"Assault rifles are protected under the second ammendment??"

"What about nukes? You think we should all have our own nukes too?"

how does Sup Forums answer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dwRt74nzRmY
huffingtonpost.com/cary-a-presant-md/medical-errors-are-the-th_b_11117808.html
youtube.com/watch?v=REGeDjuADXI
youtube.com/watch?v=caY5dKU65lo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

A nuclear bomb is not a fire arm

the second ammendment just says "arms," not "firearms"

bump

Arms =/= wmds

People lose their minds over the idea of private ownership of nukes but you have to remember that at the time of writing the 2nd amendment the most powerful weapons of the time were actual warships. The US government didn't even own any war ships, they contracted private owners to sail and fight for the navy, hence privateers. So the equivalent to a destroyer or aircraft carrier of modern times was privately owned by people and that was a normal thing.


You also have to consider the logistics involved in owning and maintaining nukes. If you have the capital to transport, contain, maintain, operate satellites, hire staff, and conduct targeting and do damage assessment you probably already have the equivalent money/power that any small country has.

...

Fuck yeah

Fucking hell.

It's easy idiot.

Who would even sell a nuke, knowing it could be used in their area?

that's not the point

sauce

yes

learn how to image search

SHALL

Why super cerial

Yes and it is legal to own a nuke as long as you follow regulations

Guns were the nuke of time when the constitution was written

LEGALIZE FAMILY ATOMICS
MUADIB! MUADIB! MUADIB!

and arms =/= guns

The founding fathers clearly meant we had the right to bear fists against one another, not shoot each other.

its a free country faggot, shitpost accordingly youtube.com/watch?v=dwRt74nzRmY

Yes, you dumb shit. If an individual has the knowledge, money, and experience to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, then they are just as qualified as the government you claim is full of corrupt corporate patsies. What is it, champ? Is the state evil and incompetent, or is it our caregiver that needs to ban dangerous things from the playpen? Is Trump an evil racist madman who isn't qualified to be president, or is he the only man who should have access to nuclear fire?

"A nation by the people,of the people, and for the people" nothing in there about standing armies w/nukes, just the PPL

i unironically believe that people should have nukes.

From a common law perspective
I e the most basic law you can possibly have at a fundemental level at which western society bases its laws on.

Nukes have too much "ambient risk" to be allowed at the hands of anybody. Same with most explosives.

yeah man recreational nukes are the best

NOT

Sure.

Cassius Clay had cannons.

$4 per bullet.

>ywn afford a decent caliber.

yes

so pic related should've been allowed to own a nuke? assuming he had the knowledge, money and experience etc. etc....

and assault rifles don't? who defines ambient risk?

Point out that the founding fathers owned cannonballs, military grade muskets, and naval ships.

nigga who the fuck comps nukes?

Private companies already have in their possession nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, who do you think builds them for the government?
Nukes have been successfully used privately to cap deep sea oil wells,

it's been stated multiple times already

a war ship, especially a colonial one, wasn't capable of a fraction of the damage of a nuclear weapon

Paddock couldn't own a proper nuke since he didn't have the money in the slightest. An ICBM costs hundreds of millions of dollars for the missile alone, let alone guidance systems. If you mean some regular old piece of shit backyard nuclear device made by braindead terrorists, he probably could have already acquired one of he wanted to.

So what I am saying is yes, Paddock should have been allowed to own nukes, but he never would have because he simply couldn't afford one, or at least a good one. This is the same as asking whether or not people should be allowed to own their own aircraft carriers or battleships. Same insane cost, same insane running costs and knowledge required to actually make one of the damn things function, but because nukes seem "manageable" thanks to pop culture, you put more weight and possibility on them like the braindead cockroach you are.

The only people who are rich enough to own nukes aren't crazy enough to actually use them.

The only people who are rich and crazy enough to both buy and use nukes are governments.

All I'm saying is, if everyone on the block had their own nuke, I'm pretty sure that area would be crime free since it only takes one dude to get pissed to end it all.

Not even Iran with a government budget can afford nukes.

And even if an individual does have a nuke, do you think he or she cares if it is legal or not?


Nuke legality is moot.

...

1.) An actual "assault rifle" would be select-fire, meaning it's capable of full-auto or burst. What the media labels "assault rifles" are ergonomic tactical rifles that are incapable of taking military full-auto parts. Oftentimes they have the same capabilities of other sporting rifles but the platform plus muh scary plastic make them salt riffles.
2.) People could own fucking cannons in the past and order machineguns by mail before the 1932 NFA - even today it's possible to obtain an RPG or other explosive ordinance by permit (there's a ranch in Texas where you can shoot a tank)

This, plus civilian militias were necessary since the founding fathers though that large standing militaries could be used for tyranny

tl;dr the muh salt riffle leftists who say Amendment II doesn't apply to semi-autos would have been saying "muskets are military weapons, civvies should only have bows" when the Amendment was written. /thread

But let one Jew in a nation and its ten times worse than a czar bomb.

Moron. Read this _very_ carefully.

The answer is yes, in fact that is the concept behind mutually assured destruction. In fact, if our government hadn't been infiltrated and subverted, we'd have a healthy and responsible populace instead of hordes of foreigners and violent apes.

