Nuclear gun control

How would you counter the question "Do you think private citizens should own nukes?" in a gun control argument with a normie without being dismissed as a maniac? Remember, stats can only go so far, as emotion is far more effective in an argument. Maybe mention how ships were basically the WMDs of 1776 and were used by private citizens?

Why cant I own recreational nukes? Like really, why? I see no reason God doesnt want me to have em.

Would you not agree that if you said that the normie call you some name and walk away? You can talk about how expensive it would be, how you would have to effectively reinvent the nuke because the government wouldn't just give the information to you, the government shouldn't have a monopoly on force, etc., but none of that would matter to a normie.

identify it for what it is, just a distraction that attempts to meme an argument rather than engage in the debate on what is actually going on. If they persist, ask why they haven't pressed their senator to outlaw private ownership of a Death Star. If they answer something like 'because that would be stupid' response, 'yeah, I know what you mean'.

Ignore ridiculous strawmen

That's pretty good, although they would probably say the Death Star hasn't been invented yet. Thanks, though.

"I also agree, we should not allow nukes. Compromise has been reached. Gun control is finalized forever. No nukes, everything else alright, so sayeth compromise."

It is a somewhat logical conclusion, though. Perfectly innocent hunting rifle

That's actually pretty good. Appeal to emotion, appeal for compromise, and a nice fuck off statement at the end. Thanks.

>hasn't been invented yet

"And for as capable as you are in building one, nukes might as well be fictional also"

Ah, that's good, too. I usually immediately jump to nuking your neighbor would not benefit you at all, but they can easily counter with "What if you are just insane."

If you desire to appeal to 'fact', you can point out that the 2nd amendment (I presume this is what it is really about) only applies to 'arms'. That is, weapons that would be carried by an infantrymen. Most 11B infantry do not carry around a nuke.

(and when you really look at it, the 2nd because of that does not actually protect gun ownership - again, only those weapons that would be used by Infantry. Which could some day be something other than a gun.)

But cannons and ship of war could be owned by private citizens, and the Revolutionaries even took advantage of that by enlisted merchants on ships with cannons. Even in 1815, the government hired a (small) group of pirates at New Orleans.

Call them out for being intellectually dishonest by trying to catch you in a gotcha question designed to get you to admit there should be some arbitrary limit on ownership of types of weapons by making an absurd argument that so massively exceeds the purview of the discussion that it's not even worth giving and answer to. Then if they get pissy call them a faggot.

Yes, they have been owned and in some cases still are. That does not mean their ownership is protected by the 2nd.

Remember, there has to be a law preventing you from doing something and not the case that there must be a law allowing you to do something. Because of that the government in the past has tended not to pass laws that were not needed. Obviously the people you discuss things with feel differently.

"The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and its 1954 revision explicitly prohibit the private ownership of nuclear weapons. You can't even own private patents on nuclear weapon designs, one of the few places where Congress mandated an entire technology be off-limits for patenting."

Simple.

You will never ban trucks, matches, gasoline, etc. Therefore there will always be a legal counterpart able to create the same carnage which will be used instead of the AR. there is no legal equivalent to a nuke.

people who want to kill 2 million people cant just switch to a truck and do the same thing.

also, if your opponent says there is a single type of firearm they DONT want to ban, its that much sillier when full auto is already illegal.

really dumb "gotcha" that is never thought through

A citizen for all intents and purposes should be able to own any particular armament they desire, provided they has a means of properly securing and maintaining that piece of equipment that will not cause the following:
1. Damage to any public utility or privately owned property
2. Provide an ecological crisis that will affect the current ecosystem of the geographic area and its citizens
3. Does not cause health related issues for the holder, nor the surrounding citzens

Takes care of Tanks, Bioweapons and Nuclear Arms.
Alternatively, Pic Related

Oh sure, but I'm arguing more about the Second Amendment, rather than laws that were actually passed. I believe that a lot of weapon restrictions by definition infringe on my rights, but they were passed. I believe that the Constitution still needs to be upheld as supreme, thus a Constitutional amendment must be passed for any weapon limitations. That sounds absolutely insane, and I'm not really that opposed to nuke limits, but the words in the Constitution are the words in the Constitution.
I'm arguing with a ridiculous theoretical case that may be disingenuous, but still has to be addressed as a logical extreme. I can easily deflect the drones argument, but nukes are astoundingly powerful.

>arguing with emotion
Never fall that low.

The 2nd Amendment refers to small arms in common use. Next question asshole?

That is a pretty good argument, but I genuinely believe full-auto shouldn't be restricted (it's not illegal), so if I say that, the nuke argument isn't that far out for a normie. Full-auto might as well be Castle Bravo to them.

In a proctored debate, emotion isn't great, but it is amazingly effective in a normal setting.
I should add that I am terrible at verbal, on-the-spot debate, since I never have exact statistics on hand. I can say something that is factual, but the immediate counter is "what's the specific study?"

But it doesn't really, as shown by private warships and cannons. The absolute language, at the time it was written, allows for more powerful weapons. The 1710s Puckle gun and 1770s Girandoni air rifle, for example.
If they meant small arms, which not even supporting documents to the Constitution indicate, they should have specified small arms.

