Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[DrLove]

If you're a convicted felon, you have NO right to own a gun. And straw buyers and private sellers at gun shows (legal in over half our states) have NO right to sell you one. It is MY right to make sure your access is greatly restricted.

90% of US voters concur.

Can a convicted felon then buy one from crooks on the street? Yes, but it makes such access riskier and more difficult.

You must have forgotten to include your reliable source and working link to the poll, survey, or whatever you used to support your statement that, "90% of US voters concur" that it is your RIGHT to make sure that my access to a weapon is greatly restricted.

If someone buys and sells guns at a gun show, they must do background checks.

Don't know how to use Mr Googley?

90% of Americans back background checks for all gun sales?

In the first hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, many leading elected officials in Wisconsin issued statements abou

www.politifact.com

Unless you are a criminal or a kook (latter in question ;-) then nobody is restricting your access.

And NO, private sellers can sell at shows in nearly ALL states with NO obligation to do anything other than confirm you to be an adult.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

View a map showing different state gun show laws.

www.governing.com

 

[Levant]

No. YOU are saying that I lied.

What is a military conquest?

"Conquest is the act of military subjugation of an enemy by force of arms"

Subjugation is to "bring under control".

Wow! You did go to college, didn't you?

Now let's see if you actually learned anything: Once again - name those military conquests, please - or is that degree in underwater basket weaving?

 

[DrLove]

But mostly universal BG checks which 90% of Americans and 60% of NRA members support should be a no-brainer.

Background checks for what? To see if they're covered under the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd Amendment?

If you're a convicted felon, you have NO right to own a gun. And straw buyers and private sellers at gun shows (legal in over half our states) have NO right to sell you one. It is MY right to make sure your access is greatly restricted.

90% of US voters concur.

Can a convicted felon then buy one from crooks on the street? Yes, but it makes such access riskier and more difficult.

Can you point to that in the Constitution? For 149 years, it was well understood that government had no such authority as to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Then it was slipped in in 1938 for violent felons and then, 179 years post-ratification, for the rest of felons. Then later for some misdemeanors, and coming soon, for more misdemeanors - but it's unconstitutional.

What felons buying guns on the street really does is create a black market for stolen guns on the street. It does nothing to stop them from getting guns.

And you have no right to stop another person from exercising their rights.

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

 

[Sunsettommy]

To my mind it is irrelevant whether it is deaths by suicide, accident or homicide. All will be dramatically reduced. if guns are not available.

The Bill of Rights was written at a time before the US had an organized police force and when wild animals posed a far greater threat.

The Connecticut primary school massacre in which 20 kids were not just shot, but blown apart by a high velocity semi automatic rifle owned by the 20yr old shooters mother, a teacher at the school beggars belief. No doubt she was persuaded that her best defense against crime was to hold a mass of lethal weapons. Fat lot of good it did her, her son and 20 young pupils.

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

The problem isn’t guns, the availability of guns, or how guns are regulated.
The problem is the inherently violent nature of American society; a society where violence is sanctioned as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

The problem is the lack of access to affordable healthcare – mental healthcare in particular.

Part of the solution can be found in addressing the violent nature of American society and the lack of access to affordable mental healthcare, rendering irrelevant the availability of guns and how guns are regulate.

You left out a few things such as GANG Warfare, Drug culture, and big cities murder rates that are far above the smaller cities and rural regions murder rates.

Vast majority of gun crimes are in a small area of America, the rest of the country it is much lower.

 

[progressive hunter]

But mostly universal BG checks which 90% of Americans and 60% of NRA members support should be a no-brainer.

Background checks for what? To see if they're covered under the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd Amendment?

If you're a convicted felon, you have NO right to own a gun. And straw buyers and private sellers at gun shows (legal in over half our states) have NO right to sell you one. It is MY right to make sure your access is greatly restricted.

90% of US voters concur.

