So if I can buy an AR-15, why can't I buy a nuke...

So if I can buy an AR-15, why can't I buy a nuke? Surely you guys believe that the Second Amendment covers ALL sorts of weapons, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Sure. But pray tell, from where? And with what money?

AR-15 is a civilian grade weapon which can be useful in all sorts of situations, a nuke is a massive destruction weapon that will cause the death of millions, see the difference?

Well a gun can be used to defend yourself and your property, a nuke can't.

A nuke would be less devastating to an area than spending that money to import shitskins. Also if you have the money to buy a nuke there's nothing stopping you from making your own

>doesn't know the difference beterrn firearms an ordnance.
Typical straw man.

If you can afford to build a nuke you probably have enough invested in this world to be trusted with not destroying it - although there are always exceptions.....

With one I can end the Jewish menace with ease instead of defending myself barely from the monsters it spawns?

You spell words like a hillbilly

> DEY TURK ARE GUNS

Yes. The second ammendment covers "arms". Nukes are arms. Guess they fucked up by inventing nukes, eh?

You can go ahead and buy a nuke if you can find a nuke retailer.

building a nuke isn't easy brainlet

>nuke retailer
lel

This bait again.

my hero academia sucks
AR-15 is not an assault rifle

prove me wrong
>pro-tip
you can't

well according to wikipedia there is no recognized human right to self-defense, but there is a recognized human right to internet access. one of those is capable of spreading propaganda and the other isn't.

checked, you also have to pass a background radiation check tho

Hillary Clinton? It was her turn?

A nuke is pretty damn useless if your have to bring it around with you on a dolly

It's legal to buy nukes if you can find an authorized seller.

>again the reason you can’t buy a nuke isn’t due to some law that’s says you can’t own them. It’s due to the fact that every world power would assasinate you if you tried to acquire one.

because you can discriminate targets with the ar-15.

or that you can't fully determine who you will be killing.

It isn't lethal capacity, it's target discrimination.

It can, but you are very likely to injure/kill uninvolved persons.

>why can't I buy a nuke?
I agree. We have a few places that needs a good nuking. Sounds good to me.

We’re still on this shit here?
The media completely forgot about this last Monday.

Well there was a kid who built a nuclear generator in his families garage once.
It was trying to get plutonium that got him noticed.
In this day and age you can probably build one or print one lol
Just the material to complete it is heavily watched but not it you use a third party contractor to move it to Canada first though lol

SHALL

You probably can't afford a nuke for one thing.

>why can't I buy a nuke?
You are apparently retarded.

>Surely you guys believe that the Second Amendment covers ALL sorts of weapons, right?
yes, except those forbidden under commonly accepted laws, treaties, and conventions of war. No NBC or incendiaries, but everything else should be fair game IMO

That would imply hollow points aren't allowed either. And what's an NBC?

...

nuclear, biological, chemical weapons

Like with hollow points, aren't they just "outlawed" for proper armies and warfare? Terrorism and rebellions fought by militias and paramilitaries aren't covered by those treaties, right?

You can buy hollow points right now, hollow points aren't some amazing invention that is only for war use, the way they work is the splinter on impact and as they tumble through the human body losing pieces, when the force finally lets up from the shot you're left with a lot less coming out the other side than a bullet which means no over impact thus having to worry less about what's behind your target

>hollow points aren't some amazing invention that is only for war use
You need to reread my posts. Hollow points are outlawed for army use by "laws, treaties and conventions of war" and can thus only legally be used by paramilitaries and private individuals.

No, they aren't. I can walk down to fucking gun store right now and buy some fucking hollow points

READ MY FUCKING POST MORON

Yes, If the government needs it, I need it too.

Seems children have been the target discrimination of choice as of late

You're thinking about those and the Hague Convention
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet

Uhhh no, nork. You clearly know nothing of gun laws there's no reason

What are you talking about? What I want to know is that, since it's legal for individuals and paramilitaries to own and use things like dumdum bullets/hollow points, does that mean it's legal for private individuals to own and use things like NBC weapons. Are the treaties/conventions written in the same way, meaning the same "loophole" exists?

Only a mutt can be this dense fuckwit.

According to who?

The layer of complexity in nuclear weaponry or biological weaponry exclude common use. It's like saying operating a knife being within the realm of understanding for most people means operating a chainsaw, saw mill and combine harvester are equal.

There is no functional complexity difference between a bolt action rifle and a semiautomatic rifle.

>What I want to know is that, since it's legal for individuals and paramilitaries to own and use things like dumdum bullets/hollow points, does that mean it's legal for private individuals to own and use things like NBC weapons.

