Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Peregrine

(992 posts)

9. Scalia seems to think

Reply to Doodler71 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:15 PM

Dec 2012

It covers anything carried by a typical infantryman. To include hand grenades. Madison saw the 2nd meaning just this, citizens had a right to bear arms equivalent to an infantryman.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why are bombs illegal? [View all] Doodler71 Dec 2012 OP

Are we sure bombs aren't covered under the second amendment? Kalidurga Dec 2012 #1

It's a Hollywood thing. There is no telling when and if a movie will bomb at the BO. n/t 2on2u Dec 2012 #2

Are you sure they are? JVS Dec 2012 #3

Explosives are not illegal to possess slackmaster Dec 2012 #4

Apparently arms must not include bombs. Why can't I have a grenade, how about a doc03 Dec 2012 #5

You can with an explosives license Recursion Dec 2012 #7

You can buy a grenade if your state law permits it. The federal tax stamp will cost you $200. slackmaster Dec 2012 #8

Also a rocket launcher is just a metal tube Recursion Dec 2012 #17

How do you think they demolish buildings? Recursion Dec 2012 #6

So you are proving the point that the 2nd Amendment is is not doc03 Dec 2012 #10

I didn't know that needed proving; the entire country as far as I know accepts that Recursion Dec 2012 #11

So it can't be done, do nothing. It can be done apply it to all guns traded from here on. doc03 Dec 2012 #13

Our experience with drugs suggests to me it would cause more problems than it solves Recursion Dec 2012 #14

Scalia seems to think Peregrine Dec 2012 #9

That's the explicit reasoning in Miller, IIRC Recursion Dec 2012 #12

No. Marinedem Dec 2012 #15

I was thinking more of the 19th century Recursion Dec 2012 #16