Should civilians be allowed to keep and bear grenades?

Well, are you allowed to buy one of those?

The 2a originally protected your right to a cannon and put a swivel gun on your porch. And you could also outfit a ship with cannons if you wanted.
As originally understood, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t protect your right to grenades or mortars.

Attached: FC7350BB-6037-4353-920E-630B013EAA77.jpg (1280x960, 830K)

Yes, anything you’re average army infantryman can have, citizens can have
How powerful are M67 hand grenades anyways?
I’ve heard them be called “non lethal” by soldiers before and guys who have jumped on a grenade didn’t die for a couple hours after they did it

>guys who have jumped on a grenade didn’t die for a couple hours
Well, there's an unpleasant thought.

niggers attack in packs

I mean if you can pay the nfa fee and find a licensed dealer willing to sell you one. Pretty sure one company was selling NFA stamped pipebombs a few years ago for the meme.

Civilians should be mandated to safely keep grenades in their homes or on their persons in case of a sudden invasion.
>300,000,000+ grenadiers versus any army wins even if employing suicide charges non-stop

What is more human then hurling a death egg at your enemies?

Attached: tfw no MP waifu.png (500x1000, 433K)

Yes.

This is Cpl. Kyle Carpenter, a veteran of the War in Afghanistan and the youngest living recipient of the Medal of Honor.

While patrolling a village in Helmand Province in the autumn of 2010, Carpenter’s team was attacked by a group of Taliban insurgents. During the firefight, a grenade landed near the Marines. Seeing this, Carpenter decided that his best option was to try to smother the grenade to save his fellow Marines. He jumped in front of it just before it detonated, losing his right eye and suffering severe injuries to his right arm. Nevertheless, he survived, as did the men he was trying to save.

As a result of his actions, Cpl. Carpenter was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Obama on June 19th, 2014.

Attached: main-qimg-6aac029fab0c20319fe0d045f19c3c5d.jpg (602x752, 155K)

American grenades are primarily fragmentation weapons. Very low explosive power. It's designed to disorient and disable.

Not doing it? :P

>daisy chain the entire country in one go
nice
>inb4 someone ruins this mental image with logic

>It's designed to disorient and disable.
well, metal splinters in your guts is definitely going to disable you

although, you left out the part fragmentation is far more deadly than the explosion

I understand that, but they aren't always lethal. Killing an enemy 2 hours down the line isn't really what you want. Giving him a survivable wound that takes him and 3 of his buddies out of the fight immediately is actually a much more preferable option.

>Giving him a survivable wound that takes him and 3 of his buddies out of the fight immediately

Why would this be a thing?

It will temporarily take MAYBE 2 of his buddies out of the fight, who will take him to cover and probably leave to a medic.

If you're saying him surviving with costly medical care further drains his nation's resources, sure. As for the immediate action, any loss of uninjured people to move injured people will be temporary unless in a full retreat.

And no, 5.56 was not "designed to wound." A wounded enemy is still a threat.

Technically, yes, because a $3,000 tax stamp and an NFA form for each grenade isn't sufficient burden of conduct on your Second Amendment rights, according to the courts.

DDs are a 200 dollar stamp

A lot of the people who "survive" smothering a grenade were wearing armor, don't forget. Without it they'd probably be instadead.

Depends on the wound. And yes, I understand 5.56 was primarily designed to enable soldiers to carry more rounds and be more controllable during rapid fire. When I said "three of his buddies" I meant assuming they were hit by the grenade as well.

>And no, 5.56 was not "designed to wound." A wounded enemy is still a threat.
its very strictly speaking designed to wound, in the sense it is intended to reliably cause severe wounding

although, the wounds are often mortal and lead to death very often
a collapsed lung is probably the least serious wound it will give you

Y'know, I think it would be good to have grenades and other explosive weapons to fight off armed foes, even government forces, but I have some reservations I think we need to address.

1; What about fires? If someone keeps a box of grenades in their house, and there's a fire, that's really dangerous. I mean, it's enough that your neighbor has a fire and that's a serious hazard.
2; What about unscrupulous dicks? There's a lot of really horrible things someone bad could do with easy access to explosives.
3; What about negligent handling and negligent discharges with launchers? A negligent discharge with a firearm is bad, but a negligent explosion can be an utter catastrophe.

