Jeannieology
Preserving liberty in Libya
By Jeannieology
Originally posted at American Thinker
Lately, President Barack Obama has been assuming some surprising policy positions. First, he changed his mind and decided to leave Guantanamo Bay prison open and, instead of in a New York City civilian court, chose to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal. Then the President verbally supported the anti-Mubarak rebellion in Egypt, after which he voluntarily involved the US military in a NATO-led rag-tag civil war in Libya.
In another unexpected turn of events, a normally Second Amendment-shy Obama publicly supported possibly supplying guns to everyday citizens displeased with overbearing leaders and governments. Seems the President is all for the right to bear arms as long as those bearing the arms are not protected by the United States Constitution and are either foreign rebels or Mexican drug cartels.
The National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action claims careful review of "real records ... votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows [that] Barack Obama," rather than a proponent of the right to bear arms is, in fact, "a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties."
Scholar, pro-gun researcher, and gun advocate John Lott claimed that, prior to mulling over supplying armaments to Libyan street rebels, Obama, try as he might to pretend otherwise, was not a big Second Amendment fan. Which made it surprising that, despite enacting a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns in America based on the excuse that "imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents," the President actually entertained the idea of putting military hardware into the hands of rebels infiltrated by al Qaeda.
If Obama can manage to justify denying responsible Americans the right to bear arms based on preventing a catastrophe, why not follow through and ban other hazardous activities such as street crossing, propane tank usage, and lawn darts?
Accident prevention aside, the subject of concern is not whether the United States ultimately arms or chooses not to arm Libyan rebels, but that a President whose policy decisions and appointments point to a future where America is disarmed would even mull over such an idea.
On the one hand, the President verbally maintains support for the Second Amendment, while covertly the same President proposes extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns, nominates an "anti-gun zealot" like Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, to seal the deal, Obama appoints two anti-individual gun ownership Supreme Court Justices whose presence on the bench promises to deliver regulations that will be more restrictive for gun owners across America.
According to Gun Reports:
If ATF testimony proves correct, that means the guy who said "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns" has no problem with drug cartels possessing the rights he believes should be denied law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals America has apparently armed.
The Second Amendment, which "James Madison drafted ...the First Congress proposed... and the states ratified in 1791," established the following Constitutional principle: "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a Free State [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Besides giving American citizens the right to protect themselves and their families from crime, "The Second Amendment of the Constitution also gives [Americans] the right to protect ... our nation from a corrupt government or foreign invasion."
Similar to what Libyans are doing on the streets ofsmall towns like Ajdabiya.
Yet on the revisionist left, which is populated by the party of the President, it is often argued that the Second Amendment is not applicable in today's society. However, Obama weighing the possibility to arm Libyan rebels proves otherwise. Isn't protecting those who cannot protect themselves from Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi the reason Obama considered sending arms to street rebels in the first place?
In both Egypt and Libya, dissenters revolted against tyrannical governments and supposedly, in the pro-democracy spirit, Barack supported foreign guerrillas and pondered equipping a "body of the people" in order to "constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Such a stance presents Obama with a quandary, because at the podium the President may talk the "insurrectionist model" but on paper, where it counts, the truth is that the same man who overlooks gunrunners smuggling guns across the border would rather Americans didn't have guns.
In other words, but for the presence of al-Qaeda in their midst, Obama seemed open to supporting and possibly even arming citizen uprisings against oppressive governments. However, if legislative direction is any indication of his true gun philosophy, the President is squarely in opposition to a Constitutional precedent for American citizen/militias to be able to protect our own nation from oppression. Obama's policies seem intent on purposely leaving Americans defenseless if a situation similar to the one in Libya should arise here in America.
