I’m not too big on silencers, IEDs or marijuana plants. I don’t think the Second Amendment covers them.
Explosives without a permit might be an issue as well. IEDs? Not a 2nd Amendment issue.
As for the marijuana plants -- they have to pay for their weapons some way. Free enterprise and all that.
Al Qaeda pays with opium/heroin.
They prevent hearing loss.
They are effective for training.
In certain advanced European nations they are REQUIRED to reduce noise pollution.
Sound suppressors are not illegal in many countries... and are, in fact, required in some places.
Not Mary Jane of course, but silencers, sure, the military uses one on their latest sniper rifle, the M-110 (basically an AR-10/SR-25 rifle with some modifications, including the integral silencer), so according to the logic of the Miller decision, they are arms which the people have the right to keep and bear. IEDs are merely mines or bombs, which are certainly arms as well. These particular IEDs were apparently in the form of grenades, which are definitely military/militia items, in use since *at least* the 17th century, well before the second amendment was written and passed. These might be closer to the 17th century than to modern versions.
IEDs and Marijuana I can understand, but the insane prohibition against silencers has me completely baffled.
As a person whose hearing was damaged by job-related exposure, I support any reasonable method to protect a person’s hearing. Nerve damage is permanent and progressive. Reducing or eliminating any harmful noise is a good thing.
The current law makes as much sense as outlawing all respirators because a criminal could release a toxic substance in public. There is no reason a law abiding citizen should have to pay with their hearing due to criminal behavior.