Your question is confused. The treaties concern the use of these weapons in warfare. Country based laws decide what private citizens can own. You can have a ban on certain bullet types in warfare and they can still be legal to own. You can have a legal bullet that you're not legally able to use in self-defense.

Laws don't just cover one item in all cases.

If you have ammonia and chlorine at home you can make lethal gas yourself. They're not banned individually. You're just prohibited from making deadly gas and using it.
Do you understand the difference?

>Country based laws decide what private citizens can own
That was also my understanding, and as far as I know there's no law in the USA disallowing the possession of WMDs, as long as you have got all the paperwork in order.

We need to allow the mentally ill (including liberals) a means to self register to the NICS database for background checks.

The self-aware mentally ill and the anti-second amendment people can voluntarily give away their Second Amendment right to a gun by adding themselves.

>as far as I know there's no law in the USA disallowing the possession of WMDs, as long as you have got all the paperwork in order.

Again it really depends on what the fuck you mean. Like I said you can own chlorine gas or make napalm in your garage, and it's still a crime if you bomb the suburbs with them. In many places just adding the chemicals and having and storing the resulting product of chlorine gas or napalm is a crime in itself.

These likely fall under hazardous materials storage laws in the US.

Under the banner of "paperwork in order" anything's possible. People work with the deadliest viruses in the world. Labs around the west are working with easily weaponized materials.
Your question just fails to make sense and I'm not sure you even know what you're trying to ask.

Is it really "HURR IF SECOND AMENDMENT WHY CAN'T I OWN A NUKE" then you're just clinically retarded since even firearms are regulated in the US. You can't pick up any firearm anywhere in the US thanks to the second amendment. The entire debate is what should and should not be allowed, with second amendment activists striving for minimal legislation.

Nope.

It's a matter of being allowed to posses it for the purposes intended by the second amendment.

>of others

Dont be dumb. You're wasting time with this. Sage

>It's a matter of being allowed to posses it for the purposes intended by the second amendment.

If you can't get a coherent view on what firearms the 2A applies to how in the fuck do you think there's a coherent view on if the 2A also applies to mortars, anthrax and nukes?

You can argue whatever you want, just like you can argue that all firearms should be legal under the 2A, it doesn't mean they are or that it's the majority view.

When teachers told you "there's no such thing as a dumb question" they were lying to you.

>, why can't I buy a nuke?
you should be able to though

Sure, buy a nuke. if you have the money for it, you deserve it like the rest of the elite.

Are nukes "arms"? What was the most powerful military hardware at the time? Could it be privately owned? Rifles could be privately owned, and even Gatlin guns, and maybe cannon, but what about a frigate? Was dynamite completely unrestricted, and was it considered a bearable arm?

I would say you have an argument to make for owning artillery and fully automatic firearms. Explosive ordinance, missiles, tanks, battleships, that's a stretch. Only state militaries ever operated things of that class.

The fact that a "people's army" these days would need tactical ordnance, possibly strategic as well, should mean that the 2A makes these things legal to own. The 2nd amendment was vague for this exact reason.

Because you couldn't afford one, faggot

It's not a matter of what states have had historically, it's a matter of what is needed these days to secure a free state, and nukes are most certainly a part of that since that a full on conflict with one party having access to WMDs and the other side does not, is a conflict the lacking side cannot win. It is in other words necessary for the people, who have a constitutional right to form militias armed with the members' privately owned weapons, in cases of dire need to have WMDs, so that these militias can do their constitutional duty to secure the free state.

I don't know. Do you want leftists having that ordinance? They're backed by kikes with the money to buy it.

Do we need that ordinance to win? I don't think so. I think we only need our semi-auto rifles. Many of us are also active/prior military so keep that in mind as well. "All enemies foreign and domestic."

I'm just arguing about what the 2nd amendment should be interpreted as.

>The fact that a "people's army" these days would need tactical ordnance, possibly strategic as well

But this is wrong. The US has been beaten back by rice farmers in tunnels and goatfuckers in caves. Neither won by superior or even remotely comparable arms. Most of their fights used shitty handmedown rifles.

They win because it's damn near impossible to root out a dispersed militia.

Any scenario involving an actual civil uprising in the US turns into a clusterfuck within a few weeks and the government loses that fight. The government can't even stamp out gangs or terrorists as it is. If the enemy is your own people, taking out your strategic assets like power infrastructure or sabotaging docks or bringing down key bridges (all perfectly possible with zero military explosives), you're in a living nightmare.

