Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Critique my counterargument against antis who bring up "muh nukes": 2017-04-07 05:37:50 Post No. 33561255
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Critique my counterargument against antis who bring up "muh nukes": 2017-04-07 05:37:50 Post No. 33561255
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 9651d3773dc5eec3b4998df468168d12[1].jpg (11KB, 236x298px) Image search:
[Google]
![9651d3773dc5eec3b4998df468168d12[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RhwlBlE.jpg "9651d3773dc5eec3b4998df468168d12[1]")
11KB, 236x298px
Critique my counterargument against antis who bring up "muh nukes":
Anonymous
2017-04-07 05:37:50
Post No. 33561255
[Report]
Nuclear weapons are an environmental issue.
You're not allowed to open a tattoo parlor and make tattoos with mercury amalgam. You're not allowed to print newspapers with lead ink.
Are these infringements on the First amendment? No. They have nothing to do with the first amendment. They're environmental issues.
You can own all the bombs you'd like under the NFA even at present. You can detonate them and contain them to the limits of your property. In contrast, you don't get any fissile material without approval (plenty of private labs do get permission, but it's not a right). Consistent, as fissile material is huge environmental hazard.
You can't shoot lead into or over waterways both for safety and pollution reasons. One uses steel and copper shot for fowl hunting over water. Is this an infringement on the Second Amendment? Again, no.
On the other hand, if you ban lead, not only would the environmental reasoning be specious, but it would be like banning ink, and would be an infringement.
>>
10/10 bretty gud
But antis won't get it because they base all their opinions on feelings rather than logic, You'd have better luck going "but muh minorities need nukes to protect themselves from whitey"
>>
>>33561255
>You're not allowed to print newspapers with lead ink
>Also we're not going to let you shoot lead bullets either
>it's an environmental issue you see
>>
>>33561255
The best argument to that is "sure, let people have nukes. Let them buy all the nukes the government is willing to sell them."
Protip, that number is zero.
>>
>>33561255
if u us them ally moos get mad
>>
>>33562534
Haha holy shit you think the government are the only ones who can split an atom?
This is 2017 I could split an atom over the weekend with $150,000 and a competent team of 3
>>
>>33561255
Nukes ruined warfare. We cannot have a nice war without nikes anymore and now we are stuck with these tiny proxy wars.
Nukes suck ass!
>>
>>33562618
>tfw spent gorillion dollars on the conventional weapons and cannot use it against your adversaries
>>
I just tell them nukes are an extension of self defense, as the firearm is self defense for the person, the nuke is self defense for the nation.
since nukes were invented we've had no world wars or direct wars between nuclear powers. we only have proxy wars in shitty countries. im in favor of arming every country with nukes to end all wars.
>>
File: 1354417806589.jpg (31KB, 640x480px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 640x480px
>>33562612
weapons-grade uranium or plutonium are a little hard to come by; i don't think you could solve that over the weekend for $150k.
>>
>>33562618
>>33562741
pax atomica
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3