"And another GOP nut Ted Nugent talking about if BO gets elected he'll either be dead or in jail afterwards"

And then being too much of a wimp to go through with the deal.

I'm being cynical, Dave. Chill.

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 ...

I wasn't being cynical

Dave

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.

Dave

I know you're being cynical, but it's still funny to me because that gun-nut is just crazy enough to say it !!

A little off topic, but the NRA debate over the background checks IS lunacy...
"criminals don't follow the law" - DUH ! no sheet sherlock ! so by that logic we should just do away with all laws. Speeders don't follow the law either. BUT when caught, you have something to "HANG" them on ! DUH !

"Criminals won't get background checks"- another DUH ! SO we just let them get guns easily through gun shows and internet where no background check is required. That's like saying we can't stop ALL burglaries ... so lets just leave the front door OPEN ! Stupid arguments!

Sorry to digress. But this is more on topic - where do you draw the line ? automatic rifles, bombs, land mines ? According to La Piss-ant, "can't inhibit their right to defend themselves !!"

The statement by the TeaParty says it does.

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




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?

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."

===

DEFINITION OF "ARMS"

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?

I think that your analysis works. As I recall, Justice Scalia would not reject out of hand the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies to things like grenade or rocket launchers. He'd have to think about it if it came up in a case. He may have been speaking with tongue firmly in cheek, although he takes the "bear arms" seriously as indicating that the weapon must be carriable. But from my angle that cheek was the nether one. He meant the question seriously and intended to encourage wingnuts. After all, if the justification for the 2nd Amendment is "self protection from the government," despite Article 3, section 3's definition of treason as "levying War against them" [i. e. the US], then in the modern world backpacks with explosives or bomb vests, carriable as they are, are the weapons of choice.