Bruce Willis A Good Day to Die Hard
Thank God John McClane (i.e., Bruce Willis) can be counted on to defend gun rights. Besides the politics, who wants to live in a world where ‘Die Hard’ movies are banned from using high capacity magazines?

‘A Good Die to Die Hard’ will be out on Valentine’s Day, which means that Bruce Willis will be promoting it heavily for the next two weeks. It also means that that, like Sylvester Stallone, he’s going to get a slew of questions pertaining about gun violence. Given his celebrity status, they’ll be teed up for him in such a way as to allow him to hit the ball in whatever direction he chooses — but they’ll still be asked.

The Associated Press was the first to get a hold of him, and he didn’t disappoint:

Bruce Willis says he’s against new gun control laws that could infringe on Second Amendment rights. The “Die Hard” star also dismisses any link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence.

“I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone,” Willis told The Associated Press in a recent interview while promoting his latest film, “A Good Day To Die Hard.” ”If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?” …

“It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families,” he said. “I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

Compare Willis’ answer to Stallone’s recent musing on the Second Amendment while promoting ‘Bullet to the Head’:

“I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

The 66-year-old actor, writer and director said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings.

“It’s unbelievably horrible, what’s happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It’s that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin’ crazy.

Notice the difference? In actuality, both answers are only off by degrees — but Bruce Willis comes down on the side of individual freedom and liberty, and Stallone does not. Stallone seems to want to curry favor with the politically correct hob-knobbers in Hollywood, but Willis doesn’t care; he’s just Willis.

It is a rare instance indeed when a Hollywood star realizes that the public do-gooders will never be appeased. There will always be wrongs for them to right, and so they will never stop chipping away at the God-given natural rights of the individual. The same people who believe that they should be able to regulate how much sodium and fat and sugar you consume would not think twice about confiscating all guns if they thought they could get away with it (politically or with their lives). The people who believe they can force you to engage in commerce so that they could regulate that commerce will have no qualms coming for firearms as soon as history provides them with a window of time to act.

There are cameras on every block. There are domestic drones overhead. Your property rights (an essential pillar of any free society) have been eroded like a sandcastle wiped away by the rising tide (e.g., Kelo v New London). Your text messages and email messages are fair game. The federal government is so big and so bloated and so convoluted that every day you break federal regulations without even knowing it. We have a president — who demonized President George W. Bush — who has “Terror Tuesday” kill lists and rules for killing American citizens overseas.

In short: the stage is set for the United States to devolve very quickly one day into a bizarro United States of hopelessness and despair and tyranny. And one of the bulwarks against such a reality from ever taking place is the Second Amendment.

Bruce Willis might not be a constitutional expert, but his instincts are sound (which may explain why he’s been a star for so long). On this day, on this issue, he deserves a pat on the back for his willingness to stand up for gun rights. Bravo, Bruce. You just solidified my decision to see ‘A Good Day to Die Hard.’ I was on the fence after the previous installment (let us not go into detail about how ridiculous the fighter jet scene was, even by ‘Die Hard’ standards), but you’ve gained enough good will to get a few more bucks out of me. I’ll see you opening weekend.

Bruce Willis will also be starring in 'Red 2' in the near future, which will mean more dumb questions for him on gun control. Hopefully, he doesn't back down and continues to stand up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution.
Bruce Willis will also be starring in ‘Red 2’ in the near future, which will mean more dumb questions for him on gun control. Hopefully, he doesn’t back down and continues to stand up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution.

Related: All balding men should pledge allegiance to Bruce Willis
Related: Yippie Ki-yay … Steve Doocy. Bruce Willis is Sheer Awesome


About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.


  1. Dear Doug,
    In a way I think they are both on the money. These acts of violence are unfathomable and gun control is not the only thing we should be focused on. Both brought up issues of mental health (or lack thereof). We need to do more for individuals with brain disorders to get them the emotional and mental support, medical care, and medications they need to be productive members of society instead of outcasts for their condition. Sadly, with all our advancements in treatments for these illnesses (autism, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc. to mention a few), there are very limited resources available and most of them are not affordable to the common family. Many times the stigma alone of having a brain disorder will prevent someone suffering from getting help. This needs to change somehow.

