Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?[343]

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

To be fair, the right to own arms is protected. When we were talking in terms of self-defense, it is awful difficult to defend yourself with a hand-grenade without causing massive harm to yourself. I could see allowing an organized body of militia to possess cannons, which did involve powder, hell every bullet we use has powder in it. Could I use a machine-gun for self defense, yes! Could I use a nuclear bomb for self-defense hell no! There are reasonable limitations on single persons. We need to pass an amendment to make this clear, I don't find it safe allowing an average civilian to possess nuclear arms, and at a whim being able to take out an entire city, or god forbid it fall into the wrong hands.

The issue we have today, is when the Constitution was written, a single person didn't have the capability we have today to cause massive harm via explosives. Now I feel certain explosives should be allowed to the average person granted they obtain a license, or a permit to own, and utilize them. This could include ANFO, small quantities of black powder (Stores would only be allowed to sell so much at a time, a day), and of course you could consider antique artillery pieces fine. Now the average man can cause such massive harm by just pressing a button, he can wipe out an entire city block with a powerful enough explosive. The average man however cannot do this with a gun, there is no way to possibly defend yourself from an explosion.

Another issue is the ease of maxing explosives, so much stuff in this world you can obtain, can be made to explode. Hell to show you how easy the materials are to obtain let me give you a list

138 g sodium bisulfate (found with pool chemicals, used to lower pH)
1 mole equivalent of a nitrate salt... any of the following
85 g sodium nitrate (common food preservative)
101 g potassium nitrate (which you can buy or make yourself)
118 g calcium nitrate (tetrahydrate)
ammonia (common household cleaner)
methanol (optional, which may be found as HEET fuel treatment)

All of this you can easily obtain, and make this low velocity explosive. Regulating the sale of explosives, is easier than regulating the possession of explosives we can clearly see here. I think small explosive devices should be protected, since bullets are technically explosive devices because they contain powder, and powder was allowed back then.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Captain Adverse said:

The basic ability of an organism?

Never mind, your point is a red herring and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Click to expand...

You reject it because it exposes and destroys the phony and flimsy house of cards you are attempting to build.

Defending ones self in danger or attack is something that animals and creatures have done for as long as they exist. Human creatures are no different. That is no right - it is merely an ability of the organism.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Smeagol said:

I realize its probably not a good idea in a practical sense, but pursuant to the letter of the law; should the private manufacture, sales and ownership of explosive devices be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

as long as you have the licensing etc ...
there is nothing wrong with people owning or building explosives.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

You reject it because it exposes and destroys the phony and flimsy house of cards you are attempting to build.

Defending ones self in danger or attack is something that animals and creatures have done for as long as they exist. Human creatures are no different. That is no right - it is merely an ability of the organism.

Click to expand...

The drive is survival. The right is the use of any means necessary to do so. Animals only have what God gave them. Humans, creative creatures that we are, enhance our abilities through the use of tools. Guns are a tool. So are all of our other inventions.

The right to use these tools comes from our basic right to self-defense. The ability to limit their use comes from a conscious willingness to agree to do so. Etc.

Now. I stand by my original post, which your side-track does nothing to refute. :coffeepap:

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

You reject it because it exposes and destroys the phony and flimsy house of cards you are attempting to build.

Defending ones self in danger or attack is something that animals and creatures have done for as long as they exist. Human creatures are no different. That is no right - it is merely an ability of the organism.

Click to expand...

actually it was a right as the ability to defends oneself is a right to life, and liberty and possibly the pursuit of happiness.
all natural rights not bestowed by government nor can they be taken away.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Captain Adverse said:

The drive is survival. The right is the use of any means necessary to do so. Animals only have what God gave them. Humans, creative creatures that we are, enhance our abilities through the use of tools. Guns are a tool. So are all of our other inventions.

The right to use these tools comes from our basic right to self-defense. The ability to limit their use comes from a conscious willingness to agree to do so. Etc.

Now. I stand by my original post, which your side-track does nothing to refute. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

Again, you confuse a function of an organism - the ability to defend oneself - with a legal right.