Consistently cogent Founding Father Thomas Jefferson posed an important question in his 1787 letter to William S. Smith, which said: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Maybe a President of two minds, when not arming far-off insurrectionists and Mexican criminals, can answer Jefferson's question for the American people he seems determined to disarm.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
© Jeannieology
April 16, 2011
Originally posted at American Thinker
Lately, President Barack Obama has been assuming some surprising policy positions. First, he changed his mind and decided to leave Guantanamo Bay prison open and, instead of in a New York City civilian court, chose to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal. Then the President verbally supported the anti-Mubarak rebellion in Egypt, after which he voluntarily involved the US military in a NATO-led rag-tag civil war in Libya.
In another unexpected turn of events, a normally Second Amendment-shy Obama publicly supported possibly supplying guns to everyday citizens displeased with overbearing leaders and governments. Seems the President is all for the right to bear arms as long as those bearing the arms are not protected by the United States Constitution and are either foreign rebels or Mexican drug cartels.
The National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action claims careful review of "real records ... votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows [that] Barack Obama," rather than a proponent of the right to bear arms is, in fact, "a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties."
Scholar, pro-gun researcher, and gun advocate John Lott claimed that, prior to mulling over supplying armaments to Libyan street rebels, Obama, try as he might to pretend otherwise, was not a big Second Amendment fan. Which made it surprising that, despite enacting a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns in America based on the excuse that "imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents," the President actually entertained the idea of putting military hardware into the hands of rebels infiltrated by al Qaeda.
If Obama can manage to justify denying responsible Americans the right to bear arms based on preventing a catastrophe, why not follow through and ban other hazardous activities such as street crossing, propane tank usage, and lawn darts?
Accident prevention aside, the subject of concern is not whether the United States ultimately arms or chooses not to arm Libyan rebels, but that a President whose policy decisions and appointments point to a future where America is disarmed would even mull over such an idea.
On the one hand, the President verbally maintains support for the Second Amendment, while covertly the same President proposes extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns, nominates an "anti-gun zealot" like Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, to seal the deal, Obama appoints two anti-individual gun ownership Supreme Court Justices whose presence on the bench promises to deliver regulations that will be more restrictive for gun owners across America.
According to Gun Reports:
-
In 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in [Illinois].
If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.
If ATF testimony proves correct, that means the guy who said "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns" has no problem with drug cartels possessing the rights he believes should be denied law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals America has apparently armed.
The Second Amendment, which "James Madison drafted ...the First Congress proposed... and the states ratified in 1791," established the following Constitutional principle: "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a Free State [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Besides giving American citizens the right to protect themselves and their families from crime, "The Second Amendment of the Constitution also gives [Americans] the right to protect ... our nation from a corrupt government or foreign invasion."
Similar to what Libyans are doing on the streets of
Yet on the revisionist left, which is populated by the party of the President, it is often argued that the Second Amendment is not applicable in today's society. However, Obama weighing the possibility to arm Libyan rebels proves otherwise. Isn't protecting those who cannot protect themselves from Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi the reason Obama considered sending arms to street rebels in the first place?
In both Egypt and Libya, dissenters revolted against tyrannical governments and supposedly, in the pro-democracy spirit, Barack supported foreign guerrillas and pondered equipping a "body of the people" in order to "constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Such a stance presents Obama with a quandary, because at the podium the President may talk the "insurrectionist model" but on paper, where it counts, the truth is that the same man who overlooks gunrunners smuggling guns across the border would rather Americans didn't have guns.
In other words, but for the presence of al-Qaeda in their midst, Obama seemed open to supporting and possibly even arming citizen uprisings against oppressive governments. However, if legislative direction is any indication of his true gun philosophy, the President is squarely in opposition to a Constitutional precedent for American citizen/militias to be able to protect our own nation from oppression. Obama's policies seem intent on purposely leaving Americans defenseless if a situation similar to the one in Libya should arise here in America.
Consistently cogent Founding Father Thomas Jefferson posed an important question in his 1787 letter to William S. Smith, which said: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Maybe a President of two minds, when not arming far-off insurrectionists and Mexican criminals, can answer Jefferson's question for the American people he seems determined to disarm.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
© Jeannieology
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