Would we have to agree on storage regulations, criminal record checks, and licensing? I don't exactly like the idea of those things for regular arms, so that's why I'm hesitant on the idea on this subject.
Would people form a neighborhood/district militia, where storage, training, and handling is centralized, and in case of a required emergency the neighborhood would be able to arm themselves with hand grenades, mortars, anti-air weapons, anti-tank weapons, and the like?

Attached: MkII_07.jpg (1200x1638, 211K)

>assuming they were hit by the grenade as well

Oh, well at that point, what's wrong with them all being lethally wounded? Same number of people taken off the battlefield. If anything, "more reliably" taken off the battlefield, vs being able to prop a gun up and keep squeezing a trigger in your direction.

Right, but its usually inferred that "to wound" means non-lethally, in comparison to "to kill."

police, just average police, would have to dress like bomb squad everday, to all calls

>just average police

Maybe we should all just dress like bomb squad guys everyday.

I think some dude on Arfcom went through all the effort to have all the storage requirements for explosives and what not, and he registered and reactivated an old demilled grenade.

>What about fires? If someone keeps a box of grenades in their house, and there's a fire, that's really dangerous. I mean, it's enough that your neighbor has a fire and that's a serious hazard.
If your neighbor's house is on fire, it's already a hazard and you should bail anyway. If you're close enough for a grenade to blow through their walls and damage you, you're close enough to have to evacuate anyway.

>What about unscrupulous dicks? There's a lot of really horrible things someone bad could do with easy access to explosives.
They'll find themselves with vanishingly short life spans in a world of universal armament.

>What about negligent handling and negligent discharges with launchers? A negligent discharge with a firearm is bad, but a negligent explosion can be an utter catastrophe.
Again, that's a self-correcting problem. You probably only get to ND with an explosive weapon once, and then the coroner carts you away in mop bucket.

Yes, there are risks, but those risks exist whether explosives are legal or illegal. The difference is that universal armament mitigates the risk of repeat offense, and legality of sales exposes them to the light of day. No policy can eliminate risk. Lets not also forget that even if they were legal, most people don't really feel a need to own them. The risks are far outweighed by the benefits of a well-armed populace.

If your lungs are punctured, you're blind, can't stand or walk, etc, you're probably pretty decently disabled for the fight, doesn't matter if it takes a few hours for you to finally die.

Wow. His fake eye looks better than the real one. Did the cameraman not tell him to look forward?

>isn't sufficient burden of conduct on your Second Amendment rights, according to the courts.
The Supreme Court's opinion is worthless. From Heller:
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.[Footnote 25].

Cont.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Was he the one that used his helmet to snuff most of the explosion?

Or, here's an idea, we could just shut down the police, as they'd no longer be necessary.

See someone robbing a bank? Throw a grenade.
Someone driving recklessly? Grenade time.
Someone sells your kid drugs? Eat frag, bitch.

We'll soon have a lot less crime, because even niggers know they don't want to play hot potato with a pineapple. (Are there some with such a tenuous grasp of cause and effect to be undeterred? Yes, I'm sure, but they won't be with us for long.)

Attached: ancapball approves.png (1200x1000, 357K)

And this is Scalia and the conservative, pro-constitution half of the court writing this, bear in mind. This nonsense is the best they can come up with.

Damn right.

Let's figger it out live:

Grenades
>are arms
>are suitable for military use

Well look at that the answer is yes

Unironically sell it only to withe people and you will lower the accidents/felonies statistics by a wide margin. People in general are able to do things on their own, but is impossible to completely eliminate the the risk of some people doing stupid stuff with them (I mean without banning granades). Overall I completely understand and share your concern.

Attached: 1550372264622.jpg (1024x768, 90K)

Good. Screw them.

>If your neighbor's house is on fire, it's already a hazard and you should bail anyway
True, but it could make a smaller and more manageable fire a much worse disaster.