Of course, you do so intentionally so as to create a false claim which does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Constitution simply states ARMS and that includes all arms since there is no distinction made. If one claims that government can control and regulate one type of arms - there is no constitutional justification to exclude other arms simply because of political reasons or what you wish the Amendment would say instead of what it actually says.

There is no side tracing since this is fundamental and basic and is the Second Amendment. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is the sidetrack and the fraud and the sham and the fallacy.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

ludin said:

actually it was a right as the ability to defends oneself is a right to life, and liberty and possibly the pursuit of happiness.
all natural rights not bestowed by government nor can they be taken away.

Click to expand...

There are no such things as natural rights which protect anybody. Its a belief that one holds because one wants to hold it. Natural rights do not exist and protect nobody.

It may offend your ideological or political belief system but lets look at a brutal fact of reality: if say you have a right and the government of your country says you DO NOT - you don't have it no matter if you hold your breath until your turn blue and throw the biggest fit ever seen - but you don't have it.

And what the government protects today - they can decide to not protect tomorrow. Thats just reality no matter how much you or I or we many not like it.

Thats just hard reality so get used to it.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Smeagol said:

I realize its probably not a good idea in a practical sense, but pursuant to the letter of the law; should the private manufacture, sales and ownership of explosive devices be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

Sure, why limit that kind of stuff to Muslim terrorists? Everybody should have the right to blow up the homes and offices of those people that are thought to be encroaching on someone else's game plan.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Smeagol said:

I realize its probably not a good idea in a practical sense, but pursuant to the letter of the law; should the private manufacture, sales and ownership of explosive devices be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

I don't believe the term arms as used by the founders encompassed explosives. The question would not involve the second amendment but rather than ninth and the tenth. In other words, is the regulation of private citizens owning or buying explosives something the federal government was given the power to regulate. for common explosives like TNT or Dynamite, the answer is most likely NO. for stuff that has international or interstate ramifications, the answer is more likely YES.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Goshin said:

Whether explosives in general are protected by the 2a is subject to debate. Certainly explosive propellants are, as that is what is used to propel bullets in firearms, though modern "gun powder" is not a high explosive like old fashion black powder.

But in terms of highly explosive substances, such as dynamite and C4, and bombs and mines and whatnot, Strict Scrutiny gives us the answer....


Necessary to the preservation of society, not merely preferred...
... narrowly construed...
... least restrictive means of achieving the necessary goal...


Explosives are inherently dangerous... high explosives that is. Merely storing dynamite or other EX is perilous if not maintained carefully... some explosives can detonate spontaneously under certain conditions. So unlike firearms this is something mere POSSESSION can be dangerous to the neighborhood even if it is just sitting in a shed.

Secondly, the mass effect and indiscriminate nature of explosives-as-weapon makes it exceedingly difficult to use for self-defense purposes in a lawful manner. "Collateral damage" was not a term in our lexicon until after explosives.

However, explosives are not entirely banned. You have to have appropriate qualifications and a legitimate use for them to obtain them... they are regulated.


This is probably the appropriate way for a free society to handle something that dangerous.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

I've explained the difference in relation to the "right to keep and bear arms" many times in other threads, of which you are well-aware. I'm tired of repeating myself. I'll let others explain this time. :shrug:

Suffice it to say as an ardent supporter of the 2-A I have no problem with regulating access to bombs, grenades, TOW's, Dragons, nuclear weapons, battleships....basically one-use area effect weapons and crew-served items.

If we ever need them we could either make some or take them from those we defeat in guerrilla warfare.

Click to expand...

the above two comments are an accurate statement of the correct position on this issue IMHO

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Smeagol said:

I realize its probably not a good idea in a practical sense, but pursuant to the letter of the law; should the private manufacture, sales and ownership of explosive devices be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

Gunpowder is allowed.

Pyrotechnics to a degree are allowed.

