General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy are bombs illegal?
I am asking seriously. Why are explosives illegal to possess, but other weapons that can cause mass casualties are not?
Why are bombs not covered under the 2 Amendment?
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)This is also a serious question. I don't see anything in the amendment that says people don't have the right to have bombs.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)I've known a lot of people who've blown up stumps in the yard.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Their possession and use, and transport, are regulated and subject to licensing.
Why are bombs not covered under the 2 Amendment?
Destructive devices are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Please read up on the subject.
doc03
(35,488 posts)working rocket launcher, what about a switch blade knife?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Frag grenades per se aren't very useful, but things somewhat like them are used to clear out brush in some situations.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)You have to do the paperwork and get your background checked.
As for a rocket launcher, that may be available without any hassle in your state. A live round will cost you a $200 tax stamp, background check, etc.
Switchblade knives have interstate commerce regulated by federal law. State laws concerning commerce, possession, and use are all over the map. I can own them here in California, but I can't carry one with me unless the blade is 2 inches or less. In Oregon they're unregulated.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You can buy metal tubes.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Most explosives require a Federal Explosives License, and the materials themselves are pretty tightly controlled.
As we saw in Oklahoma City, a truck and some fertilizer makes a pretty effective bomb, though.
doc03
(35,488 posts)all inclusive and any weapon could fall under the 1934 law if we demanded it. If they can control explosives and full autos they also control a bolt action if the public demands it. Since muzzle loaders were the state of the art back in the day we could control anything more advanced.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The problem has never been with putting semi-automatics on the NFA schedule, the problem has been what to do about the hundreds of millions of them that are already out there
doc03
(35,488 posts)As far as the ones already out there give them a year to bring them in and have them permitted under the law and if you are in possetion of one after that prison time. Don't say it's to hard we can't do it. That is always the NRA argumnet it's to hard, it can't be done, it won't work, etc.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But, I could be wrong.
Peregrine
(992 posts)It covers anything carried by a typical infantryman. To include hand grenades. Madison saw the 2nd meaning just this, citizens had a right to bear arms equivalent to an infantryman.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The reason sawed-off shotguns could be banned is because they are of limited military utility. I'd add that the same logic could apply to handguns, which are generally only given to officers (and at least in theory they're mostly for shooting your own troops if they try to run).
"which are generally only given to officers (and at least in theory they're mostly for shooting your own troops if they try to run)."
Just no.
Maybe in the Red Army in the 30's-40's.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That said, I had a pistol in the Corps, though not everybody did. I can't remember precisely why my billet rated one.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.