4 ms·

> Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass killings (not very different than explosives). Explosives could have been made the

> Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass killings (not very different than explosives). Explosives could have been made the time the constitution was written by using gun powder. Weapons being as powerful as explosives isn't itself a good reason in itself to ban them. But otherwise I think you're right. The right to bear arms was to allow the populace to protect themselves against the state. Any kind of weapon that can provide a great deal of damage in mass shootings, and could reasonably be replaced by another safer weapon and still give the populace the ability to protect themselves from the state, should be banned.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
Although an explosive, black powder (i.e. old timey gunpowder) is not a high explosive. It generates more gas than actual concussive force, so it generally only works well when enclosed in a vessel like the barrel of a musket or a cannon. On its own it isn't actually a very useful explosive. You couldn't use it for mining, unlike dynamite (made from nitroglycerine). You could set fire to a pile of gunpowder and stand nearby, and you'd be fine. This is why you can buy big bags of black powder easily, but you can't buy high explosives without all sorts of licences and permits.