Imagine there's a small fire in your apartment building, and it could easily have been contained, but there was a crate of anti-tank mines in the apartment, and the entire building is leveled with the ground, windows would shatter for blocks and blocks.

>They'll find themselves with vanishingly short life spans in a world of universal armament.
That's kind of true, but the thing is also that your imagination is the limit when it comes to making booby traps with grenades, they wouldn't even have to be there so you could shoot at them.

>Again, that's a self-correcting problem
Not if you take other people with you. Again, what if someone negligently fires a grenade launcher in an apartment building? Lots of people could be hurt by their negligence. There's far larger potential consequences than if some dumbass just looked down the bore of his loaded rifle and ventilated his skull.

>but those risks exist whether explosives are legal or illegal
True, black markets exists, but mostly professional (or 'professional') criminals use those, and generally these types will prefer handguns, but with a ready access to cheap grenades (such as in Sweden), you'll see a sharp rise in the use of grenades for extortion and hits by organized crime.
More, you have people who are grossly negligent, and people who are sociopaths.

If someone sets up a grenade booby trap on me, I can't shoot back at him defensively.

That's not very Freedom of you, nevertheless, I ask you this; how do you stop white people from selling their privately purchased grenades to minorities?

yes

>anti-tank mines in the apartment
Checked.
If you live in a apartment I guess you most likely can't afford an anti-tank mine

I don't really like pigs, and they'd be pretty easy to deal with decked out in a bulk suit (and if you consider how fat a lot of cops are, they'd look fucking hilarious in an EOD suit)

Depends on where you live. Also depends on how much money the government steals from your paycheck.
People would be much richer if they weren't constantly robbed by their government, like, it would seriously reduce poverty.

>not having a trench in your frontyard where you herd home invaders into with your gunfire before you toss a nade into it

>That's not very Freedom of you
It isn't.
>how do you stop white people from selling their privately purchased grenades to minorities?
It's not possible to do that, you can imagine that. Ban minorities? Point is, I can't come with a solution to eliminate the risk of granades being unregulated, maybe reduce it by making them cost-prohibitive

That'd be cool to have on a ranch, not gonna lie.

>how do you stop white people from selling their privately purchased grenades to minorities?
Eliminate those subversive elements in society that promote this kind of self destructive behavior.

You're envisioning a world where only one factor has changed: the legal status of explosive, and haven't taken into consideration the ways in which institutions adjust to the new reality. Insurance companies, HOAs, weapons merchants, criminal investigators, and so on will adjust to the new situation.
Consider this: prohibition creates a black market incentive to deal in the prohibited good, resulting in an increase in the sale and use of that good. Explosive devices are prohibited, and they're still almost never used by criminals. They're easy enough to make; you could bang one out in your garage with a few bucks and an afternoon. Plus, black market channels have shown themselves hilariously effective at circumventing enforcement. But still, crimes and accidents with these weapons are statistically negligible. Making them legal isn't going to make them MORE common; history has shown time and again that prohibiting things has precisely the opposite effect.
If the past is any indicator, you've got very little to worry about, unless you're worried about organized groups finally having the firepower to resist the many infringements upon our rights, but even then you'll only be looking at rare, scattered incidents. Meanwhile the black market in these goods dries up, reducing revenue for gangs and eliminating some violence that's already happening.
Legislation by "what if" is how we get gun control. There's no logical stopping point short of total disarmament.

When you put it like that, it actually makes a lot of sense.

i need them to defend myself in the coming civil war

anything infantry in the military has, civilians should have
that is the only way to maintain balance of power in the event the government turns the military on the population

I need to be able to destroy a S.W.A.T vehicle before the porkers can disembark.

Attached: Carl Gustav M3E1.jpg (1600x798, 153K)

WELL REGULATED

Tell me you are not another guy that doesn't understand the meaning of that phrase...

Regulate my dick in your ass.

No, because the fucking poachers will use them for fishing

Oh fuck, I didn't even think about that.

They can already use gunpowder based pipe bombs for this, at a fraction of the price. What sort of stupid fucking objection is this?

if you can't trust someone with a grenade you shouldn't trust them with gasoline.

