Thread 509331335

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ostensibly, this amendment is in place to ensure that the citizenry can defend itself from any outside threat—after all, the power is meant to be with the people.

Why can't a well-regulated militia have a nuke? How can the citizens defend against a tyrannical entity that has nukes when they do not? The second ammendment is moot when the government can just nuke you.

there's no constitutional basis for banning any kind of weapon

>>509331504
/thread

>>509331335 (OP)
technically it does, But most people realize that's a bad idea so no one has fought about it in court

>>509331335 (OP)
I dream of a day when any suburban housewife can go to Walmart and buy a nuclear bomb

>>509331335 (OP)
>why doesn't this thing that does
it does, idiot. the second amendment has ZERO limits. we get ANY weapon the government has. PERIOD

>>509331504
Yup. And its high time we admit 2a isn't about hunting, its about cop killing.

>>509331335 (OP)
Only a sith deals in absolutes. Nukes should not exist but they do, and need to be regulated. The only reason I even carry a firearm is because other retards have them. If everyone were to de-arm, I would be perfectly fine doing the same.

>>509331335 (OP)
because your right to self-defense only applies to the threat. So, if a stranger is breaking into your home in the middle of the night; that may give you the right to shoot them, but not to then go next door to shoot your neighbor too.

Atomic weapons don't fall under 2A because it is impossible to use them without harming either the lives or property of others.

>>509331335 (OP)
GUN CONTROL USA
many redpills for debating

>>509331335 (OP)
GUN CONTROL IS HITTING THE TARGET
learn the rules

>>509331335 (OP)
The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government.
Everything up to towed artillery is considered arms. Nukes are strategic-level assets.

>>509331335 (OP)
It does.
Nukes are expensive to own and maintain.

>>509331335 (OP)
>Why doesn't the second ammendment support nukes?


because they are unironically science fiction

Nuclear Weapons are a successful historical fiction; just like the Holocaust, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claims of these weapons existing and a multitude of contradictions in both the narrative as well as the "science."

>tldr: jews rape kids

>>509335748
This being our main issue

legalize recreational nukes

for white Americans over 35 only

>>509331335 (OP)
Would it even be considered weapon?

>>509334081
100% this
>>509331504
And this

Kill any cop that's violating your rights