Why aren't grenades legal, and mass produced for U.S. citizens to collect and use?

[CavaliersFTW]

Responsibly of course. But why aren't they legal? Why can't we ****ing own grenades? They don't kill people only people kill people. A grenade is just an inanimate object. It's only harmful in the wrong hands but U.S. citizens prove with guns that they are responsible with inanimate objects so what's the deal why aren't grenades available to every responsible home in the U.S.?

[GIF REACTION]

Hot like popcorn

Poppin' and stoppin'

Nother' nade' droppin'

Chris Paul still floppin'

Someone ought to lock em up

Jimmy Buckets lock down D

Pull the pin

BAM

[Draz]

More people died from vending machines than sharks

df??

[Patrick Chewing]

OP only dates grenades

[NumberSix]

What exactly would be the purpose of grenades being legal?

[9erempiree]

Shooting guns and rifles is a sport.

Throwing grenades are not. You don't protect your family with them either.

Constitution was written before any grenades were invented.

[macmac]

What exactly would be the purpose of grenades being legal?

Yes, you're almost there, now change grenade for assault rifle, so close now...just read the sentence out loud.

[9erempiree]

Also you are allowed to own explosives and rocket launchers in some states and they're not used in any domestic attacks.

[macmac]

And since we can shoot trespassers, how come I can't bury proximity mines in my front yard? I thought this was 'Murrica? Animal control has already seized the gators in my moat, but had I installed my mines they would have never made it that far. Now I'm stuck with a stream of swamp water and an overpopulation of frogs, which I could be Hunting down with grenades if my civil liberties weren't being oppressed.

[Jailblazers7]

Yes, you're almost there, now change grenade for assault rifle, so close now...just read the sentence out loud.

:oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

What exactly would be the purpose of grenades being legal?

Home defense.

Hunting.

Keeping the King of England off your case.

[9erempiree]

All you got to do is reference FPS Russia's YT channel and everything he shows on his channel is accessible to people; explosives, grenade launchers and many over the top guns. Readily available for purchase depending on your state laws.

Let me ask, knowing all of this, why don't we see domestic terrorists using these weapons?

I mean it does a lot of damage than a so-called 'assault' rifle.

[9erempiree]

Home defense.

Hunting.

Keeping the King of England off your case.

If you need a grenade for hunting and home defense then its best you shouldn't be allowed to own a simple handgun.

I forgot you are Muslim. :hammerhead:

[DonDadda59]

If you need a grenade for hunting and home defense then its best you don't own a simple handgun.

I forgot you are Muslim. :hammerhead:

So did I :biggums:

But seriously though... why do you hate America?

[LikeABosh]

Probably because grenades aren't firearms. Sorry bud you're not very clever

[iamgine]

afraid someone throw at bruno mars concert

[DonDadda59]

Probably because grenades aren't firearms. Sorry bud you're not very clever

The second amendment reads:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arms, not just firearms. Grenades are arms.

Why do you hate America? :confusedshrug:

[Patrick Chewing]

The second amendment reads:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arms, not just firearms. Grenades are arms.

Why do you hate America? :confusedshrug:


A grenade is an EXPLOSIVE device.

Banned in 1968 under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons)


Owned. Educate yourself.

[9erempiree]

A grenade is an EXPLOSIVE device.

Banned in 1968 under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons)


Owned. Educate yourself.

Racist. Bigot.

Don't do him like that.

:lol

[CavaliersFTW]

A grenade is an EXPLOSIVE device.

Banned in 1968 under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons)


Owned. Educate yourself.
And is it right for the ****ing liberal government to step in and ban that shit? Stop being a *****. Grenades don't kill people. They are inanimate objects. People kill people.

They ****ing made a rule that clearly infringes on our right to bear ARMS. Armament dude.

[9erempiree]

And is it right for the ****ing liberal government to step in and ban that shit? Stop being a *****. Grenades don't kill people. They are inanimate objects. People kill people.

They ****ing made a rule that clearly infringes on our right to bear ARMS. Armament dude.

A gun doesn't go off on its own. When a gun goes off it's due to human error and those people shouldn't be owing firearms.

Explosives on the other hand can go off on their own.

