Why is it illegal for civilians to own nukes?

Why is it illegal for civilians to own nukes?

The Second Amendment was written to help civilians to defend themselves from tyrannical government. When it was written, rifles were pretty much the top of military weaponry, but now the government has nukes, tanks, bombers, fighter jets, artillery etc. It's time the Second Amendment is updated to allow us citizens to be able to compete. And AR15 can't do shit if the government nukes you, therefore we should be allowed nukes as well!

Responsible nukeowners of America, it's time to stand up for our rights to bear nukes! Nukes for the people!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OcgKDSwINOA
youtube.com/watch?v=se-e3FaL9T0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Technically, I do not believe it is illegal for a civilian to own a nuclear weapon in the United States.

It is probably prohibited to make them without government permission, or offer them for sale to anyone but the government.

Yes.

bump

Cleverly disguised "the government has nukes and drones" argument. 3/10

Ordinance are not arms faggot.

Fucking libcuck! How will you defend yourself if you don't have a nuke?

It's a valid argument. You can fight off a government much more effectively and with a smaller force if you have military materiel. Small arms are the last line of defense.

That's not what the Founders thought, faggot.

Just gtfo.

Is it possible to build a own nuke ? Lets assume you are allowed to do it is it possible?

Is it actually illegal to own a recreational nuke?

so what you are saying is if you 'found' one out in the woods you could keep it

That's my whole point! The reason for the 2nd is for us citizens to be able to defend ourselves, but how are we to do it if our weaponry is shit? Do you think your faggot, handheld weaponry can fight against a Black Hawk? We have to be able to fight on an equal level with the government, or else the 2nd is useless.

If you want to buy one you have to pay for the cost of the enrichment of the fissile material yourself. Even billionaires would struggle to afford it.

Most people are clueless how hard it is to enrich fissile material to weapons grade purity. It takes insane levels of electricity to accomplish. This is why it takes massive government programs and years of hard work employing hundreds of scientists and engineers to make a functional weapon. The labor, material, facilities, and power costs are astronomical.

How can we get one then? It's a patriot's duty to own a nuke!

Is it illegal?
The Second Amendment covers all arms, from broadswords to battleships, and literally all weapon-restricting laws are inherently unconstitutional.

>muh militia
Anyone who says this doesn't understand constitutional law.

Sounds like globalist talk for "we got you cucked."
How hard can it be? North Korea managed to make several, and the average American has more money than the entire nation of NK.

Ignoring the costs, lets say somehow I managed to make one in my basement. Is there actually a written law saying I can't keep it?

Why are Americans just utter retards?

a few (1996-2000?) years ago someone made a home-made cruise missile for 5000$ and they didn't let him keep it

so you're saying someone with a bomb should be considered unarmed?

Hmm what’s being slid so hard right now? Because this is some slide material

>bong doesn't even have bongs anymore
Have you binned your knife, paid your TV license, and prepped your bull, old boy? We have a little thing called 'freedom' here; you'll come to appreciate it after the bobbies lock you up for viewing this right-wing propaganda website.

Was it due to a written law, or just people going "oh fuck you made a cruise missile you can't do that bro"?

if you're capable of building a nuclear warhead legally, go ahead I guess. But the government is under no obligation per the constitution to supply you with arms of any kind, hand gun or nuke. Your passive argument sucks ass, OP.

Smart enough to gain independence

I don't speak ebonics. Write in English.

if you can afford uranium and the tools to process it sure.

I can't remember but it was taken from him

we need find his blueprints for when civil war

There is no legitimate self defense or sporting reason for you to need one

Twelve bucks in singles...

It was in New Zealand. It was never completed since the government sued him for ((unrelated)) matters to bankrupt him. He claims to have later completed it though

There is no independence without nukes.

Shall not be INFRINGED. But the cost would prevent most people.

You don't need a legitimate reason to own a weapon; you have a God-given right to own a weapon. 2A doesn't grant this right, it outlines and protects this right, as it is a God-given right.

oh there you go

We can destroy the government just fine with what we already have.

All these bait threads with pics of A-10 or whatever saying the 2dA is obsolete because of modern military hardware. Our armed forces are FAR too few to control a state, let alone the whole US, especially since their supply base IS HERE.

If the US mil tried to take over the US through mil force, other than nukes/bio weapons, it would be destroyed in days. Most of them would not even bother fighting, just slink of and try to find their way in whatever new world results in the US Gov falling apart.

People think the US Gov has so much power because they see only the application of it, not the support structure required to get it on target. And that is trivially easy to take away domestically.

