Originally Posted By: MrB
I cant remember when the anyone has indicated that exploding bombs in a public venue is supported by any amendment. Where did you get this?

I can't remember that either -- where did you read such an assertion?

Let's just find the people who did this and prosecute them. No matter who they may be they don't belong in the gun control debate.


Why not? Explosives are just as much as a "arm" as are semi-automatic weapons and therefore theoretically under the same constitutional protection. The relevance to the gun-control debate is that our society doesn't seem to have a legal / constitutional / rights problem with (comparatively) strictly regulating and restricting explosives; yet regulating other "arms," even minimally, is argued by reasonable people as being the slippery slope to totalitarianism ...

To look at it another way, in terms of the weapons-control discussion and what or what the 2nd amendment protects, what makes this crime any different from Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or Phoenix, or Columbine? What makes this not-relevant to that debate?