Originally Posted By: MrB
I think the likely hood that the bombing has a direct or indirect connection to the gun control debate is slim.

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?

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.


I can tell you where he got "this".

The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms.
We'll forget about the "well regulated militia" part for the moment and assume it means your average citizen.

"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."



1. The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.
2. All the military forces and war equipment of a country. Often used in the plural.
3. A military force equipped for war.
4. The process of arming for war.

So what is the difference between a musket... a Glock... an AR-15... an IED... a Grenade... a tank.... a rocket launcher...????
Where do you draw the line?
Oh... just because it fires only bullets.. then it's "just a gun" and should be allowed?
So what is wrong with owning a Gatling gun that shoots armor piercing bullets?
Where do you draw the line? Some of us want to bring the line a little closer and get rid of weapons that we think are ... shall we say... excessive.
I don't expect this will make a light bulb go off in your mind and for you to think.."Oh... that's what they are saying!...That's not so bad after all..."
No one wants to come and take your "rights" away... that's a bunch of hype to get people all freaked out.
We just lifted the assault ban 10? years ago. When that ban was first put into affect... how come we didn't hear this outcry of rights being trampled then?