    I don’t share your vision of a future state of hopelessness, despair, and tyranny for America. Nor do I share you distaste for do-gooders. I do support gun rights although I don’t count it among my God-given natural rights. I don’t remember God ever promising me that I will always be allowed to own a gun.

    P.S. I agree that Willis is a star and plan to see the new flick as well.

    1. Life is a god-given natural right — and thus you have a right to protect it. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to protect your life, liberty and property when two groups (i.e., the State and criminals) have guns and you don’t. The Founding Fathers understood this. Sadly, many Americans today do not.

      Using your own logic, (i.e., I don’t remember God…) there are no rights except those conferred upon us by the State. Again: Scary.

  2. imagine if the human right to access affordable health care was taken as seriously as the right to fight tyranny with boom sticks.

    1. My right to defend myself doesn’t require anything from you or the government or anyone else. In fact, it is a check on centralized power.

      The so-called “right” to health care requires a third party to take property from one group and redistribute it to another. And who determines how much and under what circumstances the sovereign takes? The elites. Regardless, the civil society has already determined that poor people should have access to health care. It’s called Medicaid. So if there was a problem with the program, it could have been restructured. That’s a lot different than taking over 1/6 of the U.S. economy and putting it into the hands of 535 bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

      Nothing like turning over massive amounts of centralized power to people like Nancy “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” Pelosi.

      Exit question for the people who are in charge of conferring the “right” of health care: If Obama decides to drone bomb me tomorrow, and I happen to live, am I still covered under Obamacare?

    2. your right to defend yourself with guns requires some means of acquiring the necessary fiat capital to purchase the guns from a third party manufacturer/retail sales person.

      to pursue happiness, you need to be relatively healthy, and it helps to not be fearful that an uncovered medical crisis will result in losing everything you own.

      do you have health care Doug?

    3. You’re actually trying to equate a voluntary transaction between two individuals (me and the gun salesman) w confiscatory policies of the federal government? My goodness.

      How do you define “relatively healthy”? I suppose the government should provide me with vegetables every month, since those are required to be healthy. Now that you mention it, I am rather fearful that I might not be getting my proper dosage of vitamin C (and getting vitamins from a pill is never the same as getting it from real food), so perhaps you’ve hit on something. I will expect the 2016 platform to include a “Broccoli on every plate” pitch.

      Do I have health care? Oh no … here’s the set up again. I suppose since I have health care I don’t know what it’s like to be “fearful” of a medical crisis. Why do you always go to the emotional? You don’t even know me, my medical history, my family’s medical history, etc. You just set yourself up to look foolish. If you were actually a friend of mine I’d tell you about a certain someone who is, shall we say, VERY close to me who had a brain tumor. Twice. But we’re not buddies, so I won’t.

      Yes. I have health care. Now. But I didn’t always have health care and I struggled mightily to pay bills and get health care after I graduated and needed a job. My education wasn’t paid for by Mommy and Daddy, I didn’t get an allowance to pay for rent, and I had to buy my car myself. I’ve lived in roach infested buildings. When I first moved to DC I made a mattress out of my own clothes because I didn’t have furniture or the money to purchase it. Do you really want to go there?

      Nice try on completely warping what the founders meant by happiness, though.

    4. FYI Medicare covers general health fairly well but only covers a sometimes small percentage when it comes to seeing a specialist. Also, up until the last few years Medicare barely covered mental health services for someone receiving disability benefits for a mental illness.

    5. You’ve been duped. You’ve been set up for a rude awakening regarding the solvency of these programs. Look at its history: “I think we’ve got you something that we won’t only run on in ’66, but we’ll run on from here on after,” (Wilbur Mills, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to President Johnson). It was never about your health; it was about the government promising goodies to people in return for votes, economics be damned.

      Not my words, but the Medicare trustees in 2008:

      “The longer action [i.e., reform] is delayed, the greater the required adjustments will be, the larger the burden on future generations, and the more severe the detrimental economic impact on our nation.”

      Yes, that’s the assessment that comes from an unfunded obligation of $36 trillion dollars. I’d ask you to wrap your mind around how large that number is, but your mind might explode. It’s like looking at the sun in terms of danger, I suppose.

