Zoning is local. They could xone for cannon, tanks , airplanes in the driveway. If a person has the land and then there is no reason they can’t own artillery and practice.

WE only punish the improper use such as destructive use against someone or property not the tool or chenicals themselves.

Any decent chemist can brew up bioweapons, having the means does not prove intent. If we punish anyone that has the means we dumb down the population and regulate the individual who can have the learning or not.

So we can regulate with local zoning laws appropiate use of dangerous toys like explosives, cannon and tanks.

You either trust the popu;lace with dangerous itens or you don’t . That all it comes down to.

The restriction of nukes is money not laws.

You are arguing that a law outawing chemicals and pipes will stop people . Law do not stop, they only punish.

A few years later, the budding young leftist moonbats convinced themselves that doing this sort of thing in the Deans office was a clever political statement. Today, they sit in the Deans office, and somehow seem to have lost all their youthful enthusiasm for dissent.

One mans kid having fun, is another mans terrorist. I suppose some of my neighbors must have thought so anyway.

Over at my place, I took the position that, barring WMDs the phrase “keep and bear” should define anything that could be carried or drawn by a 1/2 ton pickup. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere after all.

Not all things that go boom are explosives. Explosives can be given a fairly sensible legal definition, even if the current definition isn’t always sensible.

RAH:

I don’t believe it makes sense to outlaw all possession of explosives by civilians. Obviously that would be ridiculous. Just that the government can find a legitimate interest in regulating it. I’m not going to get into whether that should be the state or federal governments, or what the balance should be constitutionally, but cutting that argument away, I think the interest is there.

That’s also not to say that I think the current regulations are the correct ones, or that all regulations will be effective. But when it comes down to the matter before the courts, these things shouldn’t be considered.

Even making that argument is (no pun intended) giving the people who try to demonize gun owners as lunatics far too much ammunition to use against us.

That said, I wonder how long it will be before some twisted lawyer tries making the case using that ruling to justify banning the purchase of powder for reloading and muzzleloading purposes since it could be used to make a bomb.

I’m a living history reenactor (F&I war through fur trade era). I usually have about 5 or 6 pounds of black powder in various grades stored in my home. Unlike modern smokeless powder, black powder is classified as an explosive, not a propellant.

Even though I agree with this ruling, I have a queasy feeling someone is going to try to make feeding my flintlocks a pain in the ass…

Even if you believe that the Second Amendment protects ordinary soldiering equipment like grenades, RPGs, etc, it seems hard to argue that the government doesn’t have a compelling interest in preventing them from being stored in residential areas, or have the power to regulate possession in the interests of public safety.

The government interest in regulation becomes considerably diminished when it comes to small arms. Small arms powder is typically not explosive, except for gunpowder, and there are regulations on how much of that you can have in your home which I don’t think in theory are inappropriate. There’s never been much of a public safety argument with small arms because they aren’t inherently dangerous. They take a conscious act by a user to cause destruction of life and property. Some explosives, under some circumstances, will cause their destruction without a conscious act, such as fire or shock.

Safety of the community is the same arguement that gun banners use. Careful where your thinking is going, Sebastian.

Also If I was going to rebel I would need such destructive devices same as guns and ammo.

The pipe is not used to cause damge just to provide the compression of the gases. Now ball bearing and nails can be used in conjuction with the pipe bomb. However ball bearings and nails are useful so I would not ban them because they can cause grievous harm if used incorrectly.

Lets ban the act not the tools.