People who support the war in Iraq argue that the invasion (what George Bush euphemistically called “preemption”) was necessary because Saddam might have become a terrorist threat; i.e., he might have acquired and used Weapons of Mass Destruction. Similarly, people who support a ban on assault rifles argue that the ban is necessary because anyone who acquires such a weapon might also pose a terrorist threat. Yet, paradoxically, although the two arguments use identical reasoning, the people who support the first argument (that invading Iraq was good) are often the same people who oppose the second one (that assault rifles should be banned). This raises the question: why is preemption an appropriate strategy for dealing with potential terrorists from Iraq, but an inappropriate strategy for dealing with potential terrorists from America?
Of course, the answer we would expect to this question is that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, but did not protect Iraq from invasion. However, nothing in the Second Amendment suggests it was ever meant to give Americans the right to own weapons of mass destruction (in the form of military assault rifles).
Accordingly, the question remains: if Iraq can be “preempted” from acquiring and using WMDs, why shouldn’t Americans be “preempted” from acquiring and using them?
Print this post [1]
[2]