But everyone can defend themselves. Must be comforting to know you can destroy anyone that comes onto your property, including the police.

You have swallowed the lie promulgated by the NRA. In the vast majority of mass shootings and home assaults in recent years no armed by-stander or home owner has been able to stop the assailant, but some have been mistaken by the police as a second assailant and shot.

In the UK I have the right to take martial arts classes, I can carry a knife, a screwdriver, a hammer, all sorts of things I could kill you with, but no guns? What's the difference?

About 100metres if talking about with intent. By accident or negligence the difference is more like two miles.

Carrying any of the tools you list with intent to cause harm is an offence.
Carrying certain types of knives without due cause is an offence.

Guns - First off have to consider at what range most gun offences take place compared to most stabbing offences. How long is your arm?, What's the range of a hand gun?

Being martial arts trained brings responsibilities with it, and this is taught right from the outset. If you were to display some of the attitudes you do to the MA instructors I know they would refuse to teach you as you would be considered too unstable a person to have that knowledge.

Haven't you heard of the explosives regulations. They are considered draconian by some, but they are there to protect everyone. In your example, how would you feel if you had a friend visiting and you accidentally set the device off killing them? And what charges would be brought against you? Starter for ten: possession of explosives, storing or keeping explosives in an unsafe & unregistered location, possessing explosives with intent to cause harm, setting an explosive device with intent to cause harm, murder. There are probably quite a few more that would be added to the list. But suffice to say you would have a long time to consider the error of you ways in one of Her Majesty's more secure locations, probably serving a large chunk in solitary for "your own protection".

If I wanted to kill you I could just sneak up on you anyway.

You assume a lot about me that you do not know, some of it almost certainly wrong.

You wouldn't know I had intent to kill you. I'm just another citizen on the street. You can't fight back when the blade is in.

I was present when the 4th Dan black belt of the Shotokan dojo I attended at the time had someone attempt to knife him in the back. The knife never touched him. The assailant ended up with two broken arms. While I certainly don't have his level of awareness of those around me, I suspect it is considerably above average.

And, most knife killings are partially by accident. To guarantee success needs a certain level of both knowledge and ability.

We were talking about the USA....

No, you kept using "me", "I", and since you live in the UK you have, yet again,. decided that since you are so wrong you will invent another set of rules.
Indeed in much of the US the rules about carrying knives etc are broadly similar to those in the.
And if you blow someone up you would be enjoying "99 and a day" in a Federal penitentiary, as explosives come under the purview of one of several Federal bodies, with the state(s) providing evidence as appropriate.

You can shoot but you can't explode? Now that's illogical. What if the gun was on some kind of automatic or remote switch? That would be in effect the same as an explosive.

I agree somewhat illogical, but also quite understandable.
In most, if not all states the use of remotely controlled guns is very strictly controlled. I guess that has something to do with the American love of guns being in the hand so "you can see the fear in the victim's eyes". Again the ATF, FBI et-al will take a dim view of ones actions, and a fed pen beckons you into its caring arms.

No, you kept using "me", "I", and since you live in the UK you have, yet again,. decided that since you are so wrong you will invent another set of rules.

Go back and read your posts, plenty of "I" and "me" in them.

Peter is talking fantastical nonsense iin this thread,

Why do people accept our freedoms being taken away?

You provide the answer yourself.

Every other time I drive through my town there are 3 or 4 cars in front going 40 in a 30.

If that percentage of people are unthinking enough to drive too fast, then it's quite reasonable enough to say those same people don't apply their few brain cells into thinking about the rights of all other people.

And because of that governments are forced, usually by the public screaming "Why isn't there a law against this", to bring in laws to restrict the unthinking. As in the just introduced speed limiting measures on new cars. You don't obey the speed limit sign you just saw, then your car will resist your right foot. Unless you turn it off every time the vehicle is restarted.