Isn't the solution obvious?

You guys got all whipped up and made a 10+ page about firearms. Your leader in this thread (a convicted criminal that sold stolen guns to criminals so they could use them to kill people) claimed that his opinion was MORE valuable because he was a lowlife with EXPERIENCE. Then you all circle-jerked around a 3rd grader's notion of what the 2nd Amendment means for the last half of the thread.

I ask you: Where in the 2nd Amendment does it specifically state that you have the right to own and use explosives?

You know...the FIRE in FIREARMS. The 2nd states that you have the right to bear ARMS (not FIREARMS), and the SCOTUS recently (and wrongly) reversed decades of law to declare that right as an individual right. But it doesn't say shit about your right to bear FIRE (explosives).

So guess what. Gunpowder and the exotic explosives used in primers are fair game. Your expensive 45 or AR will become expensive paperweights.

FYI, the so called "explosives" that you are referring in your argument that we are not allowed to have firearms (I'm guessing that you are actually talking about the cartridges, since you mention that the guns will become expensive paperweights) is the very gunpowder that you state is fair game. Therefore, your entire argument is invalidated by your own words.

I ask you: Where in the 2nd Amendment does it specifically state that you have the right to own and use explosives?

You know...the FIRE in FIREARMS. The 2nd states that you have the right to bear ARMS (not FIREARMS), and the SCOTUS recently (and wrongly) reversed decades of law to declare that right as an individual right. But it doesn't say shit about your right to bear FIRE (explosives).

So guess what. Gunpowder and the exotic explosives used in primers are fair game. Your expensive 45 or AR will become expensive paperweights. Originally Posted by Longermonger

Sorry, but not even the federal government considers smokeless powder as "explosives." Smokeless powder is FLAMABLE, but it's NOT an explosive. When I used to shoot competatively, I'd buy powder 8lbs at a time, along with 5000 primers. And there are no restrictions on the ownership of primers, just like there's no restriction on the ownership of matches.

Secondly, if you think that the founders who wrote the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution didn't include gunpowder (black powder, in those days) as part of the "arms" to which they were referring, look up General Gage and Concord.

Finally, explain to me how it is that in the Bill of Rights, the word "people" means something different in the second amendment than any other amendments (even though all 10 were ratified and adopted at the same time,) especially when you consider that the federal government, states, and "the people" are all specifically mentioned to differentiate them.

BTW, before Heller, there was NO settled case law on this, and the SCOTUS finally (and rightly) incorporated the second amendment as an individual right.

Mark

And I thought he had a solution....guess not. Back to the ml

I cant decide if the OP was trolling, dumb, or drunk. Either way I wont visit this thread again.

I vote for drunk. Any decent mind can make gunpowder with charcoal, sulphur, and saltpeter. Todays rifles use IMR powder and not blackpowder. I do have several handguns and a couple of rifles that use only blackpowder. You know, like Jesse James. I don't think they shot people in those days. They just pushed in the bullets with their fingers. Doesn't everyone know that firearms were uselss until they invented the semi-automatic.

how much gun powder was used in the okc bombing? how many children did the us government kill in waco? have another drink genius

Black powder was a explosive modern gun powder is a propellent.

The constitution provides US citizens the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS would surely rule that those arms would be effective/usable.

longermonger has the right to breathe in oxygen but it is apparent that he forgets on occasion...

Sorry, but not even the federal government considers smokeless powder as "explosives." Smokeless powder is FLAMABLE, but it's NOT an explosive. When I used to shoot competatively, I'd buy powder 8lbs at a time, along with 5000 primers. And there are no restrictions on the ownership of primers, just like there's no restriction on the ownership of matches. Originally Posted by duckrangler

Black gunpowder, black gunpowder, and modern powders are LOW EXPLOSIVES and are *used as* propellants. They are placarded as EXPLOSIVES 1.3.

Secondly, if you think that the founders who wrote the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution didn't include gunpowder (black powder, in those days) as part of the "arms" to which they were referring, look up General Gage and Concord. Originally Posted by duckrangler

If you think the founding fathers did consider gunpowder as an "arm" that they could bear, then provide proof. Gunpowder is a war material. Gunpowder is a supply. It is not an arm.

I cant decide if the OP was trolling, dumb, or drunk. Either way I wont visit this thread again. Originally Posted by bigryan222

Adiós! I'll hold you to your word.

I vote for drunk. Any decent mind can make gunpowder with charcoal, sulphur, and saltpeter. Todays rifles use IMR powder and not blackpowder. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Explain how you make the chemicals used in primers.

Black powder was a explosive modern gun powder is a propellent. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No. Wrong.