Posted on 03/25/2016 9:44:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
EMP wave device would defeat the drones! Similar tech was used in the 50’s Sci Fi movie “Earth vs The Flying Saucers.”
Imagine this: A gaggle of disgruntled housewives goes to every Costco that they can find and they buy up cartons and cartons of ammonia cleansers and bleach along with lots and lots of spray bottles that they can fill with those liquids.
Then they boldly stride down the crowded sidewalks of a major city, spraying the ammonia and bleach into the faces of every passerby. Why, they’re literally equipped with and using chemical weapons.
The Constitution was not written to foresee such an eventuality. Therefore we must get rid of it and put a newer, better one in its place.
Yeah, right...
Arson bombs and Destructive Devices are not covered by the Second Amendment.
http://www.popsci.com/dronedefender-is-an-anti-drone-rifle-attachment
Idiot! The Constitution is already malleable. It was designed that way. But liberals don't want to use the malleable mechanisms but would rather have Supreme Court justices that ignore the Constitution and write their own laws, e.g., Roe v. Wade, and the legalization of pervert marriage.
This is an absurd fantasy...
...
And the reality is Muslims are mass murdering innocent people all the time.
The 2nd Amendment provides the solution for the problem he poses already, if we repealed the stupid NFA and the GCA. Small submachine guns like the HK MP-5 can down drones efficiently and be carried on one’s person. And as for 3-D printing bombs, well, it is not like someone couldn’t bribe some Ivans with a crate of vodka, obtain a suitcase nuke, walk it straight out of Mexico into the US and boom. So much for security....
One thing tech geeks overlook- technology changes, people don’t, and the nature of government doesn’t. The Founders intended for the people to possess arms and in that way provide a protection from an over-mighty government manned by people Madison labeled as ‘ambitious’. The fact that the government is a threat in being to the governed has not changed, and the means to resist that has to be preserved, regardless of whether it is 1787, 1987, or 2187.
“The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government.”
What are you talking about? The 2008 Heller decision, affirmed by the SCOTUD in 2010 by a 5-4 vote, rules that this right is a personal right, not solely a state right.
Moreover, note the text of the 2nd Amendment refers to “the right” without preceding that with “shall have” or any other phrase designed to mean that it is the Constitution that establishes that right. In other words, the framers, as evident by many other sources, considered this a natural right as opposed to one being established by the Constitution - which is correct.
In other words, I don’t care what anyone thinks the Constitution says, since individuals have the natural right to bear arms as part of the natural right of self defense, and no document of SCOTUS interpretation can take that away from us.
So there we have it: The Internet is at fault. Ban all computers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.