Oil still spilling Obama says "keep drilling!"

[Square]

Explosives are pretty easy to make. I had a wiz kid friend in high school that was just playing around with crap in his garage and made a bomb that put a 10' diameter crater in the ground. It wouldn't be all that hard. Sure you don't have artillery shells (I actually have two disarmed ones I use as paper weights my grandfather brought back form WWII), but you have things like fire extinguisher, propane tanks, or for that matter just pipes. I've never made one, and don't intend to, but it wouldn't be all that hard if you were properly motivated to do so.

Right on, I kind of figured it wouldn't take more than chemicals you can find on a farm to make an IED. So I guess my point is, if small guns, hunting rifles, and IEDs give us a similar chance as the larger weapons (that they currently allow) against some kind of government take over, wouldn't outlawing more serious guns be reasonable? I know some are already illegal, and I've seen a few videos on the stupid practice of banning things that "look scary" when they are no more or less dangerous than the stripped down versions. I guess I'm fine with hunting rifles and reasonable hand guns. I just don't know if people need more "assault" type weapons. I'm sure that the more dangerous weapons would still get into the country, but I think making them harder to get would help some. Obviously there is a lot here I don't know here so I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I'm surrounded by a lot of hunters and gun nuts so I know the thought of more restrictions pisses people off (although, I haven't heard of Obama actually signing anything into law on the subject). I just wondered if there could be a better solution with banning things that are truly dangerous (uzi's/mac 10 types that people can make into autos) while still maintaining enough "counterbalance" to quench the gun people that are worried about national security.