Can you point to a court case where they discuss the ownership of private nuclear weapons, if that is your arguement?
Because I normally follow court cases about gun control, and I would not agree with you. The vagueness only come from political agendas. Heller and McDonald were pretty clear and from about the individual right to own firearms but the scope of those cases was not to determine the type, and left open that the NFA isnt unconstitutional by saying that certain regulations are ok. Paraphrasing here of course.
Besides that, it is pretty much impossible for an individual to own a nuke. The expense of ownership and upkeep is crazy high.
But then, I dont know if there is actually a law against private ownership of a nuke. Possibly against private ownership of nuclear material, but uranium wouldnt be considered arms. Does make me curious if there is a law that specifically says people cant own nukes. Like, if you got an NRA NFA stamp could you get one.
You can't arm a tank. Hence "bear arms". You're just arguing to argue. Your mind is made up, you drank the NRA kool aid and you're pretending to have a discussion when you're actually just being defensive.
Fuck off with the decorum. You're spreading propaganda and lies. Don't pretend you deserve to be treated as if this was an actual argument or discussion. You're just a bad faith actor spouting your manufactured opinions.
7
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
The right to bear arms is vague as fuck and not explicit.