    6. Your comment implying that the government should address the “hard right” of fixing the out-of-wedlock birthrate of nuclear family unit by is downright scary to me. The government has no right or mandate to try to enforce any particular lifestyle on consenting adults. Expecting the government to concern itself with non-criminal citizen behavior just so it complies with the unnecessary religious dogma of the ruling party seems like a “sick social experiment” that you decry loudly and often on this blog.

      I find the cognitive dissonance required for many modern conservatives to desire laws to enforce their social beliefs on others while simultaneously rejecting outright “big government” intruding and infringing on individual liberties baffling.

      Your tone returning to snark when people disagree is regrettable so I’ll be up front with you that I’m not up for that today. If you disagree with me, I’d be much obliged to try to better understand your position if you would care to explain it further.

    7. You’re hilarious. You didn’t even ask me to explain what the “hard right” was in this instance before jumping to an insane conclusion. It’s like you’ve never read my blog before. The “hard right” would be for the government to get out of people’s lives. The “hard right” would be to allow people to suffer the consequences of their actions. The hard right would be not to perpetually extend unemployment benefits for (what is it now?) over 99 months. The hard right would be not to craft public policy that creates an incentive to have babies out of wedlock.

      You, like Lizard, are so blinded by the social conservative hiding under your bed that when I delve into those topics you immediately act like I’m praying for a theocratic thug state to emerge from the ashes of the Confederacy.

      Thanks for the laugh. One way you could understand my position would be to ask first.

      “It’s free! Swipe your EBT! All you have to do is f**k … and 9 months later you get the big bucks.”

    8. “[Y]ou immediately act like I’m praying for a theocratic thug state to emerge from the ashes of the Confederacy.”

      I do?

      Let’s dispense with this silliness. It’s no secret the right (and I’m basically saying the modern Republican party) has outright said they have zero divide between their religion and their direction in crafting public policy. Don’t pretend for one second a conservative super-majority wouldn’t impose a Christian sharia on the whole damn country.

      You seem more moderate than that, but who knows the secret desires of men? That said, I have no doubt that the GOP would create some Christian/Randian robber baron paradise. Conversely, I have no doubt liberals would create some ridiculous socialist nanny state with no sharp objects or fatty foods, but I digress.

      Why not ask? I read what you wrote:
      “The real problems are tough to talk about. Politicians like the easy wrong instead of the hard right. We don’t have a “gun culture.” We have an “out of wedlock birthrate” culture. Want less crime in inner cities? Fix the family unit. More nuclear families will bring less crime.”

      WHO IS SUPPOSED TO FIX THE FAMILY UNIT? You offered no alternatives but politicians.

      And I did ask.

      Don’t trot out that old Regan-esque Welfare Queen meme… it’s tired and ridiculous. While they exist, you can’t generalize that all working poor and poor that way. I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility, but while there are some people are scumbags, I understand why some just give up. Especially when some poor souls pay a 90% effective tax rate…

      “Politicians on both the left and right criticize the poor for not having more stable marriages, but they conveniently ignore the simple but brutal fact that the poor cannot afford to marry.”

    9. “The poor cannot afford to marry.” Hahaha! (I’m wiping the tears from my eyes.) That’s a good one. Do you know what my “poor” ass did? I went to the f***king courthouse and got married. I’d tell you what my entire “wedding” cost, but it’s embarrassing. My wife just made me promise that one day we’d do things the more traditional way.

      Your article is interesting. Heritage, I think, had a great chart that breaks down the brackets the author talks about. I’ll have to find it. Now that I’m married I’ll find out if this impacts me. We never thought of stuff like that because … we figured we’ll work it out.

      I said you “fix” the out of wedlock problem. And indeed, politicians CAN fix the problem — by rolling back the policies they implemented that warped the culture to begin with.

    10. I’m going to be cool. I think you misinterpreted the quote because you didn’t read the linked article. It doesn’t mention wedding *costs* as if this were an episode of Just Say Yes to the Dress, it references a combined married income level pushing the poors’ tax liability up to where it’s actually disadvantageous to marry, hence some couples being unable to marry and maintain their same household income level.

      Warped the culture? How many people do you think actually find the luxury life of EBT, food stamps, rat-filled apartments, early mortality, zero wealth, higher possibility to be subject to violent crime, substandard medical care, lack of job satisfaction, few options, and an overall crappy life?

