Reminder that if you are pro-gun but anti Recreational Nukes™, you are a hypocrite.
Why should a man be allowed to own an AK-47, but not an apache helicopter or nuclear missile? You are just as regressive as the fags in the UK who want to ban knives.
Because an AK-47 is not an apache helicopter or nuclear weapon.
Next question.
'Allowed'
I don't like the framing of this retarded argument.
they're all weapons. How are they any different? Is some kind of arbitrary categories which bans some weapons but not others? Where is that written in the constitution?
Explain to me why then assault rifles are the arbitrary cut-off point, and not knives? Screwdrivers? Bricks? Should be also regulate brick ownership?
Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes gun grabbers look more retarded than whining about nukes.
Entire nations cannot afford to build and maintain a single nuclear weapon.
nukes and other large bombs have incredibly harmful effects that cannot be controlled. if someone were to use a nuke it would effect everyone on earth, the same can't be said about automatic weapons or even cannons. also the average person simply doesn't have the facilities to properly maintain nuclear weapons.
As long as you're nuking leftists I don't give a shit about your heroin or prostitution businesses.
The second amendment makes provisions for BEARABLE arms. Nukes are not man portable.
>inb4 Davy Crockett
If you turn the invisible hand loose on the nuke market I think they could shrink those bad boys down pretty quickly.
I agree, individuals and corporations should be able to own nukes, if they have the money. That way, if you are rich enough, you can have the leverage and power of a nation state and can hold the world hostage for their own power.
Or you can just be a terrorist and actually use it. Either way, can't see the harm in legalizing ownership of nukes.
You own nothing, faggot
> Brings up arbitrary weapon
> Brings up mass killing weapon, in the hundreds to thousands, etc..
> They're the same
False equivalence profit?
>nukes
>existing
If you trust only the government with nuclear arms, then the 2nd amendment is useless.
>implying a well armed and well regulated militia shouldn't own nukes.
Responsibility is universal.
If you can keep from shooting your neighbor in the dick because he upholds the nap, then certainly wouldn't nuke the neighborhood if they have the same respect.
Furthermore knowing they may also have a davey crocket might give most people a little wiggle room.
>That way, if you are rich enough, you can have the leverage and power of a nation state and can hold the world hostage for their own power.
but that's always been the case already. If you're rich enough, you can afford a personal army and literally conquer countries.
but they are. Why does it matter whether a weapon kills dozens, hundreds, or tens of thousands? Who are you to make the distinction and cuttoff point at which it becomes taboo? What are basing it on? Your ass?
Using your own logic you can set the cutoff anywhere and ban anything. e.g., knives.
> Until the jews took control of wealth*
well that's (((convenient)))
Standards are either useful, or not.
I'd apply my standard at the number of potential deaths from a tyrant of any sort.
You can own an apache, it's just that it's weapons can't be explosives nor any round above 20mm.
They also have to be semi-automatic.
You can also have an ICBM, it just can't have an explosive warhead.
>but what if the child consentsing intensifies.
LOL no. Tactical nukes are just a few kilo tons and with negligible fallout.
ah, good to see you support a universal gun-ban, then. Guns of any sort can lead to millions of deaths when wielded by a dictator, after all.
That's fucking retarded and not even close to true, kys.
Wow amazing argument!