A cite for your assertion that
Please show me you could freely buy bombs, cannons etc up until 1970. I’d like to see some evidence corroborating this. SVP
No, Saddam should not be allowed to keep any weapon he likes. He lost that right when he killed people with his weapons without a valid reason.
How about Iraqis in general?
I think she’s referring to title 11 of the Organized Crime Control Act, maybe? It regulated the sale of explosives, by requiring a seller of explosives to have a license, and restricting who he could sell to. I don’t think she mentioned cannons, btw. 
I believe that there were state laws restricting explosive sales prior to 1970, but that would differ state by state, of course.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/exlawreg/2chap40.pdf
I am not sure if the constitution extends to non-US citizens. I am sure someone will be along who knows better.
I just want to see evidence showing that before 1970 you could buy some bombs, no questions asked. Show me evidence that it actually happened. That people walked into a store or ordered by mail a 500 lb bomb suitable for blowing up people and buildings. The OP has drawn the line at atomic weapons and everything else (including cannons, fighter planes, etc) is fair game. I want to see the evidence. (But knowing susanann I am not holding my breath).
And with one simply sentence, you demonstrate the lack of the maturity to own a gun, let alone a bomb.
:rolleyes:
Except that rights are not an all or nothing thing as I have already pointed out. For any given right, there is a reasonible exception. The issue is where to draw the line.
ie, should the average citizen be permitted to own a nuclear bomb? No. Why not? Because aside from serving no practical purpose (hunting, target practice, home defense) the risk of obliterating a city by accident or malice far outweigh any benefit derived from society’s “right to bear arms”.
The same logic can be applied to the average Joe owning a stockpile of clusterbombs, mortar shells and what have you. Obviously there are practical civilian uses for Dynamite or other demolitions and everyone loves Fourth of July fireworks. That doesn’t mean that I should be able to stock up on C-4 because I want to blow up that old junker in my yard.
And I have yet to see a correllation between well armed populous and freedom.
This isn’t the reason I said people need bombs. They need bombs to protect themselves from the government becoming too powerful or a possible invasion. Militias will need bombs. The second amendment guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms so they may be able to protect freedom.
I don’t have to show a correlation. The second amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, and as far as I know, it has had no problems restricting people’s right to own bombs and many types of arms. They have no problems with it being a limited right.
And you still haven’t shown that any militia with bombs would be at all effective against a trained and armed military. All you’d end up with is lots of buildings and people blown up for no apparent reason.
Prior to 1970, my family and my neighbors all bought dynamite, usually to blow up tree stumps or rocks. Some people also tried dynamite to get water, usually with poor results.
Why would you need a cite for that? I cant cite anyone who bought machine guns either prior to 1934, or marijuanna before 1939. Before something is made illegal, people buy it. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Do you really think no one ever bought dynamite before it was outlawed in 1970?
Do you really think no one ever bought guns thru the mail before 1968?
No licence was required before 1970, the hardware store in town sold it to whoever wanted it. A few prospectors also bought dynamite. It was no big deal, and neither was buying guns thru the mail prior to 1968. Rifles, shotguns, handguns, cannons, mortars, bazookas, etc. were sold thru the mail until 1968, if you go thru some old magazines, you will find the ads, mortars were $19.99, baxookas $49.99, and shells and rockets were 5 for $20.
Sawed off shotguns were sold thru the mail prior to 1934, I think even Sears might have sold them.
Someone did actually fire a mortar in New York in 1968 at the UN building, but the shell came far short and landed in the river, no one was hurt, although it helped get the law passed against mortars. Of course, as I also, recall, most ads back then did not permit shipping to New YOrk(of anything, guns, or explosives), so that law was not needed/had no effect for that either, since it was already against the law for new Yorkers to buy those arms. Nobody in Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, the Dakotas, etc. misued any of these arms to my knowledge. I do remember one incident in Michigan, where a janitor blew up a school house with dynamte in the 1930’s or so, and killed some children, but dynamite might also have been illegal in Michigan by then too, so again, the federal law had no effect. Anyways, it was illegal to kill schoolchildren with, or without, dynamite by the 1930’s, so the guy was breaking the law anyways no matter how he killed them.
Aside from those 2 incidents, which were illegal in Michigan and New York anyway, I cant think of any other incidents prior to the vietnam war where explosives were misused when they were legal.
