Originally Posted by zukiphile
The more useful test would be:
1. Does the government have a compelling interest in creating the law?
2. Is the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet the government's objectives?
3. Are there less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing?
This would be the standard "court approved" methodology for "infringing" on a right.
Otherwise, I agree with Webleymkv, except to the extent that I believe there are considerations beyond self-defense.
C4, for example. Defensively it's a stretch, no doubt, but at one time not so long ago, it was completely legal, and quite common, for farmers and folks with similar needs to buy dynamite. I see no reason that C4 wouldn't be similar. Dynamite was baneed for essentially the same reason that they're going after our guns... a few nuts did some really bad stuff so the powers that be took the stuff away.
Personally, I believe the limits should be on items of truly massive destruction only, such a nukes and nerve gas.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.