Nuclear Weapons: The Right To Bear

Guntards, answer this question for me:
Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?

When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket. This put the average person on equal footing against the British and the newly formed government of the United States of America as well.

Even if you morons discount the fact that the 2nd Amendment is about a "well regulated militia" and not simply about everyone owning a gun, you can at least agree that the founders had no clue about assault rifles that can have one crazy sandnigger take out 49 people and injure a bunch more, right? They weren't thinking about the future of weaponry when they wrote this.

But, even if you STILL want the weapons that the founders didn't know would exist in the future, then how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons?

Checkmate, retards.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/E2tLVPVS0Bc
youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>But, even if you STILL want the weapons that the founders didn't know would exist in the future, then how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons?

If you can afford one, you should be able to have one.

B T F O

A

Look dude, if you try and take my shit or kill me I'll shoot you. Fair enough right?

BURNING

>If you can afford one, you should be able to have one.

So, you're saying that if a person COULD afford one, they should be able to have one?

I believe they had machine guns in the 1700s

So it is possible to own nukes legally if you can afford?

> Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
Do I?

>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?

But I do

Nukes are the ultimate form of deterrence and people should own them if they can own them. If the military can use it, so can I.

Some people can, leaf. In USA, we actually have wealth.

Do you not realize that the musket was one of the most technologically advanced weapons on the battlefield, comparable with JDAMS and drone tech of today.

Cost of maintenance and construction is prohibitive, but theoretically, a citizen can actually have an atomic device legally.

I don't see why not anyway. What does it matter if a private citizen owns a WMD when a government (which is comprised of private citizens) is able to?

there's a huge difference between a nuclear ICBM capable of removing a society from the map, and a shotgun with a few rounds in it.

How retarded are you leaf ? That's almost exactly what he said.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>Guntards
Stopped reading there. It's obvious you don't want a real discussion so just leave.

your nuke would get confiscated because it was stolen from someone

Same reason why you can't have a bazooka. You can't use it without causing irreparable damage to the surrounding area. The reason we can't have nukes is because they're fucking nukes. A nuke isn't a gun. It's the same reason you can't yell "FIRE!" or "I'VE GOT A GUN" in a crowded theater.

And let me turn this around on you. Why should you be able to type more than 30 words a minute? Back when the constitution was drafted, there were no high-capacity keyboards, they could only use a quill and paper. Look, I'm not trying to take your freedom of speech away, I'm just looking for common sense restriction of the speed you can type on your keyboard.

Lex Luthor pls go

They had gatling guns and a semi-auto rifle with 20 round internal magazine
Cannons and stuff... alot more than muskets

Definitely not. Many people can afford cocaine. I'm an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment however the thing about "being as armed as the government" only goes so far. No shit civilians shouldn't have nuclear arsenals. Yet no government on earth, not even scorched earth terrorists should have nuclear capabilities. It's just a shitty situation and people seem to forget that there isn't always, and almost never is, a perfect compromise. The moment you release your right to protect yourself, how are you going to protect your other rights? What stops us from becoming the next Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Mao predicament? We are not beyond tyranny. The human race will never escape evil and the intentions to do harm despite what the media wants you to think.

youtu.be/E2tLVPVS0Bc
Childish argument

you can totally have a bazooka tho

But if they were made legal to the public, a company could theoretically produce them. Also, the governments of Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, France or England could sell them to you.

Ackchually the most advanced weapon of the time was the cannon and citizens were NOT allowed to own those.

>the fire in theatre meme
Good job confirming you're clueless. The speech isn't illegal, the call to dangerous action is. Also the 2A doesn't just protect guns.

Nuclear weapons are a straw man argument that liberals have been using for many years now.

Nuclear weapons and other "unusual weapons" have been determined to not be weapons protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court has already dealt with this.

You are not clever. Just a dumb fucking leaf.

OP is a historical illiterate who doesn't understand the difference between arms and ordnance.

His "well regulated militia" crack also indicates an inability to so much as diagram a sentence, much less understand the historical usage of regulate in the Founder's period (spoiler: it meant well equipped, not legally restricted).

Also...Puckle guns and privately owned cannon were both features of the period.

I do support the right of private citizens to own nuclear weapons.

You can own a bazooka though... also rpg, grenade launchers ect

>When your stupid outdated toiletpaper of a constitution was written, the most advanced communication technology that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a printing press. This put the average person on equal footing against the British and the newly formed government of the United States of America as well.

