The Second Ammendment and WMDs

I am a strong believer in plain interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words if it says free speech I believe I should be able to speak freely. If it says the right to bear arms I believe I have the right to own a gun.

So that being said, someone needs to explain to me, why if we, including me, believe we all have the right to bear arms why don't we believe Iraq has the same right.

Their sin, on the world stage, as I remember it was the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. I agree this was not a good thing. The part I don't get is why is it different from my neighbor with the IQ of a rat having the right to own a 9 mm that holds 15 rounds?

Now if rat boy points his piece at me we have a problem. If Sad-damn had his WMDs pointed at us it was a problem. But he didn't. He didn't even have them anywhere in plain sight. Just like rat boy he had them, if the excisted at all, safely in his closet locked away.

Why were Sad-damns WMDs our business?

Doesn't a sovereign nation have the right protect itself? Sure we argue he has bad friends. This gets me back to the Constitution. It doesn't say if you play nice you can have arms. It doesn't say if you don't keep company with Gordon fans you can have arms. It just says we have the right to bear arms.

Why didn't Iraq?


ClubHusband.com for wife pictures, recipes, landscaping and more