Quote:
What the f$$k does this bombing have with American's constitutional rights?

If I felt like playing devil's advocate, I could make a logical case that it has everything to do with the 2nd amendment, which guarantees the right to bear not just guns, but "arms," a category broad enough to include explosive devices. I could also argue that the arguments against gun control should logically apply to any armament, including bombs ("bombs don't kill people, people kill people," "a bomb is just a tool," etc.) Although that would ignore that there *are* comparatively heavy restrictions / regulations -- which appear to be entirely constitutional -- regarding the ownership and use of explosive devices ... which would raise the interesting question of why similar regulations and restrictions against guns wouldn't be ...

If nothing else, the suggestion that this may have some bearing on the current gun-control debate does raise some interesting questions ...