      We went over this before. Roughly 5% of GDP goes towards direct payments to the very poor. No crisis there. Now Medicare and Social Security, yes, those are problematic. Good ideas, but not management properly. I’d love to discuss it with you sometime, but this isn’t the right format. Unless you want 9,041 replies.

    11. Haha. I just corrected it before your comment. You’re right. I didn’t read it at first, but of course I ended up reading even though I NEED to go to bed.

      Like I said, there’s a Heritage piece that came out recently that addressed this. I’m pretty sure it was from them. I’ll have to look.

    12. You’re correct. Medicare is no doubt flawed. Just because reform seems a daunting task doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to address an issue. Maybe gun control laws aren’t the answer but if that’s the case, shouldn’t we try to find another to solution to a growing problem? If we cared as much about the mentally ill in this country as we do about our guns we could reduce prejudice, abuse, drug abuse, and crime rates. Not to mention that in return many will have a chance to become or continue to be contributing members to our society.

    13. The real problems are tough to talk about. Politicians like the easy wrong instead of the hard right. We don’t have a “gun culture.” We have an “out of wedlock birthrate” culture. Want less crime in inner cities? Fix the family unit.

      More nuclear families will bring less crime.

    14. Yes the family unit does need to be fixed but I disagree about the nuclear part. Family is made of love regardless of where it is from.

    15. Where did I say a single-parent home didn’t have love in it? I didn’t.

      Do you deny that the ideal situation for any child is to live in a loving home with his biological father and mother?

      More nuclear families will result in a healthier society. That has nothing to do with how much a single parent loves his/her child or tries to provide for them.

    16. I didn’t say anything about a single-parent home either. I agree that the ideal situation for any child is to live in a loving home but you will lose on the biological aspect with me as I was raised in a family where all the children were adopted.

    17. Again, your individual case has nothing to do with the assertion that a society where more children live in loving relationships with their biological parents is a healthier society.

      Public policy that destroys the nuclear family has the practical effect of creating more troubled children, crime, etc.

      I’m sure the family that adopted you did a wonderful job. God bless them. But it doesn’t change the validity of my point.

    18. Troubled children come from nuclear families the same as with any other kind of family unit. They come from rich, poor, educated and non-educated, political, celebrity, law enforcement, military, single, happily married, unhappily married, GLBT and straight families.

    19. First of all, it was rather clear that I was talking primarily about single-parent families. Obviously, a family where there are two loving parents is closer to the ideal I spoke of (i.e., a child with their biological parents) than a single parent home. But it’s still not the ideal. Again, God bless those who adopt — but they are still guardian angels for children who, in a better world, would have been raised by their biological parents.

      I suggest you look up stats on incarcerated inmates and find out how many of them actually had a father who was around. I’ll bet the ranch as to what you’ll find.

      So are you arguing that society should not strive to increase the number of children who live in a loving home with their biological parents? That’s a hard sell.

      Now do you see why politicians would rather ban scary-looking guns than talk about the root causes of crime?

    20. I didn’t happen to find any stats on how many inmates had fathers or not but I did find one that has inmate and prisoner Mental Health Stats published in 2006 by the Bureau of Justice.
      I am pro-family, pro-guns, and pro-human rights. It’s just that my definitions of what those things mean must be vastly different from yours. Mental illness is a rampant problem that affects many other aspects of our society and needs to be addressed. If people don’t like the solutions proposed thus far regarding the violence in our communities, perhaps they could come up with a viable alternative option (preferably long term a.k.a. prevention). Please. You act like the government is going to come door to door and rob us of our liberty, freedom, and guns. As if our government is even capable of that type of efficiency (sad but true in most cases).

    21. I know. I act like the government might round up thousands of Japanese Americans and place them in camps. As if they’re even capable of doing something like that…

    22. Interesting point. I believe we had gun rights then too, didn’t we? So how did that happen? Fear, prejudice, misinformation, and labels about any generalized group of people is what allows horrors like that to happen. We need to change our attitudes for any plan to work for preventing tragedies.

    23. It was a crushing point. What you try and insinuate afterward is rather odd (i.e., that since the 2nd Amendment was in place and it happened that somehow gun-rights aren’t as essential to liberty as advocates say they are), but that’s a discussion for another day.