Get bent fag

Interestingly enough, "arms" is actually a term commonly used throughout history to refer to individual weapons carried by men, such as pistols, rifles, knives, swords, spears, etc... Meanwhile, every age has used distinctive terms to distinguish crew served weapons, like cannon, mortars, siege engines, from common "arms".

So when you look at the "right to bear arms", it means the right to own and carry individual weapons, but NOT crew served weapons, like cannon, or even todays belt-fed machine guns, as they are considered crew-served weapons. Nukes are certainly NOT individual weapons, and their ownership and use should be reserved for the state, and not the individual.

Nigger

This nigger is correct.

I think that it's fine for me personally to own nuclear weapons.

And in response they'd say, it'd take one dude to get drunk and/or suicidal to set shit off.

What then?

delete this map, it doesn't fit the liberal narrative and is therefore racist

seems like a good way to ensure a nuclear apocalypse. you can't honestly believe this

you're missing the point

nigger

ok, will you answer the question in the op now? moron?

Yea is this your first day on Sup Forums? The 2nd Amd. explicitly allows Recreational McNukes

this is a legitimately convincing argument but I would like a source if you have one

Why would someone with control of a nuke become more responsible with it solely because they're part of the government?

You fucking retard, we already have a good possibility of a nuclear apocalypse because various states have access to nuclear weapons. What would a couple of monstrously rich people (WHO ALREADY CONTROL THE STATE BY PROXY) having access to nukes change? Use your tiny fucking Yankee brain for half a fucking second. What difference does a layer of obfuscation to a reality make? If you wear glasses, does it mean that you're not actually seeing what you look at?

>assault rifle
Who has the authority to define what an "assault rifle" is? By all logic any rifle used for an assault is an assault rifle by all means of logical conclusion. Even a hunting rifle can fit that definition if it used to assault somebody.

Take the definition of the two words, put them together and there is your answer to your question.

Why get drunk or suicidal when there is no crime? The only time when someone gets shit faced to that point or suicidal is when they have nothing to lose, because everything was already taken away from them by a criminal.

Daily reminder the most dangerous thing the average American can do is visit their local physician. Thanks to cronyism, junk science and the protection of incompetent doctors the AMA murders over 200,00 per year. This is more than guns, car crashes, natural disasters and wars combined.

If you want to curb deaths, break up the corrupt AMA. Ban junk science. Pull licenses from incompetent doctors. Demand the AMA prove their atheistic religion of psychiatry.

America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a doctor problem.

huffingtonpost.com/cary-a-presant-md/medical-errors-are-the-th_b_11117808.html

"And to put this in perspective, 614,000 patients die from heart disease and 591,000 from cancer, making medical errors the third leading cause of death. More people die from medical errors than from lung diseases (147,000 deaths), from stroke (133,000 deaths) or from accidents (136,000 deaths)."

Id = paddick
Dubs
Checked

They won't address the elephant in the room that being "armed nigger criminals"
Also if saving human lives was even remotely (((their))) true motivation they would ban
Opiate pharmaceuticals
Tobacco
Alcohol
Fast food
All of which barring tobacco are industries dominated by jews

Yes because he was an innocent and law abiding man up until what he did in Vegas. Why do liberals insist on guilty until proven innocent?

nigger

Nuclear ARMS.

>what are celebrities, rock stars, and countless jo schmoes that get fucked just to get fucked up

Let's be realistic though, if there wasn't the political stigma surrounding it then we'd have no trouble calling them assault rifles.

Just like how nobody bats an eyelid when you call a FAL a battle rifle.

Fuck nukes, I'm keeping my weaponized autism.

It cost the US about $30 billion in today's money to make a bomb.

I'm not quite there yet, but I'm working on it. When I finally have it, I'm throwing a parade, and you're all invited.

"What about the internet? You think you should have freedom of speech on the internet?"

no it's the same thing, they had WMD back in the day, usually bio weapons

assault rifle has a legal definition. stop conflating that will everyday language

>what difference does it make?

nations have structure and limited power when it comes to deploying nuclear weapons. it's not just one guy in his office with a big red button. life is not like the movies, abbo

Yes. Yes we should. You got a problem with that? Lemme send you my response. It should be there in less than 1 hour.
>Recreational and self-defense tactical nuke

It says ARMS you retard.
ANY weapon to be used in self defense.

Lol this poor triggered strayan doesn't even know about the right to bear arms

A nuclear bomb is definitely an armament or an arm. I think OP is winning this one.

Lol it doesn't say self-defense

this is so right, these people have to fucking pay, they need to pay for all the death and destruction they have caused and made a laughing stock, literally ripped of every piece of value and left in the stockade tarred and feathered

Fact of the matter is that they owned powerful weaponry relative to their time. It wouldn't be far-fetched for them to own full autos.

Nukes probably don't count as "arms" in the same way throwing grenades and placing poison in a lake are. They are objects that self-destruct to cause collateral damage and they wouldn't exist as an "arm" anymore after use.

