In response to:

Let's Build on the Paul Filibuster

Loyal Democrat Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 6:45 AM
Graham is right; it is ridiculous to think that the govt would try to kill an American citizen, so no member of govt should be pressed to discuss the issue. Likewise, people claim that the 2nd amendment is there to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical govt. This is also nonsense; there is no way our govt would turn against us, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished since it has no pupose. And there is no way that the govt would curtail our right to free speech. When is the last time anyone ever heard of the govt telling anyone they couldn't express an opinion? Thus, the 1st has to go as well. Any moron can tell you that politicians are the most trustworthy people there are. We don't need protection from them.
jimmylynn Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:59 AM
You forgot one important point Loyal, the constitution wants citizens armed so they can protect the government. Blows your original assumptions apart.
PepperdotNet Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 10:15 AM
I am pretty sure that Loyal Democrat is utilizing that wonderful literary device known as "sarcasm." At least I hope he is.
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 11:23 AM

The Republicans had better not squander the good will Sen. Rand Paul purchased for them in his filibuster over the Obama administration's potential use of armed drones to kill non-enemy combatants in America.

I am not simply referring to the constitutional issue of whether the president can engage in such acts, though that's very important. I believe the significance of Paul's filibuster transcends the drone issue. It was about challenging the administration's lawlessness and accountability across the board and his runaway spending and statism. It was about championing freedom, God-given rights and the Constitution.

Under questioning, Attorney General Eric Holder has...