If the purpose of the second amendment is to e sure that private citizens can fight their governments should they become tyrannical then why shouldn’t civilians be allowed to have nukes?
checkmate
Why not nukes?
Hudson Baker
Asher Clark
>he doesn't already CC a recreational nuke
LMFAO get a load of this fag
Carter Smith
Civilians should be allowed to have nukes, you fucking idiot. Our rights don't change because technology does. Should civilians not be allowed on national television or to be popular on Twitter? Because that's the first amendment nuke.
Mason Moore
Individuals should attempt to acquire nukes if it is possible for them, but anyone who still lives according the the law of a government has no hope of attaining any amount of independance anyway. l
Jordan Lee
>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 unless the weapons are really scary to middle aged women or they are nukes
Oh wait nvm
Liam Reyes
Reminder that they majority of cannons used for the war of independence were owned by civilians.
Luke Reyes
You wouldn’t be able to afford a nuke user
Blake Davis
>cant afford it
Reminder that many of the cannons used by the colonials were actually captured from the British.
just saying.
Jayden Russell
Fuck off Crowder and have some kids already, go and promote your shity hand etched cups some more.
Austin Wood
I’m guessing capturing a nuclear weapon is a lot harder than getting a cannon
Austin Rodriguez
You are violently retarded
Aaron Allen
1. Legally? Yes it should be allowed
2. They are just cost prohibitive, 20-30 mil a pop.
I had a third point but running on 18 ish hours no sleep.
Hunter Torres
all you need is the right group of people with the proper motivation
Aiden Moore
>didn't get his nuclear destructive device stamp from the BATFE
Pleb
Bentley Bennett
but if you have a nuke you can't use it because of international law
Dylan Green
International laws are more like guidelines
Henry Jones
when it becomes time for civilians to use nukes. international law wont matter
Nicholas Nguyen
According to I international law (UN law really) no civilian is supposed to have arms of any kind.
Because most the UN is imperialist tyrants.
Samuel Ross
isnt there a thing like collateral damage? why should the state nuke themself? i mean nobody in a civil war is that retarded to destroy the thing they want.
Brandon Cook
If nukes were cheap enough to make that the average person could afford one, then no law banning them would actually be effective in stopping nutcases & terrorists from acquiring them. Right now "nuke control" only works because enriching uranium or creating plutonium takes nation-state level resources.
Nathaniel Lopez
Don't see a law where they say you can't.
Hudson Martinez
Just nuke the International Law Enforcement.
Problem solved.
William Martinez
Sure. But you can't have the fissile material without extensive permitting. For any purpose. You can't print news papers or paint boxes with arsenic green ink.
Neither are violations of the bill of rights. They are broad restrictions on the proximity of materials to people.
Consider the difference between banning lead bullets and banning lead in all consumer goods from gym weights to car batteries.
The first is a violation because it is targeted and unequally applies to weapons while leaving other uses free.
John Foster
OP
I'll bite
Nuclear weapons cause massive casualties, polute the airs and waters and soil.
so you are defending your home with your nuke and you use it and you end up
killing your neighbor and well everyone withing 100 miles of you while you were
defending yourself from a home invasion.
If you use a machine gun, or an rpg, or a cannon against a target you can hit what you are aiming at without killing everyone
in your state and the state next to your state. So intent comes into this..........
intent.
The intent of a nuke is to blast massive populations of people without selection.
A machine gun, RPG, cannon..even a grenade are very selective weapons.
One could argue that an nuke is selective...just on a larger scale. Yes they are selective..selective if you want to kill a 20 million people in one
go.
Nukes should be legal and we need ranges that we can be safe while practicing our concealed carry nuke drills.
Me: turn the key!!!
mafriendGnome: I will not turn the key, this has to be a drill!
Me: Turn the key god damn it so help me god
mafriendGnome: l-l-lets call HQ
ME: click* turn the key captain
Hudson Rogers
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Lincoln Sullivan
If I point my gun at you I'm committing a legally and morally wrongful act, brandishing.
If I have a bomb, I have a weapon pointing at you in every direction. If it's larger than my property, I am by definition violating yours.
Like leaving a gun in my window pointed at your yard, I'm forcing you to come into my line of fire to use your own property.
Charles Walker
Beny, i have a plan
Julian Ross
>private nukes
Yeah I fully don't give a fuck if some rand-o tries to own his own nukes. The thing is is that it's completely impractical. No one's going to just sell you your own personal Davy Crockett like launcher. So you're stuck fabricating your own. And making your own nuke from scratch is not just really risky, but also incredibly expensive. In the former case we have an example of some kid that tried to make is own nuclear reactor for experimentation. He used social engineering to buy up old smoke detectors to extract their radioactive elements so he could start enriching the material. But being just a 14 year old kid he wasn't able to shield it worth a damn and he managed to dose his entire neighborhood with radiation.
But all that said, no one really needs to taste money and time putting together your own recreational nukes when you can get thermometric rocket launchers. They're pretty damn closes in destructive power and you don't have to worry about pesky radiation contamination.
Jaxon Sanders
SHALL NOT