Should citizens of the US be allowed to have bombs? I say they should, as a part of the second amendment. Bombs are a necessary tool of the people to protect their freedom from the tyranny of government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms should extent to bombs. Even very powerful bombs.
What do you think?
And no this is not a parody of gun threads.
Unequivocally, NO!
Rapid fire weapons already cause enough harm. Try to imagine what the results of ordinary people possessing high explosives would be.
If that is not persuasive enough, consider how many firearms fall into the hands of children and the unintentional fatalities that result therefrom. Now think of incidents where children would get their hands on these devices and bring them to school or playgrounds.
The potential for concentrated loss of human life, be it adult or child, far exceeds any imaginable benefit obtainable.
I refer you to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict as an object lesson.
Yeah, but you not really basing your answer on the constitution?
Define bomb. Some people can keep powerful firewords and various types of explosives.
It’s not like back when any old cracker could dynamite a stump, but still, if you can pass the tests and get the permits…
Any explosive that is sub-atomic.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
Major Kong, that is the only question you have posed. I gave you a response to it.
j.c., I’d also wager that anyone who is licensed to possess fireworks or high explosives must first qualify for a bond against liabilities incurred during the course of their duties. Insurance companies and bond underwriters probably take a dim view of people with criminal records or those who have no specialized training requesting such coverage.
Yes, but in the context of the OP I was clearly asking about a constitutional right to bear arms.
And I also asked:
I think your proposal is completely deficient in logic and nothing short of utter madness.
So you don’t believe the the people have the right to bear arms?
Please don’t delete the tags in my posts.
While I am sure that there are some ‘explosives enthusiasts’ out there who would love to have their own Mk.82, I am more than happy at drawing the line at firearms.
I am all for removing the assinine bans and restrictions on what firearms a citizen in good standing (not a felon, etc) can own, keyword being firearms. Explosives? Those are a different story. I can’t cite USC as to why they should be heavily regulated, but I can cite common sense…
Bombs are a lot more likely to go off unexpectedly.
Zenster, wouldn’t it be nice if we really enforced the the rules about who can own guns, too? Makes so much more sense than trying to keep track of the guns people own…
What the fuck would you need a bomb for?
Causing serious damage to discarded refrigerators in a local dump.
[quote]
What the fuck would you need a bomb for? [/qoute]
To protect liberty.
Then why restict atom devices, they would be to protect liberty as well. How about RPGs? Guided missles? Why did you choose to draw the line you chose?
Atomic weapons should require special permits. People need to demonstrate they can store and care for these weapons.
Bombs were legal from 1789 until 1970. It was not a problem.
Dynamite was legal for anyone to buy at the corner hardware store until 1970. Again, not really a problem.
There were very few crimes committed with dynamite until AFTER it was outlawed in the 1970’s. The 1970’s did see quite a few buildings blown up(vietnam protests, etc), but that was AFTER it was illegal. Go back the the early 1960’s, 1950’s, 1940’s, etc to see that almost no crime was committed with dynamite.
I dont see why it makes sense to outlaw dynamite, as long as the criminal blowing up of things is kept/still illegal.
Obviously, anyone who hurts someone with dynamite should be punished, perhaps by the death penalty, but to keep a law which prevents a farmer/rancher/prospector from buying dynamite at the local hardware store makes no sense.
Golem hunting.