Anyone read the story about concerns over our missile shield program? I can’t imagine sequestration is going to help improve that situation. I recorded the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and Gen. Dempsey. Be afraid, be very afraid. The NRA might be right. If Congress is going to make it impossible for the military to defend us, we may have to fight enemies on our own soil. Especially if cyber hackers can incapacitate our nukes; another program that will suffer cuts. We don’t need more tanks or advanced aircraft, but our military does have needs that deserve to be addressed.Respectfully,C.
Just curious — I assume that our conservative posters would agree that the second amendment doesn’t include the right to have nuclear weapons (which, after all, could be made by a terrorist group in the US — certainly a “dirty bomb” at least). My question is Why doesn’t the second amendment include the right to have nuclear weapons? I want a legal argument, not just “Well, that would be horrible” or the like. It’s an open challenge.
So do you then agree that any weapons invented after 1776 are not covered by the second amendment? (Of course the second amendment wasn’t around in 1776 either, but I suppose a detail like that is beneath the notice of your vast intellect.)
Everyone needs to stop the brinksmanship and begin to institute trust-building measures, and the 1st step should be taken by the party with superior power. I shudder to think what might have happened if that meteor had struck in the Middle East or the Korean peninsula instead of Siberia.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
Ha!
cdward about 11 years ago
It’s his right, right?
chazandru about 11 years ago
Anyone read the story about concerns over our missile shield program? I can’t imagine sequestration is going to help improve that situation. I recorded the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and Gen. Dempsey. Be afraid, be very afraid. The NRA might be right. If Congress is going to make it impossible for the military to defend us, we may have to fight enemies on our own soil. Especially if cyber hackers can incapacitate our nukes; another program that will suffer cuts. We don’t need more tanks or advanced aircraft, but our military does have needs that deserve to be addressed.Respectfully,C.
chazandru about 11 years ago
Facetiousness isn’t my strong suit. And you’re so very and sadly correct.Thank you Oh Lord of Self. ;)I enjoy your postings.C.
DavidGBA about 11 years ago
He’s the kind of people that incinerate or starve or shoot people.
rockngolfer about 11 years ago
See Feb 13http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport
lonecat about 11 years ago
Just curious — I assume that our conservative posters would agree that the second amendment doesn’t include the right to have nuclear weapons (which, after all, could be made by a terrorist group in the US — certainly a “dirty bomb” at least). My question is Why doesn’t the second amendment include the right to have nuclear weapons? I want a legal argument, not just “Well, that would be horrible” or the like. It’s an open challenge.
lonecat about 11 years ago
So do you then agree that any weapons invented after 1776 are not covered by the second amendment? (Of course the second amendment wasn’t around in 1776 either, but I suppose a detail like that is beneath the notice of your vast intellect.)
dipierro Premium Member about 11 years ago
Everyone needs to stop the brinksmanship and begin to institute trust-building measures, and the 1st step should be taken by the party with superior power. I shudder to think what might have happened if that meteor had struck in the Middle East or the Korean peninsula instead of Siberia.