[DonDadda59]

A grenade is an EXPLOSIVE device.

Banned in 1968 under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons)


Owned. Educate yourself.

That Gun Control Act is unconstitutional. The second amendment says my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon, especially not any tyrannical liberal government.

Why do you hate America? :biggums:

[CavaliersFTW]

A gun doesn't go off on its own. When a gun goes off it's due to human error and those people shouldn't be owing firearms.

Explosives on the other hand can go off on their own.
What!? :roll:

No. Grenades cannot go live without human intervention. Just like a gun cannot be fired without the pulling of a trigger a grenade does not go off without the pulling of a pin

:hammerhead:

They're totally safe in the hands of responsible grenade owners. There's lots of reasons to collect them too. The historical significance, and it's just damn fun to go to a range and lob grenades and shit (in a safe responsible manner). Also as has been mentioned, hunting. Offers yet another dimension to the hobby of hunting. Bows, crossbows, pistols, rifles, shotguns, and grenades. Without grenades hunting is missing an entire market of the sport.

[GIF REACTION]

#NotallNades

[DonDadda59]

What!? :roll:

No. Grenades cannot go live without human intervention. Just like a gun cannot be fired without the pulling of a trigger a grenade does not go off without the pulling of a pin

:hammerhead:

They're totally safe in the hands of responsible grenade owners. There's lots of reasons to collect them too. The historical significance, and it's just damn fun to go to a range and lob grenades and shit (in a safe responsible manner). Also as has been mentioned, hunting. Offers yet another dimension to the hobby of hunting. Bows, crossbows, pistols, rifles, shotguns, and grenades. Without grenades hunting is missing an entire market of the sport.

Don't try to reason with these America hating liberal hippies.

If the gumment comes to my house on some martial law bullshit tryna take my constitutionally guaranteed arms, including my grenades... Let's just say I have a lil sumthin waiting for em. :pimp:

[Patrick Chewing]

I bet you two can't even flick a rubber band across the room.

Got that limp Liberal wrist and those greasy fingers from lubing each other up.

[CavaliersFTW]

If I can buy an AK-47 there's really no sensible reason why I shouldn't also be allowed to own grenades. Why am I allowed one but not the other!? Makes no ****ing sense.

[aj1987]

You are allowed to own grenades in some states. Some of them don't allow them though. Just like how you're not allowed to own assault rifles. Thanks to the left wing idiots.


If I can buy an AK-47 there's really no sensible reason why I shouldn't also be allowed to own grenades. Why am I allowed one but not the other!? Makes no ****ing sense.
Because an accidental discharge of a gun is most likely not going to kill anyone. If a grenade goes off accidentally, it's more than likely gonna kill everyone in the vicinity.

[DonDadda59]

I bet you two can't even flick a rubber band across the room.

Got that limp Liberal wrist and those greasy fingers from lubing each other up.

How am I the liberal when you're over here celebrating the infringement of my right to bear arms? :biggums:

Are you saying that gun control is a good thing now? Why do you hate America, RINO?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Ur ghey

[NumberSix]

Yes, you're almost there, now change grenade for assault rifle, so close now...just read the sentence out loud.
What's an assault rifle?

[poido123]

I am trained to use grenades.


My first time was pretty scary. The sergeant told me a training exercise gone wrong when a recruit didn't get the grenade out of the training bunker and blew up 3 people.


After that story, my arm shook with fear :lol


It's a huge adrenalin rush lobbing them. We were actually taught not to throw them like a baseball and keep the arm straight so that the grenade won't hit the lip of the bunker...


Another thing, the grenade doesn't actually activate until it comes out of your hand and the lever is released. And the pin has to be out. Tip for young players.


Anyways, just my take on it.

[poido123]

^ you didn't have a take on the subject, you just told a dumb story. A dumb story about some asshat making up a dumb story to scare new people.


Don't you have a BTE thread to rot away in?


You been on my hammer a few times, rent free bro.

[poido123]

^ you didn't have a take on the subject, you just told a dumb story. A dumb story about some asshat making up a dumb story to scare new people.


You're right though. I didn't really have a take on it and told a random story.


So shoot me.


My take on it is, I wouldn't want a grenade in the common folks hands TBH.


