Oh so you think we should let everyone have nuclear weapons?

>Oh so you think we should let everyone have nuclear weapons?
How do you legitimately tear down this argument?

Other urls found in this thread:

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

Strategic weapons are things you use to annihilate far away places. Unless you're Ripley, the xenomorphs have taken over, and you. can nuke the entire installation from orbit, you don't nuke your own shit -- not even if you're the government. Secondly, only Congress should have the power to declare war on a foreign nation. If US citizen nuked some far away place, he just declared war on behalf of the United States. Nukes have jack shit to do with small arms or even artillery.

(you)
"precisely"

Ask them if they understand what is involved in their deployment, manufacture, let alone storage. Protip: You wouldn't want one anywhere near you, and you don't have the money to use it effectively anyway.

Also, you can already make a dirty bomb from Caesium taken out of a few hundred smoke detectors. Google "the radioactive boy scout" - yet, he just wanted to build a reactor.

>he doesn't want nuclear weapons
fucking pleb

Yes we should because I hate you all and want to die right now. Just don't nuke Japan again please kike.

>he doesn't want to cure anime

Do you have any clue what the costs involved with a nuclear weapon is? How many people and experts are required in it's production, installment and maintenance? Like these aren't just home-made nuclear warheads. And Nukes are illegal - you can't own a Nuke. Lmao

you don't, it's literally perfect

>Yes

it's illegal

You... do?
There's nothing wrong with everyone having nukes.

Idk man, Skull Face had a point in MGS 5, if everyone had nukes the playing field would be level. Kinda dystopian but hey, whatever works.

> Implying everyone doesn't

There's an ICBM trained on you right now

-Understand english common law traditions
-Understand the definition of the word "arms" as it relates

It would be a massive group undertaking to come up with nukes. If the people are so misrepresented that they need to come up with nukes, yes.

Anything government can own we should be able to own. Artillery can't be operated by one individual. If a group is pissed, they should be able to buy artillery.

Anything the kikes running our government can own, we can own.

Zero fucks given, we should be able to own more than just small arms.

Who posts a picture of a gun pointing to the left? Is this some sort of subliminal messaging? What are you trying to do here you Jew

if they're going to be that retarded, just say
>yes
and look at them deadpan

Sure, if they can 100% staff, train, and maintain security of their mcnuke and their launch cannot violate the NAP (i.e. cannot land on planet earth or really that close to it).
So it would be legit moot to own an armed silo, thus it would be mcbanned.

>>Oh so you think we should let everyone have nuclear weapons?
>How do you legitimately tear down this argument?
You tell em that people own nukes regardless of law and its easier to kill a man with a hammer then a gun.

You can totally own a nuke and missiles in america.
The most armed man in america by vice.
Go look it up that dude has every gun since WW1.

>How do you legitimately tear down this argument?
You say yes, because it's not wrong.

A swed not being a cuck? are you pewdiepie or just someone sick of being blacked?

You don't. Having nuclear weapons is never justified and all industrially manufactured lethal weapons should be abolished.

That fucking flag sure doesnt tell me that.
Oh and if I did own a nuke who the fuck is going to tell me I cant own one?

It's a leap in logic. It's like saying that because someone supports a male marrying another male in gay marriage, that they also support a male adult marrying a male child. There's classifications and criteria that nail down reasonable tolerances that a person has on an issue.

Yes.

The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations…. It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.

The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording - keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.

This specifically excludes crew served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.

>We should just uninvent weapons.
Anarchists are fucking insane.

This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.

if the government can have them, i can too

I'm too lazy to type this out, but listen to this short clip of Rothbard for some ideas:
youtube.com/watch?v=se-e3FaL9T0
The basic gist is: maybe it's illegitimate for *anybody* to have nukes.

Go ahead and make your own nuke I won't stop you

Now fuck off

Nukes pollute the area where they explode, making it inhabitable due to radiation.
Everyone should make a next step and start using hydrogen bombs, they're a lot more powerful and don't pollute everything with radiation.
Win-win situation, if you ask me.
Recreational thermonuclear warheds for everyone.

What if this?