Oh joy, this is getting to be fun! That's a long rebuttal, Dangus, so allow me to take your points one at a time...
"The government is under obligation to keep these out of populated areas for the most part, and the government has a massive amount of failsafes and checks and balances that make the checks and balances in the constitution look wimpy(because they are!)."
Well, I'll agree about the checks and balances in the Constitution being wimpy. But the failsafes in US nuclear procedure are equally weak, because they depend on the actions of honorable men. In practice, the President can order a nuclear attack against any target in the world, and it would be carried out. Do you trust the President with that kind of power?
"A nuke, if left just sitting around, could eventually just go off all on it's own. Why? Radiation eats circuits, eats casing materials."
No, a nuke can't (where did you hear that it could?) It's pretty obvious that you don't know much about nuclear technology. First off, the Plutonium used to construct the pit is an alpha emitter, and not a very powerful one. In layman's terms, Plutonium is not very radioactive. Every advance in nuclear weapons technology in the past thirty years has gone into making nuclear devices easier and safer to handle.
"If they can, they have to be rich. So now you wanna make something that can end life on earth available to only rich people, creating an even more extreme division of social groups?"
I don't "wanna" make anything available to anyone. I just don't care what other people own as long as it (1) was legally obtained, and (2) is not being used to threaten or injure other people, or their property. It is probably true that nuclear weapons would only be available to the (at least moderately) wealthy. So? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that he is a moral cripple waiting for an opportunity to go on a killing spree.
Conversely, the book that I mentioned in an above post details how it is possible to build a small nuclear device using simple equipment for under $2000. No rich/poor nuke gap here!!!
I'll skip the rant about the evils of Capitalism, because it's not really relevant to the subject at hand.
"If you think you or I are ever gonna so much as see one if they are made legal you're smoking crack."
I don't smoke. But you are right. You or I will likely never see a nuke if they were made legal. Can you guess why? (I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with money or the government.)
"Then the chem/bio. Those are just property too! Why don't we just release them into the air and kill everyone?"
Sometimes I wonder...
Do you think that, if you possessed a canister of VX, Tabun, or other nasty chemical agent, that you would feel compelled to "release them into the air and kill everyone?" No? Then why do you think that I would want to do that?
"The common citizen does not have any benefit from owning these. They are a further safety hazard in the home and they will be of little use in defending our civil liberties."
Those two sentences could have come directly from the Sarah Brady anti-gun phrasebook. Re-read my last post on property rights not being dependent upon utility.
"To make matters worse, when you go and say completely stupid things like allowing everyone to own nukes, you only push us one step closer to no guns. Fence sitters will never be convinced we are safe when we have madmen among us professing the lovely joys of nuke ownership!"
I don't use these arguments with antis or fence-sitters. I save them for my allies. If nothing else, it's an interesting mental exercise and a check on the consistency of our beliefs.
Later,
Chris