If american soldiers can't handle them with care, I don't want the citizens to :D



Internet war incoming :banana: :banana:

[poido123]

Am I supposed to feel something because of this?


Stay emotionless.


Doesn't faze me.

[aj1987]

^ you didn't have a take on the subject, you just told a dumb story. A dumb story about some asshat making up a dumb story to scare new people.
:oldlol: :oldlol:

[BasedTom]

i've met a guy (civilian) with grenades before

i don't own any weapons, so i don't know much at all about the legality of the stuff. but he did have a collection and he did show them off.

this was a guy who had a huge backyard property which he used as a practice range...wonder if the neighbors ever complained about the gunfire/explosion sounds now that I think about it

[ThePhantomCreep]

You are allowed to own grenades in some states. Some of them don't allow them though. Just like how you're not allowed to own assault rifles. Thanks to the left wing idiots.


Because an accidental discharge of a gun is most likely not going to kill anyone. If a grenade goes off accidentally, it's more than likely gonna kill everyone in the vicinity.

Yet you consider liberals idiots for wanting them banned. :coleman:

How can America possibly be great with all these teabaggers around?

[StephHamann]

What exactly would be the purpose of grenades being legal?

Rabbit hunting. Nade those fuc.kers in their holes.

[aj1987]

Yet you consider liberals idiots for wanting them banned. :coleman:

How can America possibly be great with all these teabaggers around?
1. I never said I wanted grenades to be legal.
2. I'm not an American.
3. :facepalm

[9erempiree]

The Libtards are grasping here. Just because we want the right to bear arms, such as guns and rifles, it doesn't mean we want grenades. Lets not get retarded here but some do and already own them. So the argument is dead.

Then you guys try to make it seem like we are hypocrites by not wanting grenades.

What's next? We should have the freedom to watch kiddie pron? Be able to sell our drugs and hire mercenaries online?

If anything this thread proves my point on how irrational you guys are unless you guys are trying to stir up an argument by bringing up extremes.

[ai9]

While we're at it, why aren't nuclear missiles legal? A nuclear missile is just an inanimate object. They don't kill people, only people kill people.

Citizens should have the right to defend themselves from a corrupt government. What if the government decided to bomb my house? I need a stockpile of nuclear missiles to even the playing field.

In this day and age, every child in america should be offered at least 3 nuclear missiles.

[CavaliersFTW]

While we're at it, why aren't nuclear missiles legal? A nuclear missile is just an inanimate object. They don't kill people, only people kill people.

Citizens should have the right to defend themselves from a corrupt government. What if the government decided to bomb my house? I need a stockpile of nuclear missiles to even the playing field.

In this day and age, every child in america should be offered at least 3 nuclear missiles.
I mean - you really do.

People act like their right to own heavily regulated small arms firearms are going to fend off the ****ing U.S. government military in case liberal politicians get voted into office and turn it all on us :facepalm

Newsflash retards, they've got tanks, jets, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear WARHEADS.

If the U.S. Government ever got overrun by liberals and decided to combat it's citizens you'd all be ****ED despite your "amendment rights". Our amendment rights is smoke and mirrors, we've been dealt an unfair hand, we aren't actually being allowed to bear any and all ARMS. In this day and age armament = a god damn Trident missile with a Hydrogen bomb strapped into the nose. God damnit I want a nuclear missile :mad:

[aj1987]

I mean - you really do.

People act like their right to own heavily regulated small arms firearms are going to fend off the ****ing U.S. government military in case liberal politicians get voted into office and turn it all on us :facepalm

Newsflash retards, they've got tanks, jets, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear WARHEADS.

If the U.S. Government ever got overrun by liberals and decided to combat it's citizens you'd all be ****ED despite your "amendment rights". Our amendment rights is smoke and mirrors, we've been dealt an unfair hand, we aren't actually being allowed to bear any and all ARMS. In this day and age armament = a god damn Trident missile with a Hydrogen bomb strapped into the nose. God damnit I want a nuclear missile :mad:
Worked wonders in Vietnam and Iraq.

What is with libtards constantly wanting to ban guns anyways?

[CavaliersFTW]

Worked wonders in Vietnam and Iraq.