When will Hiroshima get rid of nu-flags?

Why do you assume it's illegal? Show me the law that says this.

Because this country has fallen far from where it once was, that I can tell you. Frankly, I fully support law abiding Americans owning weapons of mass destruction.

that's some libtard bullshit. if people can buy nukes, the price will eventually go down the more common it becomes. basic capitalism.

I’ll do a more serious one now: In defense of freedom you would knowingly use a nuke on US soil despite casualties? Again this is all supposing your “heart is in the right place”

Put some fireworks on a drone you get off of Amazon and you got a cruise missile, cheap.

Wrong. The Bible does not promote owning carnal weapons of warfare.

Did it look something like this?

>what is jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords
I'm talking about the Constitution, incidentally.

Yes, at least for simpler designs like the gun-type. For more modern designs, no government would share the exact details of construction. The general design principle is common knowledge, but the specifics are kept secret for obvious reasons. They spent a lot of time and money developing nuclear weapons, they aren't just going to distribute that knowledge freely. Doing all that work from scratch would be prohibitively expensive, because it's something only governments can afford.

Also, you'll need to enrich your own U235, so that adds significant cost as well. It's not like anyone will simply sell it to you.

"We" is the key word here. No government holds their entire population hostage; all of them operate because a significant part of the population willingly agrees to their rule. As I said, you can fight off a government more effectively, and (importantly!) with a much smaller force. In order to disrupt the military with small arms, you need significantly more people than if you have a nuke hidden somewhere.

The same reason it's decided to be illegal for nations to use them in war. You can't, without expecting to damage other people's private property and those not involved in the conflict.

haha funny satire there pal

>We can destroy the government just fine with what we already have.
ISIS had artillery tanks, and even fighter jets, and they still couldn't win. Iraq had an entire army, and lost within a week. Yet you think your little rifle will make a difference? Dumbass cucknigger.

If a whole nation's military couldn't defeat the US army, how are a few cucks with shitty rifles supposed to do anything? This is why nukes are the only answer.

Yes. Just need some decommissioned Nazi scientists

drones ... swarm attack, can't shoot them all down, one will get through

"sword" in the Bible is a reference to the word of God, not a physical weapon

If you nuke libs, then nothing of value is lost.

If this isn't bait. This picture answers your question.

Yeah. That would be funny if it wasn’t so true

>it's decided to be illegal for nations to use them in war.
But that's wrong. There is no concrete international law prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. There is also historical precedent for their use, with no legally binding international repercussions.

One word: Stateism

That's cuckspeak. US has several thousands of nukes. The reason for this is to have leverage against other nuke-owning nations. Which in turn means that they have leverage against us, and we don't have anything.

It's legal for anyone to own exaggerated fear propaganda.

I also believe that taxpayers should pay for our individual weapons programs. After all it IS a god given right.

So you agree that we citizens should have the right to bear nukes? Good to know I'm making a difference.

It's not illegal/

Come up with a scenario in which a nuke would help to obtain a noble outcome. What are you supposed to do with a nuke? How are you going to use it without 1000s of casualties?

the non-proliferation treaty

You're retarded

I mean anything can be done with mild oversight. But if you show you can safely do it and pay yer taxes why not. Still don’t think you SHOULD do it.

Why would you use a weapon without casualties?
Like in Hiroshima and Niggasaki we killed 500000 non-people to save billions of Americans.

If a nuke can save the nation for oppression, then all casualties are non-people.

I realize you're just memeing, but the reason ISIS and Iraq were BTFO is because they operated as states. Modern militaries are exceptionally good at fighting conventional wars with lines of battle and easily-identified enemy forces. When ISIS was still in its insurgency stage, the US military couldn't do shit. Same thing would happen in a domestic insurgency except even more, because any collateral damage is damage to that nation's own infrastructure, and consequently to the military itself.

Nukes would just make this easier, which is why I'm unironically for the private ownership thereof.

youtube.com/watch?v=OcgKDSwINOA
watch engineerguy explain in this comfy video

Why not? God gave me the right to nuke people.

Lol, imagine if the massacre in Vegas was done with nukes instead of semi-autos with bump stocks. You'd have a real version of Fallout New Vegas. You'd have an entire state leveled to the ground, hundreds of dead people and years of nuclear fallout.
So I guess the reason why, is to not make things even deadlier than they alredy are in the US.
However don't fret Ameritards. The revenue generated from your gun industry in taxes, ensures your guns will remain legal and yours to keep.

Gtfo, libcuck nigger, or I'll nuke you in self defense.

