Should recreational nukes be legalized?

should recreational nukes be legalized?

Attached: homer2.gif (360x270, 200K)

I mean seriously what's the largest I could even make? It could be fun, it'd unironically be useful too. Big oil companies could absolutely use them.

>I'm a pacifist genderfluid pansexual left-libertarian!
>recreational nukes should be legalized because owning a nuke is a victimless crime, and possession and use of a nuclear weapon does not automatically mean a violation of the NAP!
>S H A L L

Attached: 1557746004953.jpg (665x800, 157K)

I'd keep nukes banned.

Sure. Because nukes are a pointless weapon that will never actually be used again. If anyone ever fired one, they'd be immediately, and completely BTFO by every nation on the planet.

t. not developing your own nuclear weapons in the shed behind your parents house like a good boyscout.

I always compared the initial anxiety slowly transitioning into normalization and comfort towards an activity or situation, to diving into water. First there's the shock of the water temperature, the muffling of one's hearing, and the blurring of the vision. Then, tolerance quickly builds, and it becomes part of the casual day. I hope to see this with mushroom clouds from nuclear detonations in the California sun.

It's basic, so I didn't describe it as a personified phenomenon receiving abuse violently like torn-sheet nurse rape, going back to Californian targeted individual programs where high-risk individuals are selected to be confined to 5150 facilities and be subjected to highly psychologically damaging positive loops and constant verbal-mental assault chains on ticks, involuntary phrases, and highly personal flaws and embarrassing phrases which will lead to suicidal thoughts.

Beginning? They get male nurses to rape you in front of your family members whom they impersonate and use false people you've created, along with video game characters and other people you're hoping won't show up behind your door when you close it as the mind's way of mocking you. The ridiculousness you're going to scoff at this post for, is the exact reason they do it to people like me.

I was EEG heterodyne raped by 7hz alpha wave TCDC after a 6' 5'' male nurse raped me anally, and the hospital staff and synthetic family/videogamecrushes/personalities were telling me he was straight, and that I would die miserably because of femboys and their emotional, TEARFUL post-wedding speeches about onions in their anuses using color palettes I'd generated for the aesthetics my most famous thoughts and dreams, USING the internal voice (voice of god weapon) I had been running through my head.

Avoid googling the wrong shit like the EASTWIND weapon they were testing in California to generate earthquakes, it will save you a lot of trouble and irreversible damage.

Attached: Det. Films Test.webm (854x480, 454K)

When we colonize space yeah

if some idiot used their nuke all of their neighbors would nuke them so it wouldn't be a problem

>he doesn't want a nuke

Yes. Please stop making this thread.

Oh goodness no, far too dangerous.
Recreational artillery and mortars on the other hand, absolutely.

Attached: 220px-155fire.jpg (220x147, 7K)

Yes, I should be allowed to have one as a last ditch fuck you to a home invader when I'm out. Like, they've made it in, my things are already being stolen, but they didn't account for me hooking a detonator to a pressure plate under my TV that'll trigger the nuke I have stored under the floorboards. Granted that owning such a deterrent may lower property value for a few dozen surrounding miles, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Imagine being at work and seeing a blinding flash followed by a mushroom cloud on the horizon. Ha, take that! Not today, Jamal.

Yeah

Sure as long as your usage does not harm another's individual right and freedoms.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Attached: E0666D43-365C-4739-9F2F-D96F958119B9.jpg (1536x2048, 461K)

There’s a difference between ordnance and arms. I think your idea falls into the former.

Bring back atomic fraccing

I've got to imagine that anyone with the money to purchase or develop nuclear ordinance also has enough money so as not to be held to the same legal standards as the rest of us. The law is not the biggest obstacle on the path to personal nuclear weapons.

>Recreational nuke
Literally laughing out loud at that wording.

Sneed.

Fucking nuke-grabblers!

Get out now

Poltards exposing themselves as anti 2a yet again