence
>implying
Every household in America should have anti-armor and anti-air weaponry.
Wow you are dumb. You are REAL dumb.
You could literally carry two or three of these in your backpack: en.wikipedia.org
They don't even let most countries have nukes. Their argument is fucking retarded, because they're arguing for more control, not less. If guns were regulated like nukes, probably less than 300 people in the whole nation would have access to their use.
Luckily, something like 30 million people have guns here, and obviously there's been no holocaust for the past half century on this continent.
The 2A extended to cannons and warships when it was written so it would also apply to what you listed, nukes are debatable
Bombs are not guns, a bullet has your name on it, a bomb is sent to who it may concern. also they are DD's and subject to the atf bullshit.
the plane faggots wont let flying civilian guns
Also, a north korea type shit teir sub nagasaki power nuke is honestly not that hard to make provided you can get ahold of a primary, The nuclear program was expensive because we were doing new theoretical and practical science, now we know the science and its taught in high schools. It its not that difficult or expensive, just extremely tightly restricted resources with a lot of DOE bullshit. Furthermore plutonium can be only obtained from breeder reactors and if you have one of those laying around well, its a yellow cake-walk.
Well thats not true at all you silly billy, fireworks, firecrackers,glocks, tannerite.
DD's
Bait, or sheer ignorance?
Either way, here’s your (you).
I always tell them I'm all for people having personal nukes, then I go a step further and say they should legalize chemical and biological weapons too
When they scoff and start retorting I say "shall not be infringed", then they go into hyper autist mode and I say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" even louder, repeating it every time they open their flapjaw mouth
I don't even give a fuck if they think I'm insane anymore, my rights are granted by God and my forefathers, not some two bit backstabbing liberal trash, and they aren't some privilege to be regulated, desecrated, registered, monitored and filed away based on some imbeciles emotions to events that don't effect them at all
>The chances of a first strike goes up exponentially the more nuclear armed groups there are.
How would we know the "chances" if it has literally never happened? At that point it's just science fiction.
>Bear means you can carry it upon your person.
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a month. Thanks.
And no, private citizens literally owned battleships and were robbing other nations with them back when Jefferson was president. You can't exactly carry a battleship on you.
>shit teir sub nagasaki power nuke is honestly not that hard to make provided you can get ahold of a primary
It is hard to make.