Are these protected under the 2nd amendment Sup Forums? Could I have one if I had the means?

Are these protected under the 2nd amendment Sup Forums? Could I have one if I had the means?

Other urls found in this thread:

rense.com/general10/howto.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It isn't bearable, so not according Antoine Scalia.

obviously he never played fallout

Banned from private ownership by international law which tends to supercede local law.

Nuclear weapons don't exist.

Look into it.

>international law which tends to supercede local law.
get out of my country, retard

What about chemical/bio weapons?

Perhaps, it would just be incredibly expensive to own.

yea plus the maintenance would be ridiculous

>building a silo

not even bill gates could do that

None of these are fielded by infantry units, therefore none has a relevant militia purpose.

what about mini nukes then?

>I have no idea how my country works

No, ordinance and artillery are not Armaments.
You are allowed the right to bear arms not ordinance or artillery under the 2nd amendment.

Hostess stopped baking those years ago.

Absolutely.
Post pics when you get one.

Interesting.
Makes sense desu.
Could rocket launchers be allowed?
I guess something like the Davy Crockett is something a militia could have. It has tactical uses.
But there's a real national security risk with letting people have those. It goes beyond ordinary public safety.

I guess you can carry them but you can't use them in any non-kamikazes military sense. All the mini-nukes the US and Soviets designed for battle field use weren't something a soldier would carry around and use. There were to be used by specialized units.

...

The Militia part it's independent of the rest of the amendment.

Just put it on a truck

(((International Law)))

You would be raided faster than a naked girl at a convention.

nope, you would not be able to break the control'd substance laws

But what if it's an anime convention?

I suppose technically you could. I know that in the past the 2nd amendment applied to citizens who owned merchant ships and owned cannons to defend their ships. Owning artillery was legal and as recent as the 1950s you could own anti-tank and light artillery for personal use. Although a nuclear bomb I wouldn't believe is feasible for regular ownership and I don't believe a bomb falls under "arms."

NICE ID JEW

THE CONSTITUTION WAS CLEAR

>I can't read

>as recent as the 1950's
>70 years ago

57 years ago

Can it be shrunk to less than .50 caliber?

A modified Davy Cockrocket would make an interesting test case. If one believes that these weapons are to defend against the evil gubbermints then it can be argued that we need some kind of bike to protect against their nukes.

WMD's are illegal and are not covered by the constitution.

You would attract negative attention and powerful people would want to murk you, even if it was legal.

Yes.

The purpose of 2nd amnendment is self defence and overthrowing the goverment. Nukes serves neither purpose.
I think tanks and f16s being banned for privite property violates 2nd amnendment but nukes doesn't.

You can own a tank without a working turret. When the time comes it's easy to reeled ::)

No. The purpose is irrelevant.

SHALL

Yeah but what about the W9 nuclear warhead, fired from an 11inch Howitzer, surely that has Legit Militia uses.

in America anything is possible

No.

>Nuclear weapons don't exist.

Fuck international law, fuck globalists, and fuck the UN. I mean, I don't think it would be legal here anyway, but still fuck them.

>Are these protected under the 2nd amendment Sup Forums?

Yes.

> Could I have one if I had the means?

Not likely. Aum Shinryu almost had laser triggered nukes but got ROFLstomped by a joint task force in the Outback for playing with fire.

You probably could if you fought in the courts hard enough.

Once you win, you can bet your ass the federal government is going to try their best to either buy it from you or tax/fine you into oblivion if you turn down their offer.

Purpose of the law is ALWAYS relevant in jurisdiction. You are talking about purpose of the subject which may or may not be relevant (irrelevant in this case)

It's not a question of whether it's legal.

Does the cop want to get shot in the face trying to take it away from me?

Two types of weapons should be controlled.
1. Indiscriminate weapons.
2. Weapons of mass destruction.
Indiscriminate being weapons like landmines where you don't choose who dies by it. Grenades also because of the explosive radius.
Individuals can't use WMDs in self defense, it would also hurt too many innocents.

You could try fucking with nuclear energy yourself. I would advise against it.

>David Charles Hahn (October 30, 1976 – September 27, 2016),[1] sometimes called the Radioactive Boy Scout or the Nuclear Boy Scout, was an American who in 1994, at age 17, attempted to build a homemade breeder reactor. A scout in the Boy Scouts of America, Hahn conducted his experiments in secret in a backyard shed at his mother's house in Commerce Township, Michigan. While his reactor never reached critical mass, Hahn attracted the attention of local police when he was stopped on another matter and they found material in his vehicle that troubled them, and he warned that it was radioactive.

>On August 1, 2007, Hahn was arrested in Clinton Township, Michigan, for larceny, in connection with a number of smoke detectors, allegedly removed from the halls of his apartment building.[7][8][9] His intention was to obtain americium from them. In his mug shot, his face is covered with sores which investigators believe are from exposure to radioactive materials

>Purpose of the law is ALWAYS relevant in jurisdiction.
No.

The intentional purpose of the Second Amendment is irrelevant. It shall not be infringed upon.

Going out of the purpose of law is abusing the law which is banned in all leggal systems.

Also fuck your pic. I say even tanks or bomber warplanes should be allowed under 2nd amnendment but nukes have nothing to do with it. It does not serve for self defence, it does not serve getting rid of tyranny, it is nothing founding fathers wished.

>Going out of the purpose of law is abusing the law
Nice opinion, friend.
>I say even tanks or bomber warplanes should be allowed under 2nd amnendment but nukes have nothing to do with it.
Again, your shitty opinion.
>It does not serve for self defence,
Self defense is irrelevant. It isn't about self-defense. It is a God-given, or born right. Whether you ""need"" a nuke or not does not matter. SHALL
>it does not serve getting rid of tyranny,
I don't care what it serves.
>it is nothing founding fathers wished.
Who are you to interpret what the Founding Fathers wished? Some sandnigger in Constantinople? I can't wait until we nuke you.

Those are your opinions my burger friend, as a lawyer i am telling you how law works. You can be mad as much as you want.

>how law works
Maybe that's how it works in sandniggerland.

Here in freedomland, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do they actually launch from these trucks or are they just for putting them into silos?

i believe the fissionable materual is illegal, not the delivery method itself

They can be launched.

Loophole the government would use to deny us our God given right.

No because their design includes top secret tech.

If you talk about an old ass nuke they still require fissile material which would be illegal to own in adequate quantities for obviosur easons

You can, but it'll cost a small fortune: rense.com/general10/howto.htm