The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a right to own guns, it says you have a right to bear arms

the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a right to own guns, it says you have a right to bear arms.

shouldn't that include nuclear weapons? why shouldn't citizens have the right to own weapons-grade plutonium?

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/business/10-companies-profiting-most-war-330249
youtube.com/watch?v=U2_bBK3eH0E
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't private corporations technically own nuclear weapons?

Yes indeed. Same as anything else, some people own things that people think are entirely illegal.

yeh okay i'm gonna need a source guys, or at the very least a company name.

btfo of Sup Forums with this one simple trick.

Any reprocessing facility as licensed by the NRC and abiding by the NPT. Same as anywhere that produces what would be considered "war gas" of any type, there are regulations in place for private companies to fulfill the need.
Or did you think that absolutely everything is run by the government?

Here ya go, bud.

nbcnews.com/business/10-companies-profiting-most-war-330249

>corporations are given government contracts to produce nuclear weapons for them

no shit. where's your 2nd amendment right to own a nuke, that's what I'm asking burger.

>Or did you think that absolutely everything is run by the government?
To be fair, many bongs unironically think this.
Muh sacrosanct NHS.

>many bongs
>not me though

I have a sound cannon. I can burst your eardrums from 100ft and lay you out flat with a migraine that follows you for the rest of your life.

Yep, not me, and not all others.

I don't know if anyone is claiming that it's necessarily a "right" to own nukes, my yellow toothed friend. We're simply pointing out that privately owned corporations are technically the owners of nuclear hardware until the government pays up. So is it the "right" of someone other than the government to own a nuke? That's really up to the supreme court to decide. Though I don't expect them to actually bring up the issue anytime soon.

Arms != ordnance.

Video of tommy chasing retarded muslim down the street
youtube.com/watch?v=U2_bBK3eH0E

>why shouldn't citizens have the right to own weapons-grade plutonium?

Fuck off Michael Moore, you fat fuck.

sage

There is no law on the books currently preventing a private U.S. citizen from developing his own nuclear weapon. If a citizen is capable of spending tens of billions of dollars, hiring a bunch of the worlds finest scientists, procuring proper facilities, sourcing the nuclear material, assembling the device, etc. he can have his own nuclear device.

Yes, it should.

OP is right. The constitution says you have the right to bear ARMS, not guns. Last I checked every one of you has the right to the limbs protruding from either side of your torso, and that right has NEVER been infringed. You can drive, you can pick up and handle objects with ease.

Not only that, but you are free to wear tank tops and tee shirts if you want, which means your right to bear arms is fully intact. I wouldn't bear your arms at this time of year, given how cold it is, but in the summer you sperglords can show off your puny biceps to your hearts' content.

Would nuclear weapons fall under the NFA? (destructive devices)

You must be a woman, because you are painfully unfunny.

Judge my joke on its merits if you must, but the fact that I am a woman is totally irrelevant

alright if you wanna play the semantics game fine: explosives are ordinance not arms, there should be no infringements on gun rights period.

bong BTFO

Yes.

Got any good period jokes? Those never get old.

I completely agree.
You're alright, bong.

I only know one and it makes me very angry

We actually do have the right to own nuclear weapons. The government has overstepped its bounds. The second amendment was intended to allow the citizenry the same weapons used by the military.

What average american has billions of dollars to buy a nuke?

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

...

If Pakistan and North Korea have enough money why not?

Judicial ((interpretation)) allowing regulation of fundamental rights in light of “compelling state interests.”

But see this argument shouldn’t work for the 2nd Amendment because it literally says “shall not be infringed”, which on its face should preclude any regulation.

Nobody finds you funny leafyboi

What, do you want me to say that I don't want Joe Average to be able to wipe out the entire state of Rhode Island (even though those fucks deserve it)? Ok, I do. MAD no longer holds water when you include individuals instead of organizations. Now you can proceed to act as though having that limit makes me irrational when I want standard fully automatic rifles, as though there is no absolutely difference between the two. The argument still stands whether or not we deal with absolutes (which is retarded to do in the first place), the armaments of a militia should be accesible to the common man.
Go ahead and start throwing stones from your glass house, unless you've lost your right to those as well as steak knives and bicycle wheels, limey.

user, I've got a bunch of recreational McNukes just waiting for someone to violate the NAP

>shouldn't that include nuclear weapons?

SHILLNIGGER THREAD.

>SECOND AMENDMENT NUKES
>Less than 50 replies
I am proud Sup Forums

The right to bear arms is an American citizen's right, now fuck off

Nukes are exaggerated fear propaganda

You can build big bombs with soap and baking soda(youtube had a homemade frag grenade tutorial up for a while and never got punished)

This thread is fucking retarded

Die you brit, liberty in our lifetime.

Go back to plebbett faggot
>shill thread
>sage
Kill urself faggot.