Twelve people are gunned down and 70 are wounded in a movie theater in Colorado, gun nuts scream about their rights to own whatever kind of weapon they want and rush out to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines; Twenty-six people, including 20 first graders, are massacred in an elementary school in Connecticut, the same gun nuts become hysterical about their Second Amendment rights and start throwing around words like “revolution”.
The United States Attorney General says under “an extraordinary circumstance” the government might use drone strikes against its own citizens on U.S. soil, and now suddenly the exact same whack jobs are anxious about enacting legislation concerning what weapons can and cannot be used in the United States.
It seems the right for people to own weapons capable of murdering 20 six and seven-year-olds in a matter of minutes is OK, but targeting domestic terrorists is an outrage? Both are offensive and wrong, it’s time for Republicans, Libertarians and Tea Party types to pull their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact, to grow up and start acting like adults. The Constitution no more guarantees your right to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines than it provides for the Federal Government to target citizens to a blazing death from above.
March 8, 2013 at 11:40
Your argument makes no sense. The very reason that the constitution has a “right to bear arms” is for the day when the Powers that Be decide that it is okay to target their own civilians. So this idea that the government thinks it is all right to drone domestic civilian targets actually reaffirms the need and the purpose of the Second Amendment. I am not saying I agree with one or the other but you might want to re examine your argument if you ever plan on not preaching to the chior, or you attempt a discussion with somebody that is not drinking the same kool-aid.
March 8, 2013 at 12:31
Both are wrong, neither is provided for in the Constitution; seems pretty clear
March 9, 2013 at 10:00
I don’t think that the Drone thing will get much of a legal argument, but some would quote the second amendment for gun argument. I might be pursued to believe the the amendment applies solely to militias, but the federalizing of National Guard Troops in recent conflicts makes that a harder case to make if the second amendment is to be understood to protect the sovereignty of states from gross forceful federal over reach.