Can a convicted felon then buy one from crooks on the street? Yes, but it makes such access riskier and more difficult.

Can you point to that in the Constitution? For 149 years, it was well understood that government had no such authority as to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Then it was slipped in in 1938 for violent felons and then, 179 years post-ratification, for the rest of felons. Then later for some misdemeanors, and coming soon, for more misdemeanors - but it's unconstitutional.

What felons buying guns on the street really does is create a black market for stolen guns on the street. It does nothing to stop them from getting guns.

And you have no right to stop another person from exercising their rights.

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

hey dumbass,,,people own those things right now,,,

 

[Levant]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Mity-O]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Well Brit, your point has been the topic of many a discussion. In a nation where many rely on their firearms to put food on their tables because they live so remotely and where law enforcement and law and order are constantly under attack by way of policy and belief there are becoming more and more communities that are relying on food and self enforcement. Unlike most of Europe there are billions of square miles that are still untamed and uncivilized all across the U.S. Granted there does have to be some form of proper gun control but there are two types of people with firearms here, those that understand and respect the responsibility that comes with baring arms and those that use the right to bare arms to get away with whatever they want. Does one suffer due to the kaos of another?
As an example, my friend lives in a state where there are only 6 state police employed to patrol millions of square miles because of a lack of state funding. My friend also lives about an hour and a half away from any kind of "local" law enforcement and emergency services. The St. Police make a pass through my friend's community once a month where burglaries, sexual assaults, poaching, trespassing,.violent assaults, murder, and drug trafficking are part of everyday life. Add to that the fact that our wonderful Democrat governments are letting criminals out of prison by the thousands, though when in prison there is no such thing as a non-violent offender, it should be pretty obvious why so many continue to fight to keep their rights to bare arms. Above all, it's rich that a Brit is telling the U.S.A. how to manage gun control. First, it took our rifles to finally get you to go home and stop controlling us. Second, if it wasn't for us and our rifles where would you be now post WWII. Us Yanks are damn good shots because of all of our practice. We were given the right to bare arms to fight against oppression, defend ourselves, put food on our tables, and defend our country.

 

[Levant]

Well Brit, your point has been the topic of many a discussion. In a nation where many rely on their firearms to put food on their tables because they live so remotely and where law enforcement and law and order are constantly under attack by way of policy and belief there are becoming more and more communities that are relying on food and self enforcement. Unlike most of Europe there are billions of square miles that are still untamed and uncivilized all across the U.S. Granted there does have to be some form of proper gun control but there are two types of people with firearms here, those that understand and respect the responsibility that comes with baring arms and those that use the right to bare arms to get away with whatever they want. Does one suffer due to the kaos of another?
As an example, my friend lives in a state where there are only 6 state police employed to patrol millions of square miles because of a lack of state funding. My friend also lives about an hour and a half away from any kind of "local" law enforcement and emergency services. The St. Police make a pass through my friend's community once a month where burglaries, sexual assaults, poaching, trespassing,.violent assaults, murder, and drug trafficking are part of everyday life. Add to that the fact that our wonderful Democrat governments are letting criminals out of prison by the thousands, though when in prison there is no such thing as a non-violent offender, it should be pretty obvious why so many continue to fight to keep their rights to bare arms. Above all, it's rich that a Brit is telling the U.S.A. how to manage gun control. First, it took our rifles to finally get you to go home and stop controlling us. Second, if it wasn't for us and our rifles where would you be now post WWII. Us Yanks are damn good shots because of all of our practice. We were given the right to bare arms to fight against oppression, defend ourselves, put food on our tables, and defend our country.

Welcome to the discussion! Good point, you made. In addition, though, it isn't necessary that a person live in a rural area (I do) to have the right to protect themselves. Even in the most urban environments, the Constitution still stands and a person has the right to defend themselves. Even in NYC, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police almost never get to do anything except the paperwork. And, as I already posted, when the police get involved, more innocent people get shot than when a civilian provides for his or her own defense.