If you can make one be my guest

>Everyone can buy a yatch without restriction
>A yatch is still expensive

>ITT: why would nuclear civil war be a bad thing?

>How are you going to use it without 1000s of casualties?
Detonate it in the upper atmosphere and cause an EMP.

Even better. Fallout New Vegas was awesome. Either way, the Las Vegas massacre would never have happened if everyone were armed with their own nuke. The shooter would be too scared of dying to try killing anyone. Have there been any world wars since nukes were invented? No. So if everyone had a nuke, there would be no violence.

>0/10 troll efforts
Did your liberal arts professor tell you to make these shitty threads?

>They
>We don't have anything
>Muh powerless

Show up at their own fuckin' house, set it on fire, and blow their family's brains out, you dipshit.

Uuuugh, oooooo, the scary nukes, my I'm pissing my pants, oh hey your fuckin' children are dead, Governor.

There's my fucking nuke. I'll kill your fucking last name if you oppress me too hard. Same applies to artillery, drones, tanks and whatever other assorted crap is supposed to oppress you. One .22 round each in mommy, waifu and babby's brainpan for every tyrant that goes too far.

And you're trying to scare them with nukes.

What civilian can afford a nuke? Idiot!

Governments of countries have a tough time affording them.

>So if everyone had a nuke, there would be no violence.
It's true under some circumstances, but it's radius would make things very sketchy, even for mini nukes.

and while we're at it, how about some school nukings, or being mugged at warhead-point.

>implying you could even locate their family, let alone get into their house
nuke it from orbit.

If the teachers had nukes, there would be no school nukings.

Only a few dozen Americans could afford a nuke

Most of them depend on liberal brianwashing counties like LA

The people they hate are too spread out to waste a single nuke on

They could force nukes to detonate in the air to minimize fallout, just like some guns are forced into semi-auto mode only.

Bombs (explosive devices) aren't covered under the 2nd ammendment. It's silly to suggest private citizens own ends.

You have to have any exception number of certifications and licenses to legally even handle the stuff as well as secret clearance.

>looks under rock
>oh, oppressive tyrant group's family isn't there.
>guess I'll give up

Stop it.

Check out what Rothbard has to say:
youtube.com/watch?v=se-e3FaL9T0

*W.M.D.s

You were doing well, but this is some low-energy trolling. We broke the NAP with our oil embargo; the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in self-defense.

Tojo also wouldn't even entertain the idea of a land invasion precisely because of the Second Amendment.

Nukes are inefficient. They destroy land for decades. They should be banned for that reason alone and equivalent munitions developed that we can bitch about.

the technology is 75 years old man
Other things invented around the same time:
deodorant
solid body electric guitar
slinky
microwave oven

if you major in the right things in college, they teach you how to make one

Irony is that there is oil in Sea of Japan which Japanese had full control of during ww2.

nukes don't destroy anything, people do. are we supposed to ban cars because people get killed by them? should we ban chemicals because people use them to destroy land for decades? no. the chemicals, cars, and nukes are not the problem, niggers are.

Tesla developed a equivalent with radiation accidently. Good thing people havnt figured it out. Couldn't ban it even if you tried. Only way to keep it out of public is to surround Tesla with free energy idiots.

Carbon Cycles completely sustainable. Nuclear fallout last way too long. As a carcinogen it's night and day difference and effectiveness. I support government's developing Munitions to defend their sovereignty but nuclear weapons Are a cancer to the world

Since no one's going to post the real answer:


You can own a 'nuclear bomb' under the existing NFA+GCA legislation, created on an ATF Form 1 as a destructive device. Much like you are allowed to own grenades, re-activated artillery, and tanks.

What you can't have is *fissile material* without NRC approval.

This is entirely consistent with the second amendment:

You're not allowed to open a tattoo parlor and make tattoos with mercury amalgam. You're not allowed to print newspapers with lead ink.

Are these infringements on the First amendment? No. They have nothing to do with the first amendment. They're environmental issues.

You can own all the bombs you'd like under the NFA at present. You can detonate them and contain them to the limits of your property. In contrast, you don't get any fissile material without approval (plenty of private labs do get permission, but it's not a right). Consistent, as fissile material is huge environmental hazard, and cannot be contained to the limits of your property.

You can't shoot lead into or over waterways both for safety and pollution reasons. One uses steel and copper shot for fowl hunting over water. Is this an infringement on the Second Amendment? Again, no.

On the other hand, if you ban lead altogether, not only would the environmental reasoning be specious, but it would be like banning ink, and would be an infringement.

Without radiation *