CONTEXT: On Wednesday, Mar. 06, 2013, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the senate floor and proceeded to “drone” on for an astonishing 13 hours, according to Public Radio International. Sen. Rand’s objective, to delay the Senate’s swearing in of newly-appointed CIA Director John Brennan, was achieved as a point of posture, but what drove him to the Senate floor is a larger issue that has Americans on both sides of the senate ready to continue the conversation.

Sen. Rand used his time on the floor, which Senate aides say was the first talking filibuster in the U.S. Senate since Dec. 10, 2010, to to express his concern over the potential for drone strikes on U.S. soil, aimed at U.S. citizens, which the now CIA Director Brennan did not rule out during questioning by Attorney General Eric Holder earlier in the week.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that the government “has not carried out drone strikes in the U.S. and has no intention of doing so.” He added: ”It is possible…to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” citing crisis scenarios like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

THE QUESTION: Are drone strikes ethical? What do you think qualifies the President to authorize a strike on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? Should these qualifications be disclosed to the general public, or are they issues of national security and thus rightfully kept in the dark?

Weigh in!

Topic:

SYNOPSIS: The gun debate is raging on months after the tragedy in Newtown. With so many different political viewpoints, and the 2nd amendment to uphold, what would be a fair compromise for both proponents and opponents of guns?

First Suggestion: provided by A.V., Las Vegas, NV

I think the best way to curb gun violence without taking away guns is to restrict and regulate bullet usage. Gun owners should be allowed 6 (or some similar number) bullets for home use/protection. If they discharge a bullet, they should have to bring the used shell to a gun shop and exchange it for a new one, and fill out an incident report.

If you go to a gun range, or hunting, state governments should have ammunition kioskis at the entrance/exit of these areas. All gun users must check in when arriving, purchase and inventory as much ammunition as they’d like, and when they leave, they should return all unused ammunition and discharged shells (if it’s a hunting ground) or else incur a $500,000 / 1 year of jail penalty, or something similarly severe.

That way you don’t take away guns at all, you allow for personal protection, you don’t need to regulate private matters concerning gun owners or gun preferences, and you can still ensure mass civilian safety, curtail mass murder situations, and prevent excessive force.

Second Suggestion:P.G., Sioux City, Iowa

I don’t think that there is a way to legally uphold the second amendment and solve the gun issue. The only alternative would be if another amendment was passed that limited the second amendment’s scope. I don’t see that happening.

–

Gun violence. Inadequate healthcare. Testing and developing nuclear weapons. Immigration Reform. Gay Rights.

Odds are, you have something to say about some — if not all — of the topics listed above you.

The Washington Pastime, as part of our promise provide a platform for you to “Be heard,” wants to give you a chance to weigh in on these issues.

Your role:

We encourage viewers to submit (via our WTP Submissions Portal, located on every WTP page) topics of national relevance that warrant further consideration. As a reader, we want you to actively contribute to the discussion, rather than leave these important discussions to people who may be out of touch with your unique opinions and perspectives. You can submit a topic, and/or a response/suggestion for (re)solution.

Our Role:

The Washington Pastime will play the role of moderator and editor — we’ll read through your topic suggestions and responses, and post only what we feel will appropriately continue discourse on relevant subject matter. Plus, none of our readers will have to deal with offensive or disrespectful comments.

We encourage submitters to provide sources and citations wherever possible, and will look to help contributors in those areas when they’re missing. We’ll also proof-read and clean up prose on topics when we feel it’s necessary. But most importantly, we’ll protect your identity — we’ll only post the initials of contributors.

The Goal:

The Washington Pastime hopes that “We The People” becomes part of your daily news intake. We want the topics that are most important to our readers to be an active part of what we do, because the world we live in shapes the stories we read and write. We hope you’ll enjoy contributing to this global initiative, and encourage your friends to become part of the solution.

Use hashtag #wtp to bring the topic to Twitter!

http://www.washingtonpastime.com?=859