If you talk seriously to anyone doing wargames on this, and not some internet liberal yahoo who thinks the government wins a civil war with drones in some magical unspecified way, you'll know it's enough that they have a few guns, are willing to resist and have a large number of members or popular support.

>since that a full on conflict with one party having access to WMDs and the other side does not, is a conflict the lacking side cannot win

Vietnam and Afghanistan doesn't ring a bell? You're also seriously suggesting they could use a nuke on their own country somehow? Are you an actual child?

>the lacking side cannot win

You should know about the Finnish Winter War at least you imbecilic danskjävel.

You do know that the 2nd amendment is equally meant to ensure that the american populace is armed against foreign enemies right? Possibly even more so.

Russia did not use WMDs on the Finns in the Winter War.

An argument can be made that you Legally you could, provided you had legal weapons grade uranium/plutonium.

What cuts you off though would be our treaties related to nuclear arms, the government's need to end nuclear proliferation would likely outweigh your right to bear that specific armament.

t. Constitutional law Attorney

You are quite literally fucking retarded. Please kill yourself.

same reason why you can't buy a highway or battleship

Hr never said it was, brainlet leaf.

We have international treaties regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, so yeah, no.

1/10 made me reply

>Russia did not use WMDs on the Finns in the Winter War.

A nuke is just a bigger bomb (hence why the firebombing of Tokyo was worse than two nukes). The Russians attempted to carpet bomb Finland into submission. The firepower and manpower were completely lopsided and it didn't matter.

>equally meant to ensure that the american populace is armed against foreign enemies right

And you can go back and re-read my post then for why an armed populace is a gigantic pain in the ass even if it's just bolt-actions.

You're now going completely circular to where the militia should have nukes to defend against foreign invaders as if the military wasn't there to do it and the militia isn't the fallback. Again, are you a child? Did you complete school yet?

>all sorts of situations
>schoolshootings
>club shootings
>military base shootings
>murder

yup lots of everyday uses, exclusive only to burgerfats land.

Nothing stopped rich merchants from owning warships to protect their investments. They're about the only ones who could afford such a thing, but there was no law against it.
Dynamite didn't exist until the latter half of the 19th century.

Tanks and other such large-scale military-grade weapons are perfectly legal to own in the US, but modern equipment isn't exactly for sale. There's a solid market for surplus WWII/Cold War tanks though. They have to meet the same requirements as any other vehicle to be on public property (like roads), so generally will need modifications, proper licenses, etc if you want to drive them around.

try building a nuke first
>>maybe we'll get lucky and you'll sterilize yourself

If you can make it an arm that you can bear, then sure, but I think you will have difficulties.

We did develop shoulder fire nukes....

>Muh carpet bombing
>Muh incendiaries
The militia's members should also have the right to arm itself with these weapons

>Foreign invasion
If the government or military is taken out or otherwise in disarray it is up to the militia to secure the free state. If the Chinese, Russian or some other world power decides to unleash WMDs on the USA after causing such confusion and malfunction among the higher-ups the only thing keeping them back, MAD, would be gone. Unless the people themselves are capable of such.
Reality might be that ICBMs are not available to the public because they're too expensive or no one is willing to sell them to the public, but it is the public's constitutional right to own them, on order to preserve the security of the free state.

The USA was constitutionally never meant to have the largest military industrial complex in the world, but is actually meant to rely on militias in the case of war. While reality has changed, the constitution has not, and the rights that come with it hasn't either.

If something is transported on a wheel-barrow, are you still bearing it?

Of course. How else would I protect my private island from the starving child prostitutes

Unironically yes my 6 seconds friend. We live in a world where some individuals and corporations are worth more than a country; if Belize buys a nuke why can't Bill Gates?

Right to bear arms does include nukes. Rather than saying "that's crazy!", we should amend the constitution to fix the problem.

But instead what we get is a bunch of retards doing mental gymnastics for the "true meaning" of the 2nd amendment.

We can own any weapons we want and the government can't stop us. That's what it says.

>2 posts by this ID

He said there was nothing stopping you from making your own, which there is Tyrone.

Yes.

pretty sure if I got a nuke I would not only NOT go to jail but I'd probably be able to get my neighborhood declared a sovereign nation with me as the absolute ruler.

Yeah, I mean if you have enough money to build nuclear weapons, you have enough money to buy your own state (see: Israel). So it's really kind of a moot point.

No

because you are a poorfag.

Nukes are more difficult due to shit load of international laws and treaties tied to them. If there were none then yes you could "legally" buy one but no-one would sell you one because they'd all be owned by the government.

International laws and treaties do not apply to paramilitaries.