>Even if you morons discount the fact that the 1st Amendment to "petition the government" and not simply about everyone writing a blog, you can at least agree that the founders had no clue about the internet that can have one crazy sandnigger preach preach islam to 4900000 followers, right? They weren't thinking about the future of communications when they wrote this.

Go home leaf.

When a single gun is capable (and thats 1 single gun - not a collection of events) of killing between 100,000 to millions of people through nothing other than its own decay process you might have a point of comparison.

Until then, you are just going to have to accept that criminals aren't going to turn in their guns because your feelings tell you they should.

Madison explicitly allowed private citizens to arm their ships with cannons to kill pirates. Fuck off with your lies.

You're a shit-wit. Shouldn't you be out cuckolding?

Yeah, but not without going through a fuckton of shit. And, it's not protected by the second amendment. It's not like a gun. You can probably get a nuke too, it'd be next to impossible though.

>well regulated militia

>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?

I do though? So long as you can afford the facilities to safely store them. Why are you leafs so fucking stupid?

> year 2184
> have a doomsday device capable of ending the human race.
It's my right, as long as I don't tread on someone else's rights.

a well armed society is a polite one

Yes is protected. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. Fuck off libtard.

This

they're called nuclear ARMS and it says right to bear ARMS so what's the issue exactly

This is a non-argument, there is no possible way for a citizen to legally purchase a nuclear weapon even if they were technically allowed to own one and could afford it. Its like asking if people should be allowed to own Death Stars, they cant get one even if it was allowed

Niggas taking the easy bait.
Also:
>Dude muskets lmao
>What is the puckle gun?

>Why don't you support the right to bear nuclear arms?
I do. Anyone who can afford to design, build and maintain a nuclear weapon deserves to own one

>and citizens were NOT allowed to own those.
There were privately owned cannons then and even now.

if the definition of "arms" is every kind of weapon or thing that can be used offensively or defensively, do you also support the people's rights to have biological and chemical weapons

Yes you fucking idiot.

Yep they're classified as destructive devices

hehe if you think its okay to own guns then you have to think its okay to own nukes. There is literally no difference between nukes and guns hehe so gotcha stupid right wingers.

>he doesn't have his own death star

The left are like children.

COUNTRY

It doesn't matter what you think. What the law of the land says matters.

are you guys just ignoring the people who are saying yes to this question

Personal kawaii nuke would be nice tho

>the most advanced weapon that the average person could hope to get their hands on was a musket
Wrong.
>well regulated militia
Doesn't mean what you think it means.
>They weren't thinking about the future of weaponry when they wrote this
Conjecture.
>how do you justify NOT support the idea of the right to have nuclear weapons
Because if you take anything to it's extreme it sounds stupid. The right to free speech doesn't exclude beaming your thoughts directly into everyones brains (or twitter, or facebook for that matter). How can you justify that?! HOW. HOWWWWW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

See? I can be retarded too.

Because faggots shouldn't have access to weapons that could kill millions.
I'd rather we just have guns.

No, I see them. What about them. I am not them. They are making a good case though.

>implying he could type more than 30 words per minute.

Probably took two weeks to type that post.

Holy shit this thread is full of retards who don't even know the constitution of their own country.

No the second amendment doesn't allow you to have nuclear weapons, it doesn't apply to arms that can't be hand carried, it specifically say to bear arms, non bearable arms are not there, shit like cannons is not considered under the second amendmendt.

I recall an american explaining that you could legally have a missile because of it being treated as an explosive (ie grenades etc) and that the main problem is simply acquiring one and finding proper storage for it.
This was 3-4 years ago so i don't remember it very clearly, any burger willing to correct me on this?

>if you're against me, why aren't you defending someone elses position?
Probably because I don't know these other retards any more than I know you. The only thing I can be sure of is you're all pussy faggots who would easily lose in a fight against me - a superior example of human strength and intellect.

>shit like cannons is not considered under the second amendmendt.

Tell that to seafaring merchants, nigger.

>being this stupid
I mean I could maybe understand if you don't understand english.

Yes they were

You need a license to own ordinance in most areas. There might be exceptions. I know Alaska has a law that states that federal firearms bills do not apply to them - dunno if that applies to explosives as well.

Thats the point OP is trying to make. The piece of advanced weaponry could kill 1 person before it becomes nothing but a knife on a stick. That constitution was also made with the threat of British invasion in mind. Nowdays an assult rifle can kill 30 people before the shooter spend 3 seconds reloading to kill another 30.

