If not what law says I can't and wouldn't that law be considered to be unconstitutional because wouldn't the second amendment just hold more authority over that law? If your defense is the intent of the what the founding fathers meant by saying nukes did not exist in 1795 when the second amendment was written. if that's the case Wouldn't the same hold true for any arm that was not a mayly weapon or a single-shot, muzzle-loading arm as well? I mean guns that could hold multiple rounds did not come into existence until the 1860s a good 60/70 years after the constitution was written.
The 2nd Amendment, when read in its entirety, is quite clear about what is protected and why. The people are guaranteed the right to own weapons so they may bear them in service of the militia if needed. In fact, one of the definitions of bear is to render for service. Along with this is the clear implication that the weapons being protected would be those appropriate for use by citizens in the militia. Nukes, aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, etc. clearly don't fit that role. But AK-47s and M-16's make outstanding militia weapons, don't you think?
Well if you look at what the 2A actually does, you'll see that it doesn't allow you. The 2A does not give you the right to own weapons, it assumes the right already exists, and it merely prevents the US federal govt stopping you from owning arms. Now, if you have a legal gun, you have arms, and the US govt has not prevented you from owning arms, even if you can't get nukes, automatic weapons etc etc. The feds are allowed to prevent you from owning certain weapons, as long as individuals are able to get weapons at a reasonable price!
In the extreme of a nuke or jet fighter? Yes. If, you can afford one. Back in the Revolutionary days cannons and fully equipped frigates belonged to private owners. Just as today many fighters, tanks and bombers are in private hands. There are even modern made duplicates of Germany's Me-262 jet fighter now. In civilian hands. However, nuclear fuel is tightly controlled. You'd have to check with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for specific laws and regs. You may likely be able to assemble a bomb or missile? But, the actual firing part may be out of reach. In fact you've found the baseless logic Liberals use to speak against the 2nd Amendment. To convince us our Founders has zero foresight. Envisioning new and more terrible arms. They would reduce us to non firing Brown Betsy replicas. if they could do so.
You are allowed to own guns that can be used in the military. During the early wars (Revolutionary through WWI) the civilian guns sometimes worked better than the military's. In fact, there is a story about a soldier that brought his personal shotgun to the war. He wasn't allowed to take it back after he finished serving because it was such an effective weapon.
The silo you can own. Once decommissioned. Little problem with the EPA on the nuke, And maintenance on one is cost prohibitive. Then the disposal fee to get rid of it. For your own good I would rethink that one. You are responsible for your property. And the neighbors would be blaming every dead blade of grass on you they found. + the legal fees, Holding a job with court time every day. Not worth it.
