Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes? Don't you have a right to bear arms? Don't you claim to be a free country...

Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes? Don't you have a right to bear arms? Don't you claim to be a free country? Lmao

Weapons of mass destruction are different from regular arms. The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.

...

do you really want to make me cry?

>Doesn't know what "arms" meants

Niga u wot

Then how can you own grenades?

>The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.

Why not? Arms could mean anything from a pocket knife to a nuke. Nothing in the constitution specifies guns

I wish I did. I'd turn Canada into a parking lot for the northern US.

because for some reason i feel if i were to answer an ad on craigslist for a barely used nuke, it would be a bad idea

ITT: gunfags and conservashits delicately balancing their cognitive dissonance

It's glorious to behold.

Grenades aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. For example you can't use a hand grenade to wipe out a city or commit genocide.

In the words of the SCOTUS themselves:

>Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Don't you know what nuclear fallout is?

>doesn't know bullets are covered under 2nd amendment

Gunfags everybody. They don't even know wtf they're talking about. To no one's surprise.

in other words "Shall not be infringed" is totally infringed.

liberal faggot with college debt detected

OK, well explain to me why nuclear proliferation (among states) is any different to individuals with guns.

I realize that "arms" is an ambiguous term, but nukes definitely are not "arms."

You can own them, you just need to jump through a bunch of regulatory loopholes. You pretty much need to create a company that contracts the nuclear arsenal to the US Gov't.

Are you stupid?

>college debt

Nah, not dumb enough to do that.

Why not? Arms is just another word for weapon. Nuclear weapons are a type of weapon. Nothing in the constitution specifies which types of arms are ok and which arent

Because nuclear weapons aren't the same as guns? Are you playing dumb on purpose or are you actually retarded?

Then what defines and arm?

armies dont shoot nukes, arms is the soldier class.

Are bullets? This is a trick question because you're a fucking idiot.

no, he's "Canadian"

They meant weapons the military uses.

>doesn't understand his own constitution
>calls someone else stupid

Make a constitutional argument other than "they are different you retard"

Are you surprised that a bunch of jews on the Supreme court are jews?

A well-regulated militia = Upstanding citizens (not criminals or mentally ill)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don't forget that you have the right to keep arms at your place of residence and the right to bear(carry) them as needed.

Arms is defined as military/knight weapons, the military's infantry/knights do not shoot nukes.

>hah bro cognitive dissonance is glorious

Shit post. This is shit you say when you're an American in 1st grade. Among other thing like "We're not really free because I can't punch jimmy"

Gun enthusiasts have no rational response to this.
>A right to bear arms
>Means only some kinds can be banned
>No not that kind!
>Well but later we established a difference between this kind and that other kind
>No you can't establish a difference between this kind and that other kind!

Arms imply that it is something you can physically carry and wield.

There are citizens that own yellow cake. Nuclear weapons are not a locally controlled thing. They are international. Hence the sanctions on Iran and north Korea.

see

Where could you practice shooting it?

>Why aren't Americans allowed to own nukes?
I hate idiots who bring this up as if you can store it in a basement or garage like theres nothing to it. They don't realize how many huge regulations there are behind owning fissile uranium let alone refining non-fissile uranium.

>arms

I think military equipment should be free market and corporations should run any kind of protection force.

I am serious, think about it, you could choose who protect you from what at the price you want.

Everyone is a nation and a nation is everyone.

retards, arms means the weapons the knight class uses.

only a jew would argue this obnoxiously and still think he won because nobody wants to debate him

That is neither rational nor true.

Arms are not defined that way, and members of the military shoot plenty of weapons that it is not legal for an individual to own.

The military uses nukes. The citizens were given the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. If the government has nukes, its only rational that civilians should have nukes to defend themselves from government, so that theyre not fighting at a disadvantage

Cannon are arms.

No it doesn't. Its just another word for weapon

Technically we aren't allowed to buy nukes. Like with guns, if you build your own nuke then the government couldn't take it from you. At best they might temporarily seize it on environmental grounds, but if you handle the nuclear materials properly they would have to return it.

americans ARE allowed to own nukes

but you're such a loser you wouldn't even know where to start

Yes it is, and yes citizens should have all the military equipment necessary for a good war.

"Weapon" is too broad. A fighter jet is not an arm.

In theory there is nothing illegal about owning a nuke, however I don't think any one has had the balls to file a form 1 to make one. Also ignoring the development cost, the materials alone would be incredibly costly

At the time of the 2nd amendment, all weapons were arms. So there is not constitutional argument saying you can't own a nuke.

yes.

soldiers don't use nukes.

REEEEE LIBTARDS OFF MY THREAD
I WANT TO OWN NUKES NOW!

yes it is.

Arms means weapons armies uses.

No, its a vehicle that bears arms such as bombs or guns

give a case where an individual can privately own weapon class nuclear material. other than "they can own nukes"

You are finding this definition where?

