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

Marinedem

(373 posts)

15. No.

Reply to Recursion (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:48 PM

Dec 2012

"which are generally only given to officers (and at least in theory they're mostly for shooting your own troops if they try to run)."

Just no.

Maybe in the Red Army in the 30's-40's.

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