What sort of weapons should the public NOT be allowed to have?

>>31796543
SHALL

Firearms

SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

Slippery slope applies when it comes to weapon bans.

>>31796546
NOT

>SHALL

>>31796546
>>31796548
>>31796549
>>31796551
So legalize private nukes and nerve gas?
>>31796547
Explain your reasoning.

File: 1474793994450.png (19KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 429x410px

>>31796560
yes yes yes

Excellent question OP.

The second amendment presupposes that armament is necessary for the security of a free state: ergo, the people should be armed with whatever is necessary to protect their lives and their way of lives from who- (and what)-ever is trying to take them.

It's a pretty self policing stance when you get down to it.

>>31796560
Anything you can keep in safe storage.
So,
Yes, a tactical nuke or 50kg of VX if you own a big enough patch of land that an ND won't fuck over your neighbors

>>31796560
> implying you can't already build a nuke
> implying all the ingredients for nerve gas aren't available to purchase

The problem here is that NOBODY IN THE CIVILIAN WORLD WANTS TO NUKE OR NERVE GAS SOMEBODY. But once they start banning purchases of things because they *could* be used to make something like a nerve gas or dirty bomb, it's very unlikely they'll stop there.

File: green-flamethrower-still.jpg (340KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1000x1000px

>>31796543
>mfw I own an actual fucking flamethrower
>pic related

>>31796579
Thanks anon, I was trying to say this but couldn't find few enough words. Some 14 yr old kid already made a working reactor in his garage, and household chemicals are readily available to get and make awful combinations that could be very deadly.

>>31796543
According the second amendment I can't really make a case for why any weapon should be banned, legally

BUT I don't think private individuals should own certain things. I don't need some silicon valley fuckwits or insurance industry tycoons staging a coup with their private army because we didn't defer to their endless wealth as much as they'd like

The obvious solution is a constitutional amendment that clarifies the second. Good luck with that, and I doubt it would draw the line exactly where I'd like.

File: aum shinrikyo.jpg (218KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 2000x1333px

>>31796579
>NOBODY IN THE CIVILIAN WORLD WANTS TO NUKE OR NERVE GAS SOMEBODY

>>31796543
I'll put it this way.

What is the certain point at which a Rothschild should stop monopolizing a certain market? Should they be allowed the whole market? Or should they be limited to what they can and cannot D on a market, if they could even get their hands on every business out there, even the ones that pop up. Or should we let them continue monopolizing the oil and banking industries? Should we let them make a huge surplus of wealth and income, to the point where they influence our communities' lawful decision? Should we just sit by and let them take every thing we have?

Of course not! Why would we let them take up all of everyone else's businesses, either by strong arming us, or by buying us out.

Now the same thing applies to the government. Should we allow them to continue to monopolize on fear to gain more power that they should be allowed to hold? Or should we let them take our only defense away, from them and others who would do us physical harm?

It makes no difference, business or weapons. The richer and more powerful should not be allowed to control us like 13th century peasants, because that's not what I am. And I have the guns to prove it.

Reasoning behind the restriction on bombs is because bombs are indiscriminate. They can kill or injure anyone and everyone within their range, everytime they are used. Firearms have to be under the control of someone in order to kill. Its why with a firearm you can clear a room with good and bad guys and only kill the bad guys (try doing the same with gernades). Not to say you cant kill indiscimantely with a firearm, but then the fault in that situation is on the person. This point also leads to why you dont give guns to robots with any type of autonomy, you just dont.

File: Nuclear_spectators.jpg (228KB, 1117x760px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1117x760px

>>31796578
>tactical nuke ND
why is reality so fucking boring

File: image.jpg (304KB, 2800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2800x1000px

>>31796543
Yes

>>31796595
>working
Didn't that kid wind up incarcerated because his reactor leaked radiation and poisoned his whole neighborhood?

>>31796596
>a constitutional amendment that clarifies the second
Even if that did happen, the line would be drawn so close we wouldn't own anything. You're a fool if you think that's actually a good idea.

File: 1465316801273.jpg (71KB, 581x542px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 581x542px

>>31796635
>>31796660
MFW I'll never know the ultimate wonder of growing to the ripe old age of 80 and then hobbling through a bad part of Memphis or Detroit with hundred dollar bills hanging out of my pocket and a mini nuke under my coat.

>yo broken ass old cracka, gimme dem benz for I smack you real good
>oh you're such a troubled youth, let me just get out my billfold
>drop mini nuke nose down
>level entire city block
>CNN reads "gang related multi-homicide leaves neighborhood in rubble"

Pic unrelated

>>31796726
Like i said, I didnt think it would work out for me

Although the state legislatures are very republican right now

>>31796577
I can protect myself with a handgun just fine but I want to own a rifle as well.
What defines as protection?