      Regardless, thanks for the discussion.

    24. You’re being a jerk to Penny. She’s been respectful. Be cool, man.

      What’s the point of defending against tyranny when it’s already happened? Let’s be honest here, I’d bet that more ‘Muricans are more upset that their ability to buy toys might be limited than actually sharing you and my tyranny arguments. Because, if they gave a shit about tyranny, they might actually freak out about the rest of the Bill of Rights evaporating right before our eyes under the last two administrations.

    25. How am I being a jerk? In fact, I’ve been rather nice to her. How the heck am I supposed to debate someone whose argument boils down to, “I was adopted and I’m a good person, so therefore you’re wrong”?

      I told her that her parents were guardian angels. I said that God should bless her parents. I did everything within my power make my point — and defend it — while at the same time being considerate of her personal life story.

      Be cool? Give me a break.

    26. You need not assure me of anything regarding my upbringing and circumstances. I’m totally secure with what I have experienced in my life thus far and who I am. To consider a few facts about a person to be their life story is silly. Always interesting to hear a different perspective whether it makes any logical sense whatsoever or not. It did not, by the way. If all you got out of it was that I’m adopted and a good person then so be it. You can lead a horse to water…..

    27. I was trying to explain to LightBringer that I wanted to be sensitive about your upbringing, and now suddenly you’re trying to turn that into some sort of evidence that the only prism I saw you through was as an adopted kid? This is getting comical. I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t.

      You’ll have to forgive me if laugh at your assertion that I don’t make “any logical sense.” Remember, you were the one who laughed off the idea that the U.S. government might turn on its own people — right before I reminded you of Japanese internment camps that were brought into existence only decades ago. 110,000 Japanese Americans would probably say that YOU are the one who might need to take an introductory course in logic.

      Shall we continue this game? Maybe you should look up the Echelon surveillance program. There’s another massive hole in your own logic, free of charge.

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some reading to do. There’s this illogical guy named George Washington I’m rather fond of. “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Good stuff.

    28. I pointed out that they had guns back then too so why didn’t the American people stop it? Where were all those guns ready and willing to stand against tyranny then? Let’s stop pretending that there aren’t larger issues at play. Have a lovely evening enjoying your book and thanks for the discussion today.

    29. Hi, my name is Penny and I ask I question and then try to run out of the room before it’s answered. Do you really want a historical account of the time, money and resources that were focused on that little thing called … stopping the Nazi war machine and the Axis Powers and saving the free world? I’d be happy to do that for you, but it might take awhile. You’ll have to cut the 16 million men enlisting to fight World War II, and the 245,000 women becoming WACS and WAVES some slack for not turning their guns on FDR.

    30. Doug won’t address that. Guns didn’t help Japanese Americans. Branded as potential-traitors and rounded up. Everyone else was just glad it wasn’t them. Nobody cared. W

      That was my point above that wasn’t addressed either. What point is defending the 2nd Amendment when the rest are gone long before they come for our guns? By then, there will be no America. Life (defended by guns or not) is great, but it is nothing without liberty.

  3. There’s a Russian immigrant I met this summer. Here’s his Facebook status on the gun rights argument in America right now:

    “In Soviet Union there was a problem with buying jeans. Why? Well, who needs jeans when there are government issued robes? The robes are uniform, warm, practical, and cheap to produce. Why do you NEED jeans? So what if it looks a little bad, it’s uncomfortable, and it disintegrates in under 3 months. It’s what everybody wears. By craving jeans you were asking more than you NEED and therefore you were a threat to society. You would go to jail for selling jeans.

    The same can be applied to anything. Why do you NEED to speak against the government? If the majority is content, why do you need free speech? The “progressives” in Soviet Union, as well as other dictatorial states, made this argument all the time.

    Giving up your rights, no matter why, is stupid. Plain and simple. If you think otherwise, go live for a year in a one of the hundreds countries where people don’t have rights. It kinda makes you appreciate things that people in the U.S. take for granted.” (Mikhail)

    Make fun of “boom sticks” all you want, Lizard. Then go back to enjoying life in Montana.