My understanding was that arms and munitions were 2 distinct things at the time of the Constitution.

Ok, well I need to research that, then. Enough people said this in this thread, so I should look into it.

The US constitution shall never be overruled by anything inside the US borders.

Therefore international treaties do not apply.

Now that begs the question.

Do rich people in the US have nukes?

There are domestic nuke laws, though. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I think civilians should be able to own and operate death stars if the US gov't has them.

>The absolute language, at the time it was written, allows for more powerful weapons.

Not really. At the time there were gun control laws, banning of guns, in the city that the constitution was drafted and as well afterwords. While the language is 'shall not be infringed' at the time it was considered a black on the federal government, not the states or local governments.

The founders actually had a big argument over the 'bill of rights'. It took a good while for them to be passed and there was a lot of resistance to them.

The argument for was 'yeah, if we do not have this block then some dick later on will pass laws and make stuff illegal'.

The argument against the Bill (for the most part) was that the government did not HAVE the authority to do any of that stuff. It did not HAVE the authority to regulate speech, or guns, or etc. Because the government must be strictly GRANTED authority through the constitution. and it wasn't. The concern was that if the Bill was passed that future generations would say 'we cannot ban guns or speech because of the Bill', which would by default grant authority to the government to do so.

Basically, by saying the government cannot do something the people against the Bill felt that you would in peoples minds grant the government all authority unless specified against.

I knew about the arguments over the Bill of Rights, but I was completely ignorant of the history you mentioned. To argue with you, I'd have to do some mental gymnastics saying that the words mean what they mean, while I've already mentioned supporting documents and intent.
I'll have to look into the history myself. Thanks.

First, private citizens do own nukes.

Second, you can simply use the "militia" justification, as used by the supreme court in the '20's.

ANYTHING the US government deploys domestically, there should be zero question about. And that includes the National Guard.

It's really quite plausible that man portable nuclear weapons will be used in the future, as in energy weapons.

Wait, which private citizens own nukes?

Queen of the UK, as she holds personal domain over her military holdings.

It's a strawman argument. Ridicule works : "Nukes aren't firearms ,are you crazy?!". Works everytime. Most people know they aren't comparable
>inb4 ar15 isnt comparable to a musket
Well actually it is. It's the main firearms of the military- just like the musket was. The Founders ever said the 2nd Amendment covers cannons ffs. Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out with an "automatic" in the early 1800's.


The idea that The Founders that saw the evolution from matchlock to wheelock to flintlock couldnt see the AR-15 is plain dumb.

I think someone like Jacob Rothschild already has one.

Eh, I don't know if that would do much in the argument, since it's not in the US.

I wouldn't doubt it, but I can't say "Some guy on a frog enthusiast board I frequent said the Jews have nukes."

I wouldn't bother with that argument at all.
I would say that people should be able to own explosives, and nuclear explosives are just on a larger scale.

I'd leave it at the point of no one has the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon that isn't a state actor and they can regulate their own actions and production. If someone or some company can make a nuclear weapon, a law saying that shall not make one is as pointless as gun free zone signs.

To be fair a gun type atom bomb isn't that fucking hard to make. The real argument that blows their fucking mind is that civilians already do. Who do you think builds our nukes? There are rogue nukes on the black market right now. If cold war stories are to be believed russians smuggled in dozens of backpack nukes into the states and pre-positioned them with "civilian agents" to operate them. There are at least six nukes that the USAF has lost in the greater continental united states and surrounding coast. There argument is not only the pinnacle of brinksmanship but also in many ways utterly moot. Who is actually arguing nukes other than the retarded left building a strawman of biblical proportions.

No Recreational nukes should not be able to owned unless you can prove you understand the effects of it; Even then it can be argued they're mere existence violates the NAP

>prove you understand the effects of it
Sounds like a government test to limit access to rights. Just a simple quiz to make sure you understand what you are voting for right?

That's actually pretty brilliant. If Bill Gates wanted a nuke, since he's probably one of the few people to have the means of making one from scratch, he could pay off the government or spend a lot of money hiding the development from everyone. And the fact that he wouldn't (or doesn't) use it defeats the extreme nuke argument.

That's pretty good, too. It's along the lines of "the government is bad at everything, and can't even keep track of maybe the most important thing to keep track of. Why do you even trust the government with nukes?"

the better question is, why would you want to have a nuke, are nukes illegal already? even if they were legal who would want to sell one to you and would you be able to make one yourself? even if all these things lined up would you want to have one? wouldnt you be afraid someone would kill you for it or steal it from you? you would be the rich ass hole that handed a nuke to some derka derka terrorists

US v. Miller

We actually can own tanks though, and public schools are already bioweapons.

Shooting your attacker is more effective than pissing on yourself. If you're anti-gun, you're pro rape.

>Amerimutt calls me non white again
>Nuke his house
>Other burgers get mad and nuke me as well
>They accidentally EMP Russian robot sex dolls
>Nuclear war breaks out
>Australians swarm to Sup Forums
>Shitposting non-stop while there is still power
>The world ends with a BLACKED thread
>Itshappening.jpg

I'm surprised it took this long for the first shitpost, you cheeky bastard.

But it would change the perception of the really rich?