What is with libtards constantly wanting to ban guns anyways?
I don't want to ban guns.

I want my amendment rights to bear arms. All arms. It's my right.

Who the **** ever decided arms only means personal carry guns? Why the **** draw the line at a portable sized gun? Last I checked a gun was the most sophisticated firearm as of the god damn 1700's now a days a gun is but one of a plethora of armaments. Most of which I'm unconstitutionally banned from bearing. If I'm allowed to have a nuclear bomb shelter, I should be able to have a nuclear bomb silo fully stocked with a nuclear bomb. It's an armament. For personal protection. And if I own a lot of property, hunting.

[aj1987]

I don't want to ban guns.

I want my amendment rights to bear arms. All arms. It's my right.

Who the **** ever decided arms only means firearms? Why the **** draw the line at a gun? Last I checked a gun was the most sophisticated firearm as of the god damn 1700's now a days a gun is but one of a plethora of armaments. Most of which I'm unconstitutionally banned from bearing.
I was talking about libtards in general wanting to ban guns.

As I said earlier, most states allow people to own grenades. You have to register with the ATF and some other stuff. Go start a petition or complain to your legislator if you want something else unbanned.

[DonD13]

what if my religion requires me to carry grenades?

[Patrick Chewing]

what if my religion requires me to carry grenades?


That only applies to Muslims. Muslims get a pass on here and everywhere else in the world.

[Dresta]

Yes, you're almost there, now change grenade for assault rifle, so close now...just read the sentence out loud.
Assault rifles aren't legal. When will you clowns get your facts straight? You would think if you're going to make hysterical anti-gun arguments you'd at least show some understanding of the current laws regarding them, but i guess not.

[TheMan]

I mean - you really do.

People act like their right to own heavily regulated small arms firearms are going to fend off the ****ing U.S. government military in case liberal politicians get voted into office and turn it all on us :facepalm

Newsflash retards, they've got tanks, jets, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear WARHEADS.

If the U.S. Government ever got overrun by liberals and decided to combat it's citizens you'd all be ****ED despite your "amendment rights". Our amendment rights is smoke and mirrors, we've been dealt an unfair hand, we aren't actually being allowed to bear any and all ARMS. In this day and age armament = a god damn Trident missile with a Hydrogen bomb strapped into the nose. God damnit I want a nuclear missile :mad:
While you make a great point, I'm really iffy on nukes being legal, as unconstitutioal as it is.

What if your nuke went off because your teenage kid wanted to go on a suicide killing spree? Instead of a dozen or so killed, now we're potentially talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths (depending on the size of the city and where it detonates of course).

It would take a lot of convincing to get me to go along with that, even though the second ammendment clearly gives me the right to own nukes. ****ing liberals man...

What I really want is a chemical weapon though. Minimal explosive damage but you can clear out all kinds of wild life with one. GOAT huntng weapon. Imagine the trophies :applause: :bowdown:

[Real Men Wear Green]

Grenades, rockets, slinghots...guys, what you really want, and you have yet to realize that you want, is the right to drive to work in a tank

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Sherman_Tank_WW2.jpg

[UK2K]

Assault rifles aren't legal. When will you clowns get your facts straight? You would think if you're going to make hysterical anti-gun arguments you'd at least show some understanding of the current laws regarding them, but i guess not.
:confusedshrug:

How are you gonna call people clowns using the term 'assault rifle'.

That's not even a real thing. That's a leftist made up word to make guns sound scary.

[NumberSix]

I don't want to ban guns.

I want my amendment rights to bear arms. All arms. It's my right.

Who the **** ever decided arms only means personal carry guns? Why the **** draw the line at a portable sized gun? Last I checked a gun was the most sophisticated firearm as of the god damn 1700's now a days a gun is but one of a plethora of armaments. Most of which I'm unconstitutionally banned from bearing. If I'm allowed to have a nuclear bomb shelter, I should be able to have a nuclear bomb silo fully stocked with a nuclear bomb. It's an armament. For personal protection. And if I own a lot of property, hunting.
Yeah, self defense. Because if a burglar breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're going to launch a nuclear bomb at your house. Of course.

