by Craig Masters
As quickly as the noise of gunfire fell silent in Sandy Hook Elementary, the voice of Barack Obama rang out across the transforming America crying for moral citizens to join him in the struggle to stop the killing of innocent children by strengthening “gun control.”
But while the youngsters killed in Sandy Hook Elementary were done so by a criminal with a stolen gun, the President wants to use the crisis to further his progressive idealism to set the framework to disarm law-abiding Americans and further the opportunities for more central government tyranny. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Napolitano explains in a recent commentary that while Barack Obama reads quotes of freedom, he and he alone gave direct orders for unmanned CIA drones to kill some 180 innocent children in Pakistan. Those innocent children were killed directly by Obama’s orders alone, points out Napolitano, not by any congressional declaration of war. At least 2 of those children were Americans.
Are those children any less innocent then the victims in Sandy Hook? So why have these killings been ignored by a media so ready to support gun control that the President promises will make the children safer? The answer is simple enough to understand, those children are too far away, they are too politically helpless and they were unfortunate enough to have lived where their families were unable to protect them.
Now the question is, is there anyone who doesn’t believe that any law-abiding gun-owning American who would have happened to have been in that school that day with their legal weapon would not have stopped or slowed the shooter long before the police could respond? How many lives could have been saved? Maybe all of them if that one armed citizen happened to be one of the first to encounter the shooter.
Just one of the many reasons the Constitution signers insisted on the citizens having the right to not just own but carry arms (keep and bear) is to enable us to resist such government weapons as drones sent to kill our children – as Obama did to children in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Judge Napolitano reminds us that the ever more intrusive federal government is already using drones over our homes. We can’t shoot down a drone with a BB gun. “To give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don’t pause,” is the reason we were given the right to keep weapons of equal capability as the government itself would have to use against us. Nations use this principal and so should individuals.
The idea of stopping the killing of innocent babies is being used successfully to gain momentum for disarming law-abiding citizens. But a closer look proves that these supporters who choose to disregard the Constitution, and the law protecting citizens rights to protect themselves, reverse their position to support a ‘law’ by Supreme Court decision such as Roe vs Wade that excuses them from blame in the killing of 50 million innocent children. So now, Obama and those who would believe his promises, are being allowed to violate the Constitution, disregard their oaths of office, but hide behind Roe vs Wade because that permits sexual activity without consequence, excuses bad behavior, and besides, like those children killed in Pakistan, no one hears these babies’ cries. Saving the children – indeed. I just want to vomit when I hear these people pick and choose their morality to suit their political ambitions.
In his closing paragraph the judge asks, “Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?
Your answer might be echoed in another quote that goes something like this; those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.