 

[DrLove]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

 

[Sunsettommy]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

The people they bomb are the same ones making them, thus after a few weeks they get no more ordinance to use up, but you really believe that American military personnel are willing to kill their own families and friends in the process?

You really think the military will kill millions of its own people.........?

 

[Mac-7]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Isnt it time you butt out and mind your own business?

 

[Blues Man]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Isnt it time you butt out and mind your own business?

These foreign busybodies never get the message that their opinions don't matter to Americans.

 

[KGB]

The 2nd Amendment is a God-given right laid down by the Founding Fathers. View attachment 340999

Just for clarification, the right to keep and bear arms, as in the right to self-defense, to defense of property, and the defense against tyranny, is the God (or for the heathens, Nature) given right. The Second Amendment acknowledges the right and protects it from infringement by government.

Correct. It is God-given but written down by the Founding Fathers...

 

[KGB]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

 

[KGB]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Why do you want to so badly?
What is it that you like about being weaker and more helpless than you can be?

I would like us to be SAFER from being shot by another civilian.

You mean a criminal. I have news for you..the world is evil.

 

[OldLady]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

 

[Mity-O]

Well Brit, your point has been the topic of many a discussion. In a nation where many rely on their firearms to put food on their tables because they live so remotely and where law enforcement and law and order are constantly under attack by way of policy and belief there are becoming more and more communities that are relying on food and self enforcement. Unlike most of Europe there are billions of square miles that are still untamed and uncivilized all across the U.S. Granted there does have to be some form of proper gun control but there are two types of people with firearms here, those that understand and respect the responsibility that comes with baring arms and those that use the right to bare arms to get away with whatever they want. Does one suffer due to the kaos of another?
As an example, my friend lives in a state where there are only 6 state police employed to patrol millions of square miles because of a lack of state funding. My friend also lives about an hour and a half away from any kind of "local" law enforcement and emergency services. The St. Police make a pass through my friend's community once a month where burglaries, sexual assaults, poaching, trespassing,.violent assaults, murder, and drug trafficking are part of everyday life. Add to that the fact that our wonderful Democrat governments are letting criminals out of prison by the thousands, though when in prison there is no such thing as a non-violent offender, it should be pretty obvious why so many continue to fight to keep their rights to bare arms. Above all, it's rich that a Brit is telling the U.S.A. how to manage gun control. First, it took our rifles to finally get you to go home and stop controlling us. Second, if it wasn't for us and our rifles where would you be now post WWII. Us Yanks are damn good shots because of all of our practice. We were given the right to bare arms to fight against oppression, defend ourselves, put food on our tables, and defend our country.

Welcome to the discussion! Good point, you made. In addition, though, it isn't necessary that a person live in a rural area (I do) to have the right to protect themselves. Even in the most urban environments, the Constitution still stands and a person has the right to defend themselves. Even in NYC, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police almost never get to do anything except the paperwork. And, as I already posted, when the police get involved, more innocent people get shot than when a civilian provides for his or her own defense.

Excellent point! There are to many cops with little to no self control in a panic. But that wasn't the point being made here. Growing up civilized I was trained to rely on what law enforcement we have but if law enforcement is nowhere then I'm reaching for my Winchester. Thank you 2nd amendment!

 

[OldLady]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

The people they bomb are the same ones making them, thus after a few weeks they get no more ordinance to use up, but you really believe that American military personnel are willing to kill their own families and friends in the process?

You really think the military will kill millions of its own people.........?

No, I don't. I'm not the one promoting taking up our AR's to defend our liberty from the commie pinko fag Nazi government of ours. This whole conversation is just plain stupid.

 

[DrLove]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about hand grenades either. Without a modern fighter jet, an Abrams tank. and a case or two of hand grenades, how will Trumpists ever protect themselves, their bunkers and their arsenals against a hostile government?