  4. keep at it, Penny. but watch out for the bareknuckles 😉

    I think the solution is abstinence only education. in our state legislature, the social conservatives zealots are wasting my tax payer money by supporting legislation that would require parental permission before they can attend sex-education classes, because, you know, when you don’t have to consent to reality, it sounds like a good idea.

    1. Actually, it would be interesting to interview her and find out what kind of family she grew up in. I know that talking about faith and family and social issues is a sure-fire way to send you into weird diatribes about how people of faith are all essentially Westboro Baptist Church derivatives … but that doesn’t make it true.

      Social issues play a huge role in the health of civil society.

      Anyway, it’s about time you threw out some sort of reference to Mitt Romney. Usually that happens earlier in these exchanges.

  5. working in social services, I see first hand the products of fucked up families. I also see the donation check from the wealthy, white, two parent family who go to church and seem like good people.

    I respect that you appear capable of stepping outside the Republican box, Doug. congratulations. I am also not one to be pegged to one of the two hopelessly corrupt political parties. for example, I think Obama should be impeached for acting as judge, jury, and executioner with his drone strikes.

    do you think the GOP will move to impeach a president for killing Americans with those Arab-y names?

    in my post about impeaching Obama, I speculate that both Republicans and Democrats are much more comfortable letting the gun control debate simmer, because that keeps people reacting through predictable political channels. Democrats get to ridicule gun worshipers, while ignoring Obama’s torching of the constitution, and Republicans get to fan the flames of their survivalist, black helicopter faction, whipping up gun protectionism so loud no one from the right, even moderates, seem capable of hearing the real threat to the constitution they claim to hold so dear.

    1. Nah, man. This is the internet. If it were face-to-face, we might have cooler heads and look for common ground. Since we’re virtual, we can flame away and out-clever each other.

      You, Doug, and me all generally act like dicks when we disagree because the first thing we go to is mockery. I hate that I do it, but it is what it is. Oddly, after a while, we give up the snarky facade and sometimes we begin to agree.

      That reminds me, I need to be more like Hitchens and less like Dawkins.

    2. agreed. I’m trying to actually comment, and not just troll, because the latter is what I was initially doing.

    3. That was the reason why I made the Chris Kyle video last weekend. It’s easy to just assume someone is a total jerk if you only see the text on the screen. You can’t see the person’s face or read their emotions. If I write a short sentence, to you it might come across as curt, when in reality it’s just me being matter-of-fact (without any “d**kish tone at all).

      The other problem (if you want to call it that) is that you and Lizard are both smart dudes. You can’t have three smart people in a room arguing about something without sarcasm creeping in.

      My main issue is when I’m debating with someone and I know that nothing I say will move them an inch in any direction it becomes, “Why am I having this conversation?” Depending on the topic, I will go at it for awhile with you guys, but if the person is just a stupid douche who I know will never come back here again then I’m going to let them have it. (See my earlier Spider-Man posts for a textbook example.)

      Crap. Work in a few hours. Gotta go.

    4. I checked early this morning for your post put didn’t see it. I need to work all day Saturday, but I’ll update this replay tomorrow night once I check it out.

      Update: I read your post:

      Watching MSNBC hosts tie themselves into intellectual knots to avoid having their worldview crash upon their heads has been interesting, to say the least.

      Personally, I don’t care if Adam Gadahn gets a bomb dropped on his head. I think there should be some sort of system in place to take guys like him out when it is self-evident they have crossed over and are operating outside the U.S. Would I like him to primarily be tried for treason and executed? Sure. (Actually, I’d prefer hard labor smashing rocks.) But if he’s in some weird tribal region and it would be impossible to get him out without taking losses, drone away. Just be crystal clear with the American people what’s going on. They will pass judge accordingly.

      You are correct that, as it stands, what President Obama is doing is incredibly scary and sets the stage for all sorts of nightmarish scenarios to unfold. Having “imminent threat” mean … basically anything the White House wants it to mean is at the top of the list.

      Obama has relied heavily on drones instead of crafting a real counter-terrorism strategy. What happens when terrorists hide in heavily populated urban areas? Do we drone them if the governments can’t (or won’t) help us out? I don’t think Obama knows.

      Regardless, while I disagree with many of your posts, I do respect your philosophical consistency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s