:rolleyes:



Grenades, rockets, slinghots...guys, what you really want, and you have yet to realize that you want, is the right to drive to work in a tank

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Sherman_Tank_WW2.jpg
Tanks are actually legal.

[NumberSix]

:confusedshrug:

How are you gonna call people clowns using the term 'assault rifle'.

That's not even a real thing. That's a leftist made up word to make guns sound scary.
I'm ok with assault-rifles. I just don't want murder-guns or terrorism-rifles to be legal.

[9erempiree]

I'm in the market for a kill-rifle and rape-stick to go with my 'assault' rifle.

[warriorfan]

Cavs is being childish

[NumberSix]

Cavs is being childish
He legitimately can't tell the difference between defensive weapons and offensive weapons. You're not going to defend yourself with explosives or nukes.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, self defense. Because if a burglar breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're going to launch a nuclear bomb at your house. Of course.

:rolleyes:

If someone threatens me or my family on facebook or something I want to be able to preemptively strike them and level their home before they do harm to me. This is the 21st century. People can threaten you from a distance, anywhere in the world actually. I need to be able to defend myself from that same distance.

Tanks are actually legal.
Not armed tanks :no:

[CavaliersFTW]

Who's got the right to tell us what armaments are okay for personal use and what armaments aren't?

Surely no one conservative thinks the government should be allowed to impose rules on this stuff, when the constitution clearly states we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

[NumberSix]

Not armed tanks :no:
I'm not positive about that. I know if you want to drive a tank on public streets it can't be armed. I'm not sure if that also applies to a tank that is on private property. I've never actually taken an in depth look a tank law, because... you know. Why would you?

[NumberSix]

Who's got the right to tell us what armaments are okay for personal use and what armaments aren't?

Surely no one conservative thinks the government should be allowed to impose rules on this stuff, when the constitution clearly states we have the RIGHT to bear arms.
Right, and in 18th century American English, "arms" quite clearly is defined as meaning "firearms" aka, guns.

[CavaliersFTW]

Right, and in 18th century American English, "arms" quite clearly is defined as meaning "firearms" aka, guns.
Arms has always meant weapons.

Not strictly guns.

Nice try.

[NumberSix]

Arms has always meant weapons.

Not strictly guns.

Nice try.
That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.

[CavaliersFTW]

That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.
Why over the years have certain weapons that were once considered acceptable been motioned to be considered unacceptable (for example, grenades). And why haven't weapons like bombs and heavy artillery ever been considered legal arms in the hands of citizens?

Do you think the element of danger, or individual killing power has anything to do with it?

If so, why shouldn't guns which are now far more advanced and lethal than they ever were, say, in the colonial days when our armament amendment rights were initially granted to us, be fair game for re-evaluation like every other dangerous weapon? What line is there that is drawn for guns why are guns off limits for re-evaluation of legality in the eyes of so many citizens?

If arms are to be legal, than arms should be legal. Right? What's with all this grey area and regulations and exceptions. Sounds pretty liberal doesn't it? Is liberal okay? Are you okay with how heavily regulated everything is? Should the ever changing technology of things continue to be regulated and all be viable for evaluation and reevaluation as time goes by for the safety of citizens or w/e?

[TheMan]

That's your opinion. And as I'm sure you know, your opinion doesn't matter. The Supreme Court gets to define what counts as arms, not you.
Wait a minute. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, the race to create more nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR was always referred as the US/Soviet Union "arms race". I don't think they were just referring to hand guns and rifles :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

Why over the years have certain weapons that were once considered acceptable been motioned to be considered unacceptable (for example, grenades). And why haven't weapons like bombs and heavy artillery ever been considered legal arms in the hands of citizens?

Do you think the element of danger, or individual killing power has anything to do with it?

If so, why shouldn't guns which are now far more advanced and lethal than they ever were, say, in the colonial days when our armament amendment rights were initially granted to us, be fair game for re-evaluation like every other dangerous weapon? What line is there that is drawn for guns why are guns off limits for re-evaluation of legality in the eyes of so many citizens?

If arms are to be legal, than arms should be legal. Right? What's with all this grey area and regulations and exceptions. Sounds pretty liberal doesn't it?
The problem is that you have no knowledge of case law. The Supreme Court has been very clear that the purpose of the second amendment with regard to an individual right to bear arms is mainly for the natural right of self defense. Offensive weapons like nukes or fighter jets does not fall into that category. This is not difficult to understand.

As I've previously explained to you, the constitution doesn't only say what it says. It says what it has subsequently been defined as saying. If you don't know what it has been defined as saying, you can't have a proper discussion on it.

[NumberSix]

Wait a minute. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, the race to create more nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR was always referred as the US/Soviet Union "arms race". I don't think they were just referring to hand guns and rifles :confusedshrug:
And your point is what?

[9erempiree]

You can have grenades people.

[CavaliersFTW]

The problem is that you have no knowledge of case law. The Supreme Court has been very clear that the purpose of the second amendment with regard to an individual right to bear arms is mainly for the natural right of self defense. Offensive weapons like nukes or fighter jets does not fall into that category. This is not difficult to understand.
So that law is about self defense is it? Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle? Yet placing an IED on your property to keep off trespassers in a defensive effort probably wouldn't fly in court. Hm.

[9erempiree]

Just use some logic people, how long was the constitution written? With that said we very well know what they mean by arms.

And we're suppose to be the irrational ones?

Typical lib argument, except they are using their lib views for the 2nd amendment by twisting it. They do that shit with everything.

Imagine if they were pro 2nd amendment. Everyone will be walking around with bazookas.

[9erempiree]

This thread is a perfect example of......

What if Liberals were Pro-2nd Amendment?

Knowing what we know about their beliefs and views, it is safe to say 'if you give them rifles and guns, they will want bazookas and nukes.'

They will use the 2nd amendment and twist it to gain a benefit.

Tell me who's the rational one when it comes to owning 'arms'?

[NumberSix]

Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle?
A gun like a knife, a bat or pepper spray can be used as either an offensive or defensive weapon. You can't make a claim that you want to have chemical weapons for self defense. This is a weapon that can only be used by an aggressor. It doesn't have any defensive purpose. No individual can make a reasonable claim of needing a nuke for self defense purposes.

[CavaliersFTW]

A gun like a knife, a bat or pepper spray can be used as either an offensive or defensive weapon. You can't make a claim that you want to have chemical weapons for self defense. This is a weapon that can only be used by an aggressor. It doesn't have any defensive purpose. No individual can make a reasonable claim of needing a nuke for self defense purposes.
Landmines. IED's. ETC :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

So that law is about self defense is it? Who is it that determines a 21st century assault rifle is for self defense - how about a sniper rifle? Yet placing an IED on your property to keep off trespassers in a defensive effort probably wouldn't fly in court. Hm.
Again, your lack of case law comes in. Do you really think you're the first person to think of this? That this hasn't already been subject to judicial scrutiny?

Planting explosives traps are not defensive. They have no way of discerning between aggressors and non-aggressors. They can't tell the difference between a burglar or the mail man. You can't have people on public streets being blown up because a squirrel or a cat stepped on a land mine on your lawn.

Weapons that kill people indiscriminately like bombs can not be claimed as self defense weapons.

[9erempiree]

Guns and rifles are defensive weapons.

That is why wars are started with bombs, missiles and explosives.

No soldier would want to use their guns because that means they are in the defensive.

I think people really need to get familiarized with what weapons do. Nobody starts a war with a gun.

[CavaliersFTW]

Again, your lack of case law comes in. Do you really think you're the first person to think of this? That this hasn't already been subject to judicial scrutiny?

Planting explosives traps are not defensive. They have no way of discerning between aggressors and non-aggressors. They can't tell the difference between a burglar or the mail man. You can't have people on public streets being blown up because a squirrel or a cat stepped on a land mine on your lawn.

Weapons that kill people indiscriminately like bombs can not be claimed as self defense weapons.
Apparently you've never heard of remote explosives.

No I'm not the first person to think of these. I'm also not the first person to think in no way is a sniper rifle or assault rifle a 'defensive' weapon.

