then why can't I have a bomb?

Bombs are ordnance and not usually counted as arms. It has generally been held that the 2nd Amendment applies most directly to the latter and not the former. Bombs are more applicable to offense than to defense and are indiscriminate in the nature of their action. Guns, even very large ones, are under the direct control of the user. This isn't to conclude that a person interested in ordnance should not be able to obtain it if they desire; under very specific licenses and tax stamps a citizen may own bombs, modern cannon, grenades etc. But as things stand the right to arms under the U.S. Constitution is generally limited to weapons in common use of no greater than .50.

Click to expand...

This is actually a very correct argument. When the framers wrote the constitution, they envisioned most people would have small arms readily available to them. Directed energy weapons. Indiscriminate weapons, such as bombs, were not as common and not really defensive, but offensive.

While it is true you can buy a grenade launcher, actual grenades are more heavily regulated than just a $200 tax. At some level, you actually have to have a safe storage magazine for the weapons (like a concrete bunker). That's why you don't see a ton of NFA owners with an Academy Sports safe stocked with pineapple grenades. The Second Amendment argument would go something like: "These weapons are unusually dangerous and constitute a larger threat in and of themselves." In other words, whereas a gun and bullets are inanimate objects, certain explosives can go off via a change in environmental conditions.

I knew a gentlemen who got into the business of explosives manufacture and he said it was WAY more strict that just selling guns. And it probably should be, as you don't want Cleetus and Bubba stocking RPG-7 grenades in their apartment complex. It would make apartment fires a lot deadlier.

yugorpk said:

Except that doesnt change the fact you CAN own bombs, land mines and grenades etc. They're hard to get because they are collectible but if you have the money and can figure out how to fill out a few forms and pay $200 you can buy destructive devices in accordance with federal law. The bigger hurdle is going to be state and local storage laws. Explosives themselves are easier and much cheaper to get and use with the proper licenses.

Click to expand...

It's not as easy as you think. You do need an explosives license and an ATF approved magazine for storage. The magazine requirement is there to protect the public in case something goes wrong. Furthermore, absolutely no one will legally sell you high explosives.

Why not bombs?--that's easy, I point out that Tench Coxe said that we the people would be granted "every terrible implement of the soldier."*

When the anti goes "Who is Tench Coxe?" You may now take back the argument by saying "You do not know who the Founder Fathers were? How do you expect to have a rational argument about what they wanted for us, their prosperity?"

Instead of their cherry-picked kvetch about "guns" you can now get them on the defensive arguing about just how qualified they are to argue about what constitutes a valid knowledge base for arguing Original Intent. Few will know that several of the States had mandatory religious worship at a single state-sponsored religion. Or that the right to free Assembly for redress of grievances was seen by many of the anti-federalists as far more important than the ability to print handbills or orate upon matters political.
Also, in this logical jousting, they will universally haul out the canard that "you cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Which is not the case. For one, modern Courts (the kind the antis are so fond of) have long ruled against Prior Restraint. If you can show why doing so demonstrates an expression of political opinion, you are free to yell what ever you like in a theater, empty or crowded.**
You may then, if you wish, then assert that the anti bringing an absurd idea like bombs being some sort of equal to guns in a legal argument over the 2nd is no better than yelling "fire!" or "Poison Gas!" in a crowded theater. If this does not make them splutter and go away, give them my current favorite non sequitur: Toyota Prius killed more people than all handgun deaths last year (approximately 46K v. 30.6K)

____________________________________
*In Tenche's other writings, he details this to include swords, bayonets, grenades (the black powder terracotta bombs used by Grenadiers), and rockets and the like--every terrible implement of the soldier indeed.
** If a person does have a legitimate political reason to yell "Fire!" in a theater, they are still responsible if that expression causes loss of life or limb as result. The lesson of William Wallace remains--you may do everything you wish in the name of political freedom, but you have to be prepared to be drawn and quartered for it, too.

PS The US Navy was formed in October 1775, and the Marines in November 1775--both to project the national will of our nation upon the seas. This did not negate the ability of private merchantmen at sea to take up arms in defense of their ships and cargos from eneies at sea.

In keeping with the topic, I have read stories of some kind of explosive "tree stump remover" that used to be easily sold in hardware stores in the the first half of the 20th century. So was this dynamite or some kind of other explosive? Was it really sold over the counter?
.

The tree stump remover contains potassium nitrate which is only one component of black powder, the others being sulphur and carbon.
In my opinion, it is only the agreed-upon societal norms that dictate "rights". Everything is essentially a form of individual expression which one may choose to convince others to agree with or not. If everyone in any society agrees with the proposal then it is called a law including the right ( or not) to own and use bombs

schpier said:

The tree stump remover contains potassium nitrate which is only one component of black powder, the others being sulphur and carbon.
In my opinion, it is only the agreed-upon societal norms that dictate "rights". Everything is essentially a form of individual expression which one may choose to convince others to agree with or not. If everyone in any society agrees with the proposal then it is called a law including the right ( or not) to own and use bombs

Click to expand...

You are thinking of the modern stump remover that causes the tree stump to rot faster with Poatassium Nitrate as an oxidizer. They used to sell small sticks of dynamite or blasting powder for the purpose. I'm not sure when ANFO came into vogue for blasting stumps.

Dynamite used to be sold over the counter at about the same time cocaine and machineguns were sold over the counter. Now that would be a party!

It was an explosive called "Stumping Powder"



.

yugorpk said:

Its under 50 cal. As much as the ATF would like to make arbitrary and capricious rulings they have to follow their own laws and guidelines. Its .50 cal and under and the barrel is rifled. Its good to go. The .50 cal just has a big scary looking cartridge but theres no law against that. The soda can launcher was either a Short Barrel Shotgun or an AOW from the git go. I'm surprised it made it to market without someone involved saying "hey , wait a minute".

Click to expand...

You guys really do have different laws than we do up here in the great white north.
We have no laws against private ownership of calibers larger than .50"
No special permits either.
There are people I know who own Howitzers, Mortars, PTRD, PTRS, Boys, Lahti 20mm.

thump_rrr said:

You guys really do have different laws than we do up here in the great white north.
We have no laws against private ownership of calibers larger than .50"
No special permits either.
There are people I know who own Howitzers, Mortars, PTRD, PTRS, Boys, Lahti 20mm.

Click to expand...

If I never see a Howitzer again I'll be just fine but if I wanted to buy one I could. I just have to pay a $200 tax and send a form in. It will get approved. Its the live ammunition for the Howitzer that is hard to get.

You could point out to him that he is trying to argue his position using a logical fallacy and clarify that your discussion is about firearms.