Jacklyn H. Lucas took two sans armor, but in all fairness he was unbreakable

Attached: 463px-Lucas_JH.jpg (463x599, 56K)

>Libtards in a trench.
yes we need grenades

A grenade is easy, just toss it in.
A pipebomb you would have to put effort into making.

For fishing purposes, a pvc pipe bomb is all you need. A threaded nipple, two threaded end caps, and a drill bit. Fill with black powder or fast burning smokeless pistol powder, jam in a fireworks fuse, and catch all the fish you want (apparently most sink when they get blasted, so it's not very efficient unless you have a net). All of this costs a few bucks for materials and powder, compared to whatever price actual grenades would cost on the open market ($27 per unit according to the US Army, but they're buying in military quantities so the retail price would undoubtedly be higher).

Either way, the kind of person who would want to do blast fishing is probably not just sitting and wishing that grenades would be legal. The ease of manufacture of low-explosive charges means whoever wants to do it can already do it.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

Well supplied

Probably not, at least not to a significant degree.
Gangs would have a field day.
Terrorists too.

>how do you stop white people from selling their privately purchased grenades to minorities?
By taxing them at $1000 each or only authorizing a limited number to be produced and sold.
Basically what the NFA would do if it wasn't written by lawyers.

These are some valid concerns and I believe that did a good job addressing some of your points, but I would like to add that it would be likely that grenade safety training would become a common thing that fathers teach their sons and so on and people would probably store sell and store them in an unprimed condition to mitigate the risk of accidental detonations and such storage would be considered part of being a responsible grenade owner.

Bear grenades?

The most filthy stinking communist post on all of Jow Forums.
SHALL

Noone is stopping you, user..

Getting rid if wasps, beaver's dams, other fun shit.

>And this is Scalia and the conservative, pro-constitution half of the court writing this, bear in mind. This nonsense is the best they can come up with.

For now, or until we stack the court or go MO on there asses, states say fuck you to uncle Shlomo

>states say fuck you to uncle Shlomo
This is the best course of action, and the closest to what the Founders fought for. The feds have no jurisdiction over gun laws.

>what use would it have?
I have a lot of uses for willy pete.

wouldn't you also need a class 3 ffl?

source for pic?

Go away CIA

The flip side is that the 1A can be changed.

Yes

Getting rid of hogs.
Imagine taking out a horde of those pests with one of these.

Attached: RPG7, OG-7V Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Warhead.jpg (443x332, 81K)

Some camwhore. Losers pay thousands to her, but she never even shows her pussy or does anything actually sexual on camera, only sometimes shows her tits, mostly just does some lazy cosplay and occasionally does an ahegao face on camera.

I mean she's fucking pretty, but I think you'd have to be a goddamn idiot to pay so damn much to be teased.

Yes

>Giving him a survivable wound that takes him and 3 of his buddies
This is the most widespread dumb fudd bullshit ever. When was the last fucking time we fucking faced an enemy who gave a rats fucking ass about their wounded? The fucking Germans MAYBE ON A GOOD DAY 74 fucking years ago. Even the US despite its appalling VA cares for its wounded doesn't fall into this. In the attack if one is wounded at best he'll get one soldier to stabilize him until the the doc gets to him for the simple reason that's its much easier to treat wounded when you fucking win. And what do wound someone fucking cool, that same faggot recovered and is now shooting you again great fucking job

Well supplied and in good working order yes

If you wanted to buy grenades as a civilian you would pay a $200 tax stamp per grenade. It is no different than buying suppressors, SBRs, SBSes, and transferable machine guns. You do not have to have an FFL or SOT.

If you wanted to SELL grenades then you would need an FFL type 1 or 2 and class 3 SOT.

If you wanted to manufacture legal grenades you would need an FFL type 7 or 10 and class 2 SOT.

I know this applies to grenades, but does it also apply to rockets?

We already can, you bunch of noguns faggots.

>be me
>casual grenade in pocket
>fall
>shit.iso
>i explode

yes they should be allowed

Attached: tenor.gif (240x240, 48K)