Then why are we not allowed access to bombs? Where does the invisible line begin and end?

Really? Bombs? Get the fuck outta here with that weak shit. If you are going to keep posting ridiculous examples then why bother? If you want, let's ban kitchen knives because they are at fault for deaths as well. It's clearly not the weapon, right? Or even better, let's get rid of rocks because I could bludgeon someone to death with one.

We can always find new and old ways to kill each other, but instead of getting rid of the weapon/tool, let's just make it so that they are a tad more regulated. Guns are here to stay, instead of banning them let's just compromise, novel fucking idea right?

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

Compromise? What's your fucking compromise? Not talk about it?

Whether you like it or not there will be a day where guns won't be apart of civilian culture. It won't be tomorrow, it won't be in a decade... but it will happen.

His point with bombs is absolutely fucking valid. Why is that you have to go through so many hoops to get a grenade yet I can walk into a gun show or jump online, find a classified and buy it privately no fucking problem? The fact that you can't make the connection between two devices that were built for ending human life only proves your absolute ignorance in this discussion.

Congratulations on being a baseless moron.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I made that connection with rocks and knives fucktard. What about swords, or any number of devices in my home that I can use to create something to kill? That is the fucking point that you seem to miss, yes, guns make it easy to kill, but so does anything if you have the desire to do so. It is not the tool that is at fault, it is the person who wields it. Once you understand that then we can move on.

As far as compromise, read some of my other posts on this matter. I'm for gun control, but I'm enough of a realist to understand that they aren't going away. We like to kill each other, and until that little behavioral anomaly goes away, then guns are just a convenient scapegoat.

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

Bombs don't kill people, people with bombs kill people. Bombs are inanimate objects just like guns. They don't consciously take lives, yet no one is griping that we don't have access to them. Considering that they are weapons that kill from a remote proximity and powered by an explosive propellant, they are more similar to guns than guns are to knives.

The NRA isn't pushing propaganda about bombs though, so no one seems to care that they are regulated.

Guns and knives don't lay waste to city blocks though. How about this, if you are willing to have the cash in the bank to pay for the collateral damage of having a bomb to protect your family, or just to go out into the desert and detonate, then I'm all for it. And again, I'm for regulation, just not a ban.

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

First of all, anyone with the basic know how can make a bomb out of common ingredients, so it's not exactly like bombs are or could be explicitly banned. Just keep the proper ingredients around and if you want one, you can make one rather easily.

Most importantly though, because bombs are not explicitly a right given in the constitution. "Arms" (guns) Are a right given in the constitution. Want to change the constitution, give it a shot. Good luck with that.

Arms does not mean "guns." Arms means weapons, and to keep a well regulated militia, we the people would need to keep up with equal armament with that of our Tyrannical government. Otherwise we would have no chance against them.

Bombs are more similar to guns than guns are to knives.

Maybe in your head, but not in reality. Knives and guns have far more in common than a bomb and a gun.

If you wanted to equate a bomb to something, you could equate it to a bullet perhaps, but not a gun.

Not even to a bullet, a bomb is equal to a missile, not a gun. How many people can you kill with one bullet, maybe 2? How many people can you kill with one bomb, maybe 200? This comparison argument goes nowhere, and it's silly to continue. Regulation and training is the answer, not a ban. Oh, and FYI not a member of the NRA, but you still aren't getting my guns.

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

First off, I did say "perhaps", and also, bombs come in all shapes and sizes. Bombs are otherwise known as explosive devices and are in that way, more closely resembling a bullet than a gun, but with all that aside, bombs are not an issue here, since I said before that bombs can be made from everyday items if you know what you're doing.

Way to back up your statement with facts, like you always never do!

Knives are melee weapons. Guns and bombs are ranged weapons, both triggered by a propellant.

Arms means weapons. A well regulated militia would need access to artillery to be "well regulated."

So, guns are more closely related to atlatls and bolos? I'm confused.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Wait... why do knives have anything in common with a gun?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Few bombs are powered by a propellant, unless you are counting the plane. Most bombs I've seen just get dropped and then go boom. Now, there are some that go swoosh and then boom, but not all. Maybe you meant missiles?

_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper

How about these things?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Now that's a gun that if it was real should be legal.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

You're allowed near a gas pump, aren't you? We can go to any hardware store and purchase myriad chemicals and materials used in the manufacture of all kinds of destructive devices. The US Department of Defense even wrote a book called "Improvised Munitions Handbook", and it's available at sources all over the internet due to its public domain nature. You would be surprised what is possible with easily obtained things like gasoline, charcoal briquettes, aspirin, medical iodine, saltpeter, wood shavings, paint thinner, WD-40, household bleach, and vodka.

I think the invisible line should be drawn at "small arms", that is firearms for any purpose at, or under, .510 bore, with exceptions for large bore game cartridges such as the .700 Nitro Express, .600 Nitro Express, and .577 Tyrannosaur. That distinction should be codified in law, and protected with the full weight of the 2nd Amendment, particularly the clause that states "shall not be infringed". This is, of course, my own personal view.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

If you want to splice hairs, sure atlatls are primitive ranged weapons and are similar to guns and are rarely used for murders in the US.

I am wondering why the "keep yer hands off my guns" crowd loves to cite the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't care to expand their right to own heavy artillery. The terminology from 1781 is a well regulated militia that is allowed and uninfringeble right to bear arms. The context back then meant infantry, cavalry, and artillery of the day.

Once again, whether guns share all or some of the blame it's ridiculous to think that they don't share any of it. No matter guns/bombs/fireshits comparisons.

Can't believe Montana can honestly post that firearms share no responsibility in a firearm related death.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012