Comment: Your right, it is just a gun or a tool.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And what exactly makes this (see in situ)

Your right, it is just a gun or a tool.

But the gun isn't the point. It's about the uniform nature of justice. Can you own a drone that can spy on people, drop a bomb on them or shoot them remotely? Can you own a nuke? The rule of law is only being followed if it applies evenly to everyone, law enforcement included. It's about not tipping the scales on the status qou and allowing an entity to think it can rule by force. You can have a pistol because cops can have a pistol, because a pistol is what is needed. If a drone is what's needed, everybody has to be allowed the same. The utility of the tool is sort of secondary. I think the more pressing question is why can the military have something that obviously tips the balance of power? Because they need it and you don't? It's a question that's harder to reconcile, but I think it comes down to greater limitations. Posse Comitatus Act, confined practices, limited operations, fail safes, etc...But I don't know. Perhaps there is room, but I just don't trust it.