You have to specify what exactly you are discussing, and what amounts.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

The Constitution does not mention firearms - it says arms. And explosives are arms and ordinance are arms and bombs are arms and lots of other things are arms.

So your fallacious use of a FALSE PREMISE dooms your argument to failure.

Click to expand...

Its funny, because you are the only one manning that particular linguistic turret. Its obvious your agenda is expansive regulation towards arms rather than explosives/ordinance/esoteric weaponry. It gets funnier when you read US v Miller because it lays out the definition for you.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

Again, you confuse a function of an organism - the ability to defend oneself - with a legal right.

Of course, you do so intentionally so as to create a false claim which does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Constitution simply states ARMS and that includes all arms since there is no distinction made. If one claims that government can control and regulate one type of arms - there is no constitutional justification to exclude other arms simply because of political reasons or what you wish the Amendment would say instead of what it actually says.

There is no side tracing since this is fundamental and basic and is the Second Amendment. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is the sidetrack and the fraud and the sham and the fallacy.

Click to expand...

This is the problem people face when debating with you. You create a definition by which you hope to guide the debate, then you assume everyone else has to accept it as a fait accompli.

Nothing could be further from the truth. :no:

There are reams and reams of intelligent discourse regarding natural rights, legal rights, and civil rights throughout history; especially our own American history...and none of them conform to your "function of an organism" position.

The right to self-defense is not a legal right, although our law uses it as an affirmative defense in criminal cases. It is a natural right.

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

You can also find the definition of legal rights at that same citation.

Just because you refuse to accept the existence of natural rights does not give your argument any weight. In fact, it is not an argument at all, just another attempt to redefine the issue in order to support your position...as usual.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

There are no such things as natural rights which protect anybody. Its a belief that one holds because one wants to hold it. Natural rights do not exist and protect nobody.

Click to expand...

you opinion is irrelevant the fact is I have a right to live regardless of what you or the government says.
actually many people hold a right to live as a natural right. unless you think you have something that trumps it which you don't.

It may offend your ideological or political belief system but lets look at a brutal fact of reality: if say you have a right and the government of your country says you DO NOT - you don't have it no matter if you hold your breath until your turn blue and throw the biggest fit ever seen - but you don't have it.

Click to expand...

That is why when they wrote the declaration of independence they declared that their were rights bestowed that were above government.
while the government can attempt to kill me I still have a right to defend my life.

And what the government protects today - they can decide to not protect tomorrow. Thats just reality no matter how much you or I or we many not like it.

Click to expand...

which has no barring on my ability to defend myself. it is completely independent of government.

Thats just hard reality so get used to it.

Click to expand...

you live in a horribly reality when you give up your right to someone else.

good thing I don't live in that reality nor do I know anyone that would want to.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

OpportunityCost said:

Its funny, because you are the only one manning that particular linguistic turret. Its obvious your agenda is expansive regulation towards arms rather than explosives/ordinance/esoteric weaponry. It gets funnier when you read US v Miller because it lays out the definition for you.

Click to expand...

US v Miller IS NOT the United States Constitution.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

ludin said:

you opinion is irrelevant the fact is I have a right to live regardless of what you or the government says.

Click to expand...

Yes - if you have your own nation where you are the sovereign - you most certainly do.

But you do not and you are not so you cannot.

That is why when they wrote the declaration of independence they declared that their were rights bestowed that were above government.
while the government can attempt to kill me I still have a right to defend my life.

Click to expand...

Those so called rights were a LIE when Jefferson wrote them and even he and many of the singers DID NOT believe in them. So spare me the naive gullibility.

you live in a horribly reality when you give up your right to someone else.

good thing I don't live in that reality nor do I know anyone that would want to.

Click to expand...

Actually you do live in the same reality. Only your belief system and your pride prevents you from admitting it.

which has no barring on my ability to defend myself.

Click to expand...

thank you for agreeing with me that this is indeed an ability. It is not a right unless your government protects it as such after the people demand that they do so.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Captain Adverse said:

This is the problem people face when debating with you. You create a definition by which you hope to guide the debate, then you assume everyone else has to accept it as a fait accompli.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the rest of your post attempts to do with the definition of natural rights. You are the judge and jury and just pronounced your own guilt. Congratulations.

