4 ms·
Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?
by bashinator 6y ago
Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoOnly for yields below 100 kilotons.
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoPocket nukes
- jojobas 6y agoSo, no assault nukes?
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoSemi-automatic Ar-14 Assault Nukes with 30 round clip magazines. You'll need a $200 NFA tax stamp.
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoThe jump to nuclear weapons immediately in any conversation of the 2A is as many would say a "Strawman" argument. But to play along, NO, because 42 U.S. Code § 2122 makes that illegal. If nuclear weapons are ever issued as standard individual weapons to soldiers, then they will be covered by the 2A via the Militia Act. Until they are, nukes are not covered by the 2A. The constitution and current laws, clearly define what you can or can't have under the 2A. NFA laws exist as were voted to control Automatic weapons, SBR's, Silencers, Sawed off Shotguns etc. Until new laws are enacted that change this, it's pretty clear. I for one don't want new laws written to change my first amendment rights, lest we get to the point where the 2nd is needed to defend the first.
- zepto 6y agoDo you think the first amendment should provide for an individual to use a 10,000db loudhailer?
- sbelskie 6y agoAsking the real questions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pdelbarba 6y agoPretty sure 10,000db is "destroy the observable universe" power levels so.....somehow worse than nukes? That's a 10^1000 multiplier. It doesn't even matter what unit you use really...
- zepto 6y agoFair enough - so let’s us a multiplier that makes the loudhailer equivalent to a 100 megaton nuke :-)
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms? If it was to serve its original purpose, it arguably might need to (just as private ownership of the heaviest artillery was in the early Republic not unheard of) but any hope of it serving its original purpose has been lost since at least the late 19th Century with the expansion of paramilitary police forces, and the final nail in it's coffin was drilled with the transition to a fully professional military after Vietnam, and what weapons are covered doesn't really matter any more to it's intended function, only to the degree of incidental harm it inflicts while failing to protect from the harms of the isolated culture of large permanent military/paramilitart internal and external security forces.
- Yc4win 6y agoAin't that the truth. The government has been shitting on it's citizens for a very long time now with all those treasonous DHS entities. May the citizens rip apart the federal LE agencies into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind.
- lostmsu 6y agoI think under certain extremely unlikely circumstances a person using a nuclear weapon to defend themselves might be cleared of all potential charges.