Well, no, I agree with you. I just think dynamite purchases may have been restricted in some states before 1970.
And I think explosives of various kinds were used in safecracking in the past. There’s also that whole “fishing with explosives” thing.
Also, just to get technical, it’s not illegal to own or sell dynamite now. Plenty of people have it and use it. It is however, illegal to sell dynamite without a license.
Here, btw, is a pdf document explaining current federal explosive law.
oh lighten up.
it’s a hard call really about that. i would really like to find a reason bombs should be illegal, but i can’t. bombs are a form of arms, the people have a right to keep and bear them. incedently nuclear bombs i could justify banning. the material to make them is highly radioactive. as long as ban was for posesing all forms of highly radioactive materials (which it is) for health reasons. nuclear bombs are outlawed as a side affect. since keeping and bearing convential bombs is pretty much harmless (the bomb does not give everything around it a good radation dose for example). until you blow it up c4 is harmless for example. there is no Constitutional protection for blowing up a bomb. so i belive it would be ok to outlaw blowing them up.
As much as I hate to keep this idiotic argument going, why do you feel that it is ok to ban nuclear materials for saftey reasons but not C4, Dynamite or Sym-tex (however it’s spelled)? Is a person’s “right to bear arms” worth more than my right not to have my block blown up because the idiot next door keeps explosives in his garage and happened to have a house fire?
I wish that the pro-“all kinds of guns” people could give a better argument than “it says so in the Constitution”. Pretend I am John Hancock or Ben Franklin and you are trying to convince me that I should include the Second Amendment.
Because nuclear weapons, or any WMD, will kill ““more”” than who is intended to kill. It is just too difficult(impossible) to explode a nuclear weapon without hurting innocent civilians.
Mortars, bazookas, dynamite, artillary, etc, can be directed specifically at an enemy, and they can be used only killing those who you want/need to kill.
Anyone who explodes a nuclear weapon is going to kill innocent civilians, and you can make the arguement that not even the government(or the US Army) should be using nuclear weapons. If the army should not be using nuclear weapons for moral reasons, then neither should the militia.
becoase c4 for example is harmless when not used as a bomb, anything you could make a nuclear bomb out of is dangerous even when not being used as a bomb. a piece of uranium 238 (the 235 isotope is about as dangerous as lead) for example, is dangerous by it’s mere presence. the freaken thing is radioactive. same goes for anything else you could make a bomb out of. you would not be banning the bomb just a important piece for other reasons.
what Susanann also applies.
given the historical time frame, home protection, portection from invasion, protection from being stuck under a corrupt goverment as mentioned in most gun debates, were the reasons for the Second Amendment. if i were to pretend you were either of those fine people, that is what i would use. i don’t personally own a gun. so the only interest i have in the Second Amendment is that i belive when one person’s rights are trampled, we all are hurt.
The statement about C-4 is incorrect:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=189639
Even if it’s comparatively ‘safe’, I still don’t want my neighbor keeping it in his garage next to his oily rags.
And it’s not U-238 which is used in bombs, but U-235.
See http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
U-238 can be converted into plutonium-239 in a breeder reactor, by throwing tons of neutrons at it.
U-238 is also used as ‘depleted uranium’ in armor piercing shells. However, it’s not as dangerous as lead, it’s still radioactive and toxic. Read:
-Ray
sorry about that. i got my isotopes mixed up.
darn it. i though i hit preview. anyway to continue my post. once it was bred into a radio active form it be illegal, besides wouldn’t you need radioactive material to breed 238 in to plutonium?
Why can’t I leave this thread ?
One of the reasons for demanding that people who buy and handle explosives know what the f*ck they’re doing is that the consequences of messing up when you handle explosives are a little more far-reaching than a handgun owner accidentally shooting his own foot (or head) off.
An explosive charge of moderate military value - 10 pounds, say, enough to blow a track of an armoured vehicle - will quite easily wreck a house and take out every window within a respectable range. If my neighbour messes about with crap like that, I want to know that he’s read the literature and that someone has verified that he knows what he’s doing.
Moving up to proper ordnance, the issues become considerably more involved - as do the danger to bystanders. Ever seen the precautions the professionals take when handling and storing ordnance ?