Can you legally own a torpedo?

Without the explosive in it I'm sure you could

>>33104300
Duh, you buy them from sex stores.

File: GI bunner.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

Tax stamp+BAFTE fuckery=enjoy your destructive device.
You could probably get a nuke in this country if not for the sad reality that nobody who owns/produces nukes would never be stupid enough to sell to private interests.

>>33104300
I'd imagine with all the proper paperwork you could own the entirety of the 1945 USN.

File: 1439012131601.jpg (44KB, 604x340px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 604x340px

>>33104421
The paperwork would weigh as much as the ships.

>>33104300
Yes,

It would be registered as an explosive device.

However there is no guarantee the ATF would approve your application. Especially after they find out youre a fat nerd who posts on a Honduran Meat Slapping Board.

>>33104382
Nuclear weapons are internationally regulated, I don't actually know America has any laws against it.

>>33104382
>>33104485

It's straight-up illegal to possess a nuclear weapon

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832

>Whoever without lawful authority develops, possesses, or attempts or conspires to develop or possess a radiological weapon, or threatens to use or uses a radiological weapon against any person within the United States, or a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States or against any property that is owned, leased, funded, or used by the United States, whether that property is within or outside of the United States, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

File: 1483624404440.jpg (116KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x333px

>>33104625
GOVERNMENT GET OUT REEEEEEEEE

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

>>33104462
Think of the price, too. Do Torpedo Tubes count as destructive devices, or AOW? What about a K-Gun?

>>33104625
>without lawful authority

That just means you need the right paperwork and you're good, my man.

>>33104673

Yeah, but you have to be the US Air Force or some shit first. They're not just going to give it away to anyone.

You asked this in the other anon's submarine thread and got an answer already. Yes. All a torpedo is is a destructive device. If you get a tax stamp you can own one, just like you can own artillery shells and grenades. But nobody is going to sell a torpedo to a civilian and I really doubt there are any torpedoes on the market that haven't been demilitarized.

>>33104686
>You asked this

This is the first post I've made all day.

File: admirlkarldonitz.jpg (25KB, 300x447px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x447px

>>33104686
Nope, I asked this in the other thread and I'm not OP of this thread.

>>33104686
>implying a manufacturer wouldn't step up to meet the sudden demand for torpedos

>>33104775
Right and it just coincidentally came at the same time that another anon made a thread about building a submarine and someone raised the question in it as to the legality of a torpedo. No, you just want your precious fucking (You)'s and you can't stand to have people go by your comment without replying to it so you had to shit up the catalog by adding another useless thread to it when your stupid fucking question was already answered.

Don't lie to me you fucking asshole. Fuck you. Eat shit and die, you are /k/ancer

>>33104681
We gave them to Israel.

>Can you legally own a torpedo?
Yes, but it can't have explosives in it making it a destructive device. Strangely enough you might be allow a black powder torpedo.

>>33104866
ie a useless torpedo

Yes you could own a torpedo, but you would have to find someone to sell you one, which you won't be able to do. There is another issue, the ATF won't just let you keep it in your basement, they will require you to build and maintain a "magazine" or a special building surrounded by mounds of earth with hundreds of feet of empty space around it and to keep it locked.

Same thing with a grenade, you could get one or make one but they won't just let you keep it in your fucking apartment

>>33104816
>No, you just want your precious fucking (You)'s and you can't stand to have people go by your comment without replying to it so you had to shit up the catalog by adding another useless thread to it when your stupid fucking question was already answered.

So this...is autism.

>>33104816
>complains that a thread is useless
>bumps it half a dozen times