Your point is completely fucking retarded. Comparing an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon is a logical fallacy. An AR can be used for offense, defense of yourself or livestock, and food acquisition. A nuclear weapon is designed for one thing and that is to destroy miles of land and everything in it. Also, I'm sure this was prompted by the Las Vegas shooting so here's something to think about. The response time was 75 FUCKING MINUTES. An HOUR AND 15 fucking minutes? The average police response time is something like 10 minutes nationally. Apparently it took them 13 minutes to get through the door alone. How the fuck does that make sense? Apparently SWAT had to stand down at the command of the the casino. How the fuck does that make sense? Since when has a law enforcement agency been under the command of a property holder when someone is firing a rifle at a crowd of people? This whole issue either means something large and malicious was at work or our police are so fucking incompetent that I'm glad citizens can possess firearms.

That's implied in the non-aggression principle.

The FN FAL is a piece of shit because it's not heavy enough. Every single rifle should weigh at least as much as the BAR. FACT: the more a gun weighs, the fewer recoils it has. If your gun weighs 10kg, it has no recoil, which means it is more accurate. What's wrong, pussy? Not strong enough to shoulder a 15kg rifle? 20kgs too much for you? Can't carry a 30kg weapon around all day? Pathetic.

>nations have structure and limited power when it comes to deploying nuclear weapons

So would an individual, you subhuman. Do you think some guy with literally trillions of dollars would just be able to run a nuclear silo on his own with no help from anyone else? He'd just be able to build the damn thing and staff it alone? Fuck off.

your completely fucking retarded m8

Weapon of mass destruction =/= 30 round semi auto rifle, this argument is and always will be fucking stupid, kys

>what is reading comprehension

stop being fake angry, its annoying. I never said he'd be able to run a silo by himself. the point, which you already understand and are actively avoiding, is that he is responsible to no one other than himself

The NAP is a bunch of larping on Sup Forums, the second amendment doesn't say anything about the motivation for bearing arms

In your hyperbolic fantasy scenario, yes; restricting arms in any manner is unconstitutional. The Second amendment applies to everything from broadswords to battleships.

However, you have a right to bear arms, not a right to be provided with arms (in much the same manner you have a right to life, but not a right to be provided with healthcare), and nukes are so prohibitively expensive and difficult to make that it takes an entire national government to produce them.

>a nuke costs hundreds of millions to even buy
>need a fucking huge facility to store one
>government probably wont let you store it on their land anyway
>instantly get put on every federal list in the world

I don't know if I would care so long as it isn't stored near any large populations of people and was properly stored. It's not an efficient weapon for an individual it's more of a country to country deterrence.

BTFO!
/thread

You can't buy or make a nuke, you can only get one that's already been made, and nobody would ever sell you one - and even if you could get your hands on one, you have no means with which to fire it or activate it.

...

>"Assault rifles are protected under the second ammendment??"
Correct. The second amendment is about why arms are legal. Not about which arms are legal.

>"What about nukes? You think we should all have our own nukes too?"
>how does Sup Forums answer?
Yes. Good luck trying to develop one on your own.

Just do some research.

You can see historical logistics requests and personnel reports that clearly distinguish between individual weapons / "arms", vs. crew served weapons / cannon, siege, mortar, etc...

It's why terms like "Sergeant at Arms", "men at arms", and "under arms" were created to distinguish individuals "armed" with individual weapons to keep order.

Shit goes as far back as the Romans, at least.

I can 3d print a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=REGeDjuADXI

>Being this sarcastic
>Knowing this little

>probably don't count as "arms
This is where the argument comes to pieces. This "probably" is based on nothing at all. It's an arbitrary assertion. The best you can do to support it is to present an unconvincing analogy. Arms (or armaments) come in many forms. The extension of your argument becomes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (unless the arms are unreasonably big and dangerous, in which case we don't really want them circulating widely)." This is exactly the same argument that is used by those who don't want military-style assault rifles circulating widely.

Again, arbitrary assertion of a difference between two things that are on a continuum within the same category. You can't resolve an argument by an arbitrary assertion of difference.

NICE

youtube.com/watch?v=caY5dKU65lo

I am not fake angry, I am genuinely upset at how retarded you are for not understanding the basic logistics of actually:

>Acquiring the parts for a nuclear device
>Storing these parts
>Hiring people to construct it for you
>Hiring people to construct the storage for you
>Hiring people to maintain the storage for you
>Hiring security personnel to protect it
>Hiring scientists to make sure you don't fucking kill yourself or irradiate yourself to death

And so on, and so forth.

>the point, which you already understand and are actively avoiding, is that he is responsible to no one other than himself

So, when a man joins the state superstructure, he becomes a more responsible man by default? That's magical! Wow, everyone should just join the government because people in the government always follow rules perfectly, ha ha ;) no more single mothers, we just get the fathers to take up government jobs and suddenly they are totally responsible ubermensch who would never do anything wrong ever hurr durr asjdhaslkjasdlkjsdad huuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Your entire argument is in bad faith and shouldn't even be addressed, since you're comparing a fucking firearm to a nuclear device. Go suck a fat one, you braindead hick.

The word you were looking for is you're. The contraction that represents you are. Pass the 7th grade before you shitpost.

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms