No, we totally understand the difference. Bombs are form of “arms” designed to kill vast numbers of people, and the supreme court has ruled repeatedly that it is perfectly constitutional to outlaw them. High-capacity magazines are also a form of “arm” designed to kill vast numbers of people, and it is perfectly constitutional to outlaw them as well. My understanding on this is much more accurate than yours, Scott.
So, just what IS the difference between a gun and a bomb? They both have triggers, they both kill innocent people – and if either is outlawed, then only outlaws will have ….
Twisted thinking there Steve. It’s illegal to make bombs, and in certain places illegal to even mention the word bomb. It’s illegal to make bomb threats. The law didn’t prevent someone from making a bomb and killing people.
To paraphrase the gun lobby on this site: Why make new laws when criminals won’t obey them? Same question for you….should we remove all bans on bombs? Criminals won’t follow the law; why must you leave me defenseless?
Actually, bombs, rocket launchers, etc. are weapons and therefore could be considered “arms”. NRA zombies seem to have no problem with regulation of these items. Why then the difficulty with reasonable regulation of semiautomatic and automatic, multiple round devices? Well, the answer to that is easy. Bombs don’t have quite the symbolic member-extension value that rifles do for the worshippers at the altar of the almighty NRA. Surprising that they aren’t lobbying for everyone to be able to have rocket launchers, though. Talk about a symbolic “extension”….
“Almost 20 years ago the government developed a way to mark explosives to help trace terrorist bombs. But Congress blocked the research, even after a test of the device helped catch a bomber in Baltimore.
Lobbying by the explosives industry and the National Rifle Association, citing safety concerns, buried the idea."…….
Interesting to see people like Richard Russell and ScottPM try to claim that bombs are not “arms”. It seems they’re unaware of terms like “the arms race”, or “arms dealers”, both of which include a heck of a lot more than handguns. Richard says he can’t find the word “bomb” in the Constitution…how about “assault rifle” or “machine gun”, Richard? Are they in there?I’ve tried in the past to point out that the authors of the Second Amendment could only have thought about single-shot muskets and pistols (maybe even cannons) that had to be loaded and primed with each shot, but the NRA-types quickly told me that the term “arms” had to be expanded with the times, using the analogy that freedom of speech now includes media unimagined in the 1700s. So how come all of a sudden bombs are no longer “arms”?“Missiles, bombs hawked at massive arms trade show” — http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/world/meast/vice-sofexhttp://tinyurl.com/aasekaj
If I were you, Steve, I would have chosen better words to get your point across. I know what you’re saying, but I will point out that bombs ARE illegal, and outlaws ARE the only ones who have them!
pushing legislations that prevents the CDC from analyzing gun violence, spending unlimited money to influence campaigns based on a single issue. Ignoring the concernes of 90% of the country to fullfill their narrow agenda
echoraven almost 11 years ago
“Bombs already are outlawed, Steve. It sure did a lot of good, didn’t it?”.It made somebody feel good.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
No, we totally understand the difference. Bombs are form of “arms” designed to kill vast numbers of people, and the supreme court has ruled repeatedly that it is perfectly constitutional to outlaw them. High-capacity magazines are also a form of “arm” designed to kill vast numbers of people, and it is perfectly constitutional to outlaw them as well. My understanding on this is much more accurate than yours, Scott.
wcorvi almost 11 years ago
So, just what IS the difference between a gun and a bomb? They both have triggers, they both kill innocent people – and if either is outlawed, then only outlaws will have ….
moderateisntleft almost 11 years ago
No, it shows that the wing nuts don’t understand the ILL-logic of their logic………
rabidhunter almost 11 years ago
Twisted thinking there Steve. It’s illegal to make bombs, and in certain places illegal to even mention the word bomb. It’s illegal to make bomb threats. The law didn’t prevent someone from making a bomb and killing people.
Justice22 almost 11 years ago
New song,,,,, “Don’t take your bombs to town, son, Leave your bombs at home.”
I Play One On TV almost 11 years ago
To paraphrase the gun lobby on this site: Why make new laws when criminals won’t obey them? Same question for you….should we remove all bans on bombs? Criminals won’t follow the law; why must you leave me defenseless?
Can you see how silly that looks?
kamwick almost 11 years ago
Actually, bombs, rocket launchers, etc. are weapons and therefore could be considered “arms”. NRA zombies seem to have no problem with regulation of these items. Why then the difficulty with reasonable regulation of semiautomatic and automatic, multiple round devices? Well, the answer to that is easy. Bombs don’t have quite the symbolic member-extension value that rifles do for the worshippers at the altar of the almighty NRA. Surprising that they aren’t lobbying for everyone to be able to have rocket launchers, though. Talk about a symbolic “extension”….
feverjr Premium Member almost 11 years ago
An article from “The Seattle Times” May ’95…
“Almost 20 years ago the government developed a way to mark explosives to help trace terrorist bombs. But Congress blocked the research, even after a test of the device helped catch a bomber in Baltimore.
Lobbying by the explosives industry and the National Rifle Association, citing safety concerns, buried the idea."…….
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950502&slug=2118763
riley05 almost 11 years ago
Interesting to see people like Richard Russell and ScottPM try to claim that bombs are not “arms”. It seems they’re unaware of terms like “the arms race”, or “arms dealers”, both of which include a heck of a lot more than handguns. Richard says he can’t find the word “bomb” in the Constitution…how about “assault rifle” or “machine gun”, Richard? Are they in there?I’ve tried in the past to point out that the authors of the Second Amendment could only have thought about single-shot muskets and pistols (maybe even cannons) that had to be loaded and primed with each shot, but the NRA-types quickly told me that the term “arms” had to be expanded with the times, using the analogy that freedom of speech now includes media unimagined in the 1700s. So how come all of a sudden bombs are no longer “arms”?“Missiles, bombs hawked at massive arms trade show” — http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/world/meast/vice-sofexhttp://tinyurl.com/aasekaj
dshepard almost 11 years ago
If I were you, Steve, I would have chosen better words to get your point across. I know what you’re saying, but I will point out that bombs ARE illegal, and outlaws ARE the only ones who have them!
moderateisntleft almost 11 years ago
pushing legislations that prevents the CDC from analyzing gun violence, spending unlimited money to influence campaigns based on a single issue. Ignoring the concernes of 90% of the country to fullfill their narrow agenda