Because I'll tell you where you aren't finding it: in the second amendment, which leaves it open to the broadest-possible interpretation, which you're claiming can be limited by your personal, "common sense" assumptions about what the definition is intended to imply. But under your rationale, it is every-bit as reasonable to assume it included only weapons in-use at that time and place.

It is not true that they do, and it is not rational to claim that citizens should have all available to the military except nukes. The military has nukes. And if you're claiming citizens should get them, too? Then you're an idiot. So your statement is either A) untrue and irrational or B) moronic.

Explain to me why you shouldn't be able to start your own private army?

>kills babies
>i-i-i-it's not living being

you cant own nuclear and biological weaponry world-wide leaf cuck

3/10 for making me laugh

>soldiers don't use nukes.

Then who mans the nuclear arsenal?

The individual soldiers don't use nukes, arms means weapons that soldier uses.

Why not? They're arms, and protected under the second amendment

...

That's a good point, if there exists a weapon the people can't be trusted to own, then the government shouldn't be allowed that weapon either. Although, I can imagine someone making the argument that once the government asserted the power to ban automatic weapons, we already lost the 2nd ammendment. Just like once the government made that retarded "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument, we lost the 1st ammendment. The history of any nation is the slow process of rights and freedoms being corroded by oligarch classes, until the state collapses and becomes something else, usually worse.
stupid argument, nuclear weapons offer a geniune bind; either everyone should own them to achieve parity with the government, or the government should not own them, and no one else either.

Not soldiers.

Fucking this.

What? Guns are okay because they never killed more than 49 people straight?

Why do every post with a leaf is a trashpost or a bait?

Americans can own nukes, they just need to go through the proper paperwork and make them themselves which is very expensive.

LEAF.

you can own uranium and such, however weaponry which categorizes as nuclear or biological is forbidden to be owned by citizens world-wide

Actually, I would argue there is a difference between an arm and a weapon.

An arm is something you individually use - RPG, rifle, etc. You actually can carry these on you and use them directly.

Nukes generally don't fall under this category.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Because the military class/knight class doesn't shoot them.

>implying private companies don't build and maintain the nuclear weapons

You really think the government is competent enough to build weapons like that? Where do you think nukes come from?

because you're a meme loving fuck

I have yet to see the day where I am shown EXACTLY what we are doing so differently than anyone else.

Armies don't use nukes for regular combat/occupation.

> The constitution doesn't give you the right to bear nuclear warheads, gas weapons, etc.
Wrong.

I think op, rightly, is pointing out that you fucks have no idea where the line is. For instance, what about grenade launchers or flame throwers. They're arms. If a gun could shoot or release a nuclear device would it be available to all under the Second Amendment?

They tried to.
The M65 cannon fired nuclear warheads.

Any weapon that has the capacity to strike another country from hundreds of miles away is completely incomparable to being free to own a tank or a missile launcher

American children build functioning nukes for 7th grade science projects.

You just aren't allowed to purchase or own plutonium.

Fatman for everyone!

>has no rebuttal
>h-heh

Your 'shall not infringe' means nothing if you only use it selectively

There is a very clear line, everything army uses for war citizens use, nukes are not a tool for soldiers you can't provide protection or occupy with them.

This desu.

Same thing with Hollywood and all their explosions and "weapons of war." Do gun grabbers think Hollywood is a government agency? They're private people with private property doing private business.

...

1% of the posters create 99% of the shitposts

Ban canada today

nuclear and biological weaponry is forbidden to be used and owned by citizens world-wide for the same reason nerve gas is forbidden.
nuclear and biological can damage the area and make it uninhabitable for years if not tens of years.

Ok fine, call them airmen or sailors whatever. They're still military personnel and under the control of government

Arms means weapons that knights/infantry/cavalry/artellery uses, not everything that can cause harm, arms = infantry weapons.

good luck filling out all the paper work and proving you have a fucking facility to store U235 or U239

Nukes shouldn't be allowed since they are not used in the defense of a free state, but rather in the destruction of it. When individuals are allowed to own nukes, they are suddenly able to destroy the free state. When nukes are commonly available to the general public they are suddenly able to make unreasonable concessions out of those who don't (give me money or I destroy your property/city). A single person with a rifle cannot make that sort of demand because they must physically be present in a location to use a rifle.

Secondly explosives and WMDs are not discriminatory. You can't control who is caught in the radius of an explosive with anywhere near the same level of precision as a firearm

tl;dr Nukes being commonly available destroys freedom rather than creates it so therefore it shouldn't be allowed under the 2nd.

>There is a very clear line

No.

That's that whole point.

You corn greased fuck.

They aren't part of the infantry, they are the people who use the nukes and may belong to the military but not the battlefield infantry.

Also the M-28/29 Davy Crockett system if you want something a smaller unit could carry

Yes, it is extremely clear ignoring autistic leaf posters.

Legitimately though, what is the effectiveness of these? What yield do they have?