For a change i agree, to a degree, with both of them.
Paul thinks its ok to shoot at the poilce. He does not want the police to be able to shoot back.
Funny thing is, both “sides” think that one is a huge threat to life and liberty, one is a ridiculous fear-mongering dog whistle.
It is so refreshing to see a Republican on the right side of an issue for a change! Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 12 years for it to happen again. What was funny was to see those other mainstream Republicans, all of whom had voted to allow Bush to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, suddenly find their constitutional civil liberties backbone when Obama claimed similiar powers.
Aside from Eric Holder being Obama’s mouthpiece on legal matters, Obama should have stepped forward and condemned the notion of killing Americans on US soil without due process. His absence of standing up for the constitution is his abdication of his responsibilities and intimates his support of said killings. That’s what really scares me.
The example Holder gave was a Pearl Harbor type of incident perpetrated by Americans on American soil. How does this get convoluted into “without due process”?
So, now they’ve brought bin Laden’s son-in-law to the States for trial (as should have been done with all Gitmo detainees accused of “Al Qaeda links”), and the Republicans WILL be freaking out.
@ Canuck: Stop trolling. It doesn’t suit you. The problem isn’t what Obama has promised or not promised, the problem is that it was asked and not emphatically refuted. The threat is very real, only because our liberties are being eroded very subtly. Look at NAZI Germany. They elected Hitler legally. He then, through legislative process, disarmed citizens. He then — again, through legislative process — dissolved the government and instilled his fascist party. We have all seen power creep in the history of our world. The danger is not that they are doing it now. The danger is they could. All they would have to do is define someone as an enemy combatant and they are now on a very long list of assassination targets. You want a solution, here’s a solution: Ban armed drones in the US. End of sentence. That’s the answer that should have been present from the beginning. But it wasn’t. And that’s what was troubling. @ Mechanic: No, I’m not saying he has to pre-emptively define what he opposes. This wasn’t a case of pre-emption. This is an issue of his administration being asked a question and them not answering the correct way. Obama is not one to be shy about sharing his opinion. So why couldn’t he do it this time? It’s not like this was a breaking story where he didn’t have enough time to respond.
Having just overcome an unjust government with their equivalent of military grade muskets, I suspect the founding fathers would approve of all citizens owning assault weapons.
April 03, 2015