Anthony Quin Warner's right to keep and bear arms. Now, there's a topic that went overlooked and untouched, one that doesn't appear to have been treated by the media. Nor by officials. I heard Nashville's police chief say they couldn't get a search warrant because there was no evidence he was doing anything wrong. Now, they had his girlfriend saying he was making a bomb, and a lawyer was with her when she said it and he added his testimony. What more evidence do you want?
But, if you have a Second Amendment right to own a bomb, it doesn't matter if the girlfriend and lawyer are warning he is making a bomb. It's his Second Amendment right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It amazes me this apparently isn't being discussed anywhere. I google, Anthony Warner Right to Bear Arms. Nothing. I google, Anthony Warner Second Amendment. Nothing.
We as a nation should be all abuzz about whether bombs are and should be protected by the Second Amendment. This should have brought the issue to the forefront of public debate.
So, what's going on that there's no such discussion?
You might suggest it is because bombs are regulated. You have to have an explosive handler's permit. Warner had once received one, but it had expired. Still, even with them being regulated, there is argument whether they should be. The Second Amendment simply says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't make exceptions. Some of the founding fathers, themselves, owned artillery.
Time for discussion. As I said, the Nashville bombing should have brought this discussion to the forefront. Why hasn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment