Letter: Mounted 'assault' weapon justified in defense of drones

May 10, 2013 

In 1993, a religious group called the Branch Davidians of Waco Texas was attacked by the U.S. government (President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno) without due process. Eighty-six American citizens, 24 of them children, died.

Reno was never charged, but there was certainly sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment. Unfortunately, we did not have Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., then.

Recently, the current attorney general says that it is all right and could happen without due process that a military drone could take out a suspected terrorist within the United States.

I am as far as you can get in looks and actions, from a terrorist, but what if the suspect looks like me? Without due process, the government could take me out with a military drone.

In that case, would I not be justified in mounting a .50-caliber "assault" weapon on my pickup to defend myself? That may be against the law but not against the Constitution. The drone is against both.

That is a good example of why we have the Second Amendment.

JIM BOAK, Richland

Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service