Because its an arguement from absurdity.

Since lefty cucks love watching black people.

youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc

By the way, the militia is made of up CITIZENS.
Militias can be FORMED BY ARMED CITIZENS AT ANY TIME
Therefore all citizens worthy of being armed (of able body) should be armed in the event force is needed to defend the persons/property.

Nigger, did you not know about Puckle gun? The founding fathers did. See if you spent less time watching cuck porn and more time reading history then maybe you wouldn't be such a vapid tool. I don't care what they could think up in weapons, I care about their ideology and the laws of the land they instated and died for.

If you still want to argue for owning or not owning a nuclear weapon. I'd say those who have enough money to buy, maintain, and use a nuke should. After all, they're smart enough to know if they want to blow up everything around them in the defense of the greater good... thats the government's line of logic anyways.

>Guntards
Dropped. Didn't even get to the fact you are a leaf also.

Well, isn't that a flawed ruling, then?
How are you supposed to protect yourself from the government when they have nuclear weapons?

What about foreign powers that have nuclear weapons?

What if the King of England decides to invade you again? England has nukes, Skeeter?

Also, where in the constitution does it say that "nuclear weapons are 'unusual weapons' so citizens can't have them"?

>Nuclear weapons are the same as firearms
>Therefore people defending the second amendment want to privately own nukes

Go drink a big fat bottle of peroxide you fucking idiot. Sage the shills

Jesus, texas. I thought you were smarter than this.
That law was written at a time where our entire naval force (modest though it may have been compared to france or england) was privately owned. People privately owned arrays of cannons.

>See? I can be retarded too.

Well you should go with what you're best at.

The point of the amendment wasn't to allow citizens to have things that can kill one person at a time. The point of the second amendment was to give citizens as much of a level playing field with the government as they can.

Where do you draw the line? Not being purposefully obtuse, but there is a whole continuum of weapons in between a spoon and an H-bomb

Gatling gun didn't come around until the 1860's, homie.

You need a destructible devices tax stamp which is 200$

>30 people before the shooter spend 3 seconds reloading to kill another 30
>100% accuracy
I mean if the shooter was that good, then smaller clip sizes and semi auto wouldn't slow him down much

How is that related? The fact that people can privately own cannons doesn't mean that the second amendment protects it, just like there are hundreds of rights not given by the bill of rights that exist in the law.

>being this dumb

I do support it it's just a matter of being able to get your hands on the material to make them which I support being illegal for a person to obtain. I support a person being able to get a nuke so long as he can build it from scratch himself.

How are you supposed to protect yourself from anyone if they have nuclear weapons?
So what you are saying is that because nuclear weapons are impossible to stop we should just give our weapons to the government. We should have just given up and surrendered to the Soviet Union as well.

>clip
i mean magazine
don't kill me /k/

GET HIM OUTTA HERE

have you considered the consequences of any US citizen being able to own a biological weapon? in a time where we see an increasing number of homegrown terror attacks?

I fully support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons. If this were the case, there would be a lot less government oppression in the world. Your government should not be able to threaten you with any form of violence you or a reasonable militia cannot reciprocate. Anything else is just polite tyranny.

Too late, we already have the deer lovejam and the cum brownies to feed you your last meal.

The only consequence I see is fewer niggers, spics, kikes, and ultra-liberals.

>"Yes you fucking idiot."
>of course I support the ability of private citizens to own biological and chemical weapons, you moron

This is why Americans are the most hated and least intelligent human beings on the planet.

Hey, he said Gatling gun by name. If he'd have said Gatling gun-type weapons, then sure.

>are you guys just ignoring the people who are saying yes to this question
I've been wondering this too.

I draw the line at long range missiles.
People should be allowed to have fully armed fighter jets.

>49 people
Why is it that the death count keeps getting smaller each time I hear about it?

I want to kill all Canadians. And I will once I get my own nukes

Here's your order sir

>implying anyone would ever be able to buy a biological weapon.

You need to be able to afford to mine and produce the materials yourself and have the science to make one and gave the ability to safely store one. Its hard to obtain one legally.
>the only people who really have any to sell are the gov
>Mr government can I buy a nuke off you?
>not for sale

We aren't ignoring them. Why does it matter? Are we arguing the right to have nukes or are we arguing the right to bear arms? Are you sad that your little divide and conquer scheme isn't working?