- Mar 31, 2009
- 102,723
- 82,907
- 3,605
Needless to say rightwing ‘rationale’ is idiocy.No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.
However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:
The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......
If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .
The types of firearms the military, law enforcement, or any other armed government entity might have has no bearing whatsoever on the right of individuals to possess firearms.
The right of citizens to possess firearms is separate and apart from the types of weapons government might possess – there is nothing in the history of the Second Amendment or its case law recognizing ‘quid pro quo’ with regard to how the government is armed:
‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Clearly, bomb-carrying robots constitute weapons both dangerous and unusual, where their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and their prohibition indeed warranted.
Jones doesn't realize it but he's agreeing with the right....loon