2nd Amendment: Bombs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I'm a strong believer in the second amendment and I was asked this question a couple of days ago: "Doesn't the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear bombs as well?"

Anyone want to shed some light on that issue?
 
Register to hide this ad
NO posts are necessary unless and until the OP returns.

This is a hit-and-run post, made three minutes after the OP registered. He immediately logged off the board.

TROLL quickly comes to mind.
DON'T feed trolls.
 
NO posts are necessary unless and until the OP returns.

This is a hit-and-run post, made three minutes after the OP registered. He immediately logged off the board.

TROLL quickly comes to mind.
DON'T feed trolls.


Troll? Hit and run? What in the world?

I simply want to know if the second amendment covers bombs. This is a serious question as I do not know how to respond when I am asked that.

The Second amendment says: "Have the right to keep and bear arms" well, bear means carry, and arms means? If the second amendment covers everything that is a weapon and can be carried, then wouldn't bombs be in that category? I don't care much if the Government has already made it illegal, as the 2nd amendment says the right "shall not be infringed".



I'm dead serious guys, I don't know why I am being laminated a troll. Maybe the question is stupid, but I don't know how to respond to the question so I was hoping you guys could tell me. The reason I applied and left after the question was asked is because I wanted to find a forum where users whom know about the second amendment more than I could answer it quickly. I left so quickly because I wanted to watch a movie with the fam.
 
I think this meets the requirements of the owner.

IMHO, the original intent of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee the safeguard of liberty by ensuring no laws would be passed so as to render the People subject to oppression. So the intent was that the people be armed with the weapons used by the military.

And, I would like to point out, that I and my father would occaisionly go to the local hardware store and buy a couple of sticks of dynamite, an equivalent number of blasting caps, and borrow his detonator to move stumps or large rocks out of the field.

A guess we could be trusted back then.
 
Now, now, once in a while someone comes along with a desire to learn. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

OP, your question was written in a way that suggested a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights. Around here, you'll find an absolute adhering to the intent and tone of the document. While not filled with Constitutional scholars, quite a few of us are quite well read on most of the correspondence of the founding fathers (eg, diaries, letters, drafts etc.) and at least impart an understanding of what was in fact intended.

At this time, we are under an attack by folks that are intent on the "control" part of gun control. History does not support they're position nor do the facts. But emotion is running high and the facts of the matter are lost.

Some say "assault rifles" have to be banned without any understanding of what they are actually talking about. Those guns just "look" evil. But in that ban would be every semi auto rifle made. "Why can't we agree that assault rifles have no place in society/hunting/sport?" the Second Amendment is not about sport, hunting or society. The Second Amendment guarantees your right to throw off the yolk of oppression by your government. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
In the days of the Revolutionary War, a private citizen could own artillery and warships, if they had the means. So, I'd say, yes, the 2A could be interpreted to allow "bombs". But per current regulations, bombs are out.

Mass777, I'd normally say welcome to a new poster, but if you're here you've got a computer, and if you have a computer and internet access you could certainly spend 20 minutes researching the question. Your question does smack of trolling, because coming on a gun forum and asking about bombs is definitely not a normal introduction.

You should probably ask on the WMD forum, they're thataway--------------->
 
Well, it is peculiar that the writers of the 2nd Amendment chose the word "arms", not "firearms." Had they chosen the latter, it would be very to understand that a bomb is not a firearm and thus not part of the established right.
 
Jeez! Okay, folks. Ha, this is one heck of a welcoming. Thanks for the comments. I'll make sure when navigating this forum to keep my questions to myself.


@2hawk: This is the "Second Amendment" forum so it seemed like the best place to post the topic. And by the way, I did google whether or not the second amendment "technically" covers grenades and whatnot and came up with nothing. I already know it has been made illegal by the Government, but last I checked the founding fathers created the Constitution with the idea that it was rules that the Government had to abide by. So, no handejector I'm not going to ask the good ol ATF if I can purchase a bomb. No, Steve, I'm not going to make a visit to the Police Station either, but I appreciate your sarcasm and accusations.

@jlrhiner: Thanks. Someone who understands. I do want to learn and that's why I came here. I knew people here were more knowledgeable about the Second Amendment than I. I understand people are on their guard and more sensitive considering the fact that, and this month in particular, the second amendment has come under some harsh and illogical criticism from politicians, the mainstream media, and folks who don't understand how important our Constitutional rights are, but I didn't come here with the intentions of stirring up the hornets nest, so I apologize on my part for any misunderstanding. I understand your point and in a matter of fact that's the exact point I make to the folks that I know who are convinced a ban on assault rifles is the solution to all of the violent gun problems. I'll tell you the solution, stop restricting law abiding citizens from buying guns and actually make it harder for criminals or anyone to steal law abiding citizens' firearms. All you have to do is educate the consumer about the extent and seriousness of gun theft and maybe we'll have less of that. Criminals get the majority of their guns illegally by stealing it from folks or buying them on the black market (whom of which also stole from good folks anyway.) We do need a serious discussion on gun safety violence, but banning and ammo caps won't solve a darn thing.


Back to the topic, I've only seen a few posters whom actually address my question and thus far it seems the general consensus is that, yeah, technically the 2nd amendment does support bombs that we could carry. Tanks and things like that, humans can't carry (bear) so technically they aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. I know the intent of the second amendment is for us, the people, to fight back and defend ourselves against Govt oppression and whatnot, which makes it pretty suspicious when its the Government that is trying to restrict and ban guns. The best way to oppress someone is to take away his guns. The founding fathers said so, the British oppressors said so, Ghandi said so, heck, even Hitler said so. We've already seen the current President sign a bill authorizing himself the power to detain people without due process, and we saw the former President sign a bill authorizing the Govt the power to invade peoples privacy without their knowledge or consent. But anyway, that's just my thoughts on that.

So, if someone asks me: "Why are bombs banned if the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect your right to keep and bear arms?" I guess I should just say: "It does, but the Government took that right away.." So I suppose the Government has already infringed on our right to keep and bear arms...

Anyway, happy holidays folks, hope you all have a wonderful Christmas today.
 
Mass777, I'm sure that you can understand that in light of recent tragic events, and the new talk of restrictions on firearms, gunowners are on the defense. Couple that with a plethora of new users on every firearms forum on the 'net, many of whom that seem like they are only agent provocateurs, and I think reaction to your post is understandable.

That said, welcome to the Forum, the best place on the web for all things S&W!



:)
 
Well, it is peculiar that the writers of the 2nd Amendment chose the word "arms", not "firearms." Had they chosen the latter, it would be very to understand that a bomb is not a firearm and thus not part of the established right.
Not really.
Recall the firearms of the day were mainly smoothbore muskets. The role of the rifle in our Revolution has been way overemphasized. A volley or two would often be fired, and then the idea was to "carry the steel" to the enemy in the form of bayonets, swords and sabers, and pikes and lances. Battles almost always became melees of men stabbing, hacking, and beating each other. It was common for the defeated and occupied nation to have to surrender all arms whether they were firearms or not.
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic, I've only seen a few posters whom actually address my question and thus far it seems the general consensus is that, yeah, technically the 2nd amendment does support bombs that we could carry.
I think in the current world and in our own current political climate, I would not worry about even discussing the issue to any great extent.
Terrorist 'bombings' and/or the use of IEDs in a war zone are weekly if not daily occurrences somewhere in the world.
I think our time is better spent addressing what is looming on our immediate horizon.

As far as how your intro here was handled, both the subject and the timing made it look very suspicious. Ask a question about S&Ws, and I think it will be handled very amicably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top