$50K to the right guy in Arzamas, Russia, and I have a nuke. Hell, I'll take out a second on my house and buy ten or so.
Now assume you can shoot it off safely to get some "target practice".
Let's assume that we're living in the real world, not your fantasy world where consequences do not exist.
No one is being harmed.
Sure, no problem. Let me shoot off a 500kT ground burst with a 50% fission fraction 100 miles upwind of you, and then let's see what you look like in a week.
Why would there still be a restriction on ownership?
Because there is no such thing as a consequence-free nuke, except in your intellectual onanism.
A thought problem? You obviously aren't thinking at all.
Funny, who's Rights to equal enjoyment was this guy stepping on again?
When he turned to planning to use those weapons against the cops, he was threatening their rights, along with the rights of any poor schmuck who happened to be in the area.
Who did he harm?
He intended to harm a bunch of people.
Come on Pooh, you want to make the claim, you gotta pony up the evidence. This guy was mouthing off. That is all.
DC, if somebody is "mouthing off" about their intent to kill me, the cops had better catch him before I do.
I don't "arrest" or "detain" someone like that. I engage in preemptive--and permanently effective--self-defense.
If it was that easy duma$$, Al Queda wouldn't have had to use 747's. Moron.
Let's assume that we're living in the real world, not your fantasy world where consequences do not exist.
You were the one that started stretching things to the extreme. Don't get pissed when it comes back at you.
Sure, no problem. Let me shoot off a 500kT ground burst with a 50% fission fraction 100 miles upwind of you, and then let's see what you look like in a week.
I did say safely didn't I? I coulda swore I said that. You aren't reading what was written again aren't you.
Because there is no such thing as a consequence-free nuke, except in your intellectual onanism.
Just as there are exceedingly few people who could, or would, own nukes in your absurdly stupid argument.
When he turned to planning to use those weapons against the cops, he was threatening their rights, along with the rights of any poor schmuck who happened to be in the area.
Who said he was planning it? Is all that is required now is one "informants" word and your convicted? Your standards for guilt need revising.
He intended to harm a bunch of people.
Says this article. I have heard no such admission from him. Even the cops are only going off of some un-named "informants" affirmation. Or can you suddenly read minds?
DC, if somebody is "mouthing off" about their intent to kill me, the cops had better catch him before I do.
I don't "arrest" or "detain" someone like that. I engage in preemptive--and permanently effective--self-defense.
If it is pre-emptive, it isn't self defense now is it? I assume you are male? You've got the equipment to be a rapist. Maybe we should put you in jail. All we need is one persons allegation after all right?