Just because you refuse to accept the existence of natural rights does not give your argument any weight. In fact, it is not an argument at all, just another attempt to redefine the issue in order to support your position...as usual.

Click to expand...

What you mean to say is I do not accept the belief in natural rights. No person has been able to prove that such things exist outside of a willful belief.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

Yes - if you have your own nation where you are the sovereign - you most certainly do.

But you do not and you are not so you cannot.

Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with the fact that I am able to defend my life.
I don't have to be either of those things. so I can.

Those so called rights were a LIE when Jefferson wrote them and even he and many of the singers DID NOT believe in them. So spare me the naive gullibility.

Click to expand...

Nope no lie about it. my right to life cannot be taken away. someone can try to take it but I have the right to defend myself against their thread.
my life trumps someone else's attempt to take it.

thank you for agreeing with me that this is indeed an ability. It is not a right unless your government protects it as such after the people demand that they do so.

Click to expand...

nope I have the ability but it is also a right. the government doesn't have to defend it at all.
I can defend myself not matter what the government says.

the right to defend myself or my family for that matter has no bearing on what the government says.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

ludin said:

that has nothing to do with the fact that I am able to defend my life.
I don't have to be either of those things. so I can.

Click to expand...

That ability has nothing to do with any right - unless the government of your nation protects that ability as a right.

my right to life cannot be taken away.

Click to expand...

Tell that to all the people who are killed each day proving you dead wrong.

I can defend myself not matter what the government says.

Click to expand...

I agree ten thousand percent. Because it is an ability all creatures have. But do not confuse that with a right unless your government protects it as such.

the right to defend myself or my family for that matter has no bearing on what the government says.

Click to expand...

Again, you seem NOT to know the difference between an ability and a right.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

US v Miller IS NOT the United States Constitution.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless it is the operating precedent on the regulation of weapons of war as opposed to weapons of self defense. It has been since FDR.

I think I will take their decision over your distorted view of things. Good day.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

OpportunityCost said:

Nevertheless it is the operating precedent on the regulation of weapons of war as opposed to weapons of self defense. It has been since FDR.

I think I will take their decision over your distorted view of things. Good day.

Click to expand...

None of that is in the US Constitution. You or somebody else made it all up.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Smeagol said:

I realize its probably not a good idea in a practical sense, but pursuant to the letter of the law; should the private manufacture, sales and ownership of explosive devices be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

The term "arms" as defined at the time of the Constitution (or as defined now for that matter) does not include explosives.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

haymarket said:

That ability has nothing to do with any right - unless the government of your nation protects that ability as a right.

Click to expand...

The government has no say in natural rights. as the declaration held. there are rights that are not bestowed by government.
one of those is the right to life. I have a right to live, I have a right to defend that life regardless of the government.

Tell that to all the people who are killed each day proving you dead wrong.

Click to expand...

the failure to defend ones self does not mean that you don't have the right to do it.
you are confusing them.

I agree ten thousand percent. Because it is an ability all creatures have. But do not confuse that with a right unless your government protects it as such.

Click to expand...

nope no need of government. it is a right the government has no control over.

Again, you seem NOT to know the difference between an ability and a right.

Click to expand...

actually I do.

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

as someone else posted it is you that seem to have an issue with definitions.

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Gaius46 said:

The term "arms" as defined at the time of the Constitution (or as defined now for that matter) does not include explosives.

Click to expand...

And you know this because of what language in the Constitution?

Re: Should private explosive device ownership be constitutionally protected?

Orly? said:

As far as I'm concerned ICBM nuclear bombs are covered by the 2nd amendment but we have to be realistic and compromise on some things..

As of now we have compromised too much already..

Click to expand...

As far as you're concerned doesn't match the letter of the amendment. Arms are defined as weapons that a man can operate for personal use. ICBMs don't qualify.