>>31796560
>Explain your reasoning.
No

>>31796756
You're not very bright

>>31796577
>>31796767
Read it again. Protect you or your way of life using whatever means is necessary to defeat the threat to you or your way of life.

>>31796560
>implying nukes aren't already in private hands for decommisioning and maintenance.

>>31796543

Weapons that are completely indiscriminate in who they affect wouldn't be a bad criteria. Stuff like nukes and large bombs really can't be used without unintentionally harming a lot of people. But then there would be the gray area of grenades. I suppose the problem is do we allow people who regularly use bombs to wipe out civilian targets tell us what we can and cannot own.

File: 1474279323678.jpg (52KB, 1600x917px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1600x917px

>>31796732

>>31796671
No he joined the Navy. Truly no harsher punishment has been devised by man.

But seriously he did join the Navy.

So, if you can be armed with whatever you need to protect your lives why not own a missile shield complex?

>>31796584
Um those are easy to get at least in MI. I use it to melt snow.

>>31796543
Why not nukes?

Those that would want to use them (read as Snackbars and crazies) wouldn't be able to afford them, and those that can afford them (I.e, rich people) wouldn't want to use them. Those that fit into both categories would be able to sneak them in anyway. Plus, just because they can be owned doesn't mean that they can be acquired.

>>31796579
>>implying you can't already build a nuke
>>implying all the ingredients for nerve gas aren't available to purchase

k. Build a nuke then. Go on do it.

Oh wait you fucking can't, because you don't have the fissionable material and also you're a neanderthal with little to no understanding of engineering or nuclear physics

And you don't even know how to put those nerve ingredients together you faggot

>>31796608
Is that markiplier?

>>31797185
> implying one needs detailed knowledge in order to infer that building materials for a dirty bomb could be sourced.

Admittedly, no, I don't personally know how to build a bomb or nerve agent. But I'm also not someone with the inclination to learn. You DO realize that not everyone is you or me, right? Pretty sure the sarin gas attack happened.

>>31796543
Short of NBC, none.

>>31796543
I agree with OP that WMDs and similar weapons need to be kept out of the hands of the everyman.

I wouldn't want my neighbor trying to jury rig VX in his garage, or stockpiling nitroglycerin

And i wouldn't want some BLM fuckstick blow up my college because muh feels

And i wouldnt want Mr. ihateamerica to be able to mail order VX either.

>inb4 they'll just get it anyway

File: 1470362022302.jpg (823KB, 1869x1423px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 1869x1423px

>>31796560
>So legalize private nukes and nerve gas?

Almost certainly yes.

If you are a legal American citizen with no felonies or connections to Anti-American (basically a stricter background check, I guess), and have the means to construct or purchase a weapon, you should be able to own it.
Same for tanks, bombers, fighters, and battleships (which Jefferson specifically confirmed are protected by the Second Amendment)

The only issue I could see legally is that of national defense. We protect our government nukes VERY VERY HEAVILY. The very premise of “Sum of All Fears” was that a SINGLE nuke was missing.

I think you could make a very good case from a military standpoint that the risk of a foreign military (in a time of war obviously) stealing a private citizen’s nuke and using it against us overrides the right to own it.

A person with the wealth to buy/build a nuke would certainly protect it from normal thieves. But is your private security team going to stop a bunch of Spetsnaz guys with the full force of the Russian intelligence service behind it? Now you’ve got an unsecured nuke in the middle of America. No missiles to disable in flight, just a metaphorical button to press.

Again, not making the case for it. Only that that’s the best argument against it.

But then again… SHALL

>>31796543
that's a slippery slope my friend, and part of the divide and conquer strategy many no-funs are adopting.

File: IMG_0947.jpg (48KB, 395x243px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 395x243px

>>31796543
ctr shills git out

File: panzer468_v-vierspaltig.jpg (118KB, 760x428px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 760x428px

>They took his Panther Tank,Torpedo and 88 flak gun

Would this happen in America?

>ywn attach a snowplow to a Panther Tank and go clear roads in a snowstorm.

>what the government says goes!!!111eleven!

Kill yourself nancyboy faggot

in my opinion anything that could destroy a city block or cause long lasting damage to the environment. no nukes or huge bombs, but flak guns, tanks, any kind of firearm is fine. enough for a force of guirrellas to overthrow a government.

>>31799803
I felt so sorry for him when I heard that they took it, funny thing is that the same guys who had to tow it away helped him to maintain is "snowplower's" engine