They're offensive weapons. And are much more lethal now than in years past. As such they are falling under scrutiny by sensible people. The problem is, sensible people are being accused of being 'liberals' by doing this, and being belittled or written off for it. But if scrutinizing the legality of weapons based on how dangerous they are is liberal, than the actual law as it is now, is incredibly liberal already. Technology is ever changing. The lethality of 'guns' has increased. It's pretty sensible to put them under more scrutiny and make noises for a change in laws and regulations that existed in a time of less deadly 'guns' as a result.

[NumberSix]

Apparently you've never heard of remote explosives.

No I'm not the first person to think of these. I'm also not the first person to think in no way is a sniper rifle or assault rifle a 'defensive' weapon.

They're offensive weapons. And are much more lethal now than in years past. As such they are falling under scrutiny by sensible people. The problem is, sensible people are being accused of being 'liberals'. But if scrutinizing the legality of weapons based on how dangerous they are is liberal, than the actual law as it is now, is incredibly liberal already.
What's an assault rifle?

And legality isn't based on danger. They're based on intent. It's also illegal to set a boobie-trap that makes a brick fall on some bodies head. Because traps are not defensive weapons.

[warriorfan]

Apparently you've never heard of remote explosives.

No I'm not the first person to think of these. I'm also not the first person to think in no way is a sniper rifle or assault rifle a 'defensive' weapon.

They're offensive weapons. And are much more lethal now than in years past. As such they are falling under scrutiny by sensible people. The problem is, sensible people are being accused of being 'liberals' by doing this, and being belittled or written off for it. But if scrutinizing the legality of weapons based on how dangerous they are is liberal, than the actual law as it is now, is incredibly liberal already. Technology is ever changing. The lethality of 'guns' has increased. It's pretty sensible to put them under more scrutiny and make noises for a change in laws and regulations that existed in a time of less deadly 'guns' as a result.

Yeah, booby trapping your house with explosives is the exact same as keeping a pistol...

Fuccing idiot

[longtime lurker]

Yeah, booby trapping your house with explosives is the exact same as keeping a pistol...

Fuccing idiot

He's protecting his family from the gubment or armed thugs terrorizing suburbs. You've gone soft

[CavaliersFTW]

The mental exercise I presented you guys with is not dumb.

The politics here are simple. Why are some "arms" considered okay, and others not okay for citizens to use? Well... it's largely determined by how offensive they are. Not "self defense", (sorry numbersix that's a nonsensical excuse, ranged weapons by fundamental design are offensive, not defensive)

As such, with an ever increasing effectiveness/lethality of guns as demonstrated in the hands of those who decide to use them against other citizens, they are falling under scrutiny by the public. Of course, the public is divided on this because guns have been legal for so long there are millions of gun enthusiasts that are a large part of the public. And no one ever wants to be told they are to getting "less" of what they enjoy or worse yet, have to give anything up that they've already invested in.

[Jameerthefear]

cavsftw is just being a dumbass to seem contradictory. he's such a ****ing loser

[NumberSix]

He's protecting his family from the gubment or armed thugs terrorizing suburbs. You've gone soft
The problem with that though, is in civilized society there are legitimate reasons why someone might need to enter your house uninvited. If your house catches on fire, you can't have a fireman getting an axe in the face from some stupid boobie trap you set up. If somebody believes you're in danger in your house or in need of immediate help, they might need to kick your door down to help you.

[NumberSix]

The mental exercise I presented you guys with is not dumb.

The politics here are simple. Why are some "arms" considered okay, and others not okay for citizens to use? Well... it's largely determined by how offensive they are. Not "self defense", (sorry numbersix that's a nonsensical excuse, ranged weapons by fundamental design are offensive, not defensive)
You know people used "ranged" rifles for hunting, right? It's a perfectly legitimate use. Yes, you can use a weapon in an offensive manner against a deer.

You're dead wrong on literally every point you're presenting.

[lil jahlil]

Guns and rifles are defensive weapons.

That is why wars are started with bombs, missiles and explosives.

No soldier would want to use their guns because that means they are in the defensive.

I think people really need to get familiarized with what weapons do. Nobody starts a war with a gun.

Has your dumb ass never heard of World War 1?

[aj1987]

Has your dumb ass never heard of World War 1?
:oldlol:


Libtards being dense AF on purpose ITT.