Micahweeks
New member
This got me thinking hard. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former federal judge and self-proclaimed Libertarian, brought up several potential implications of the operation in Pakistan, not the least of which is that our president can now unilaterally decide to engage in military actions in other countries to execute someone he thinks is worthy of such action by public opinion.
I was elated to hear that this coward was found and killed. Still am. But, I now have to consider a line of reasoning I had previously thought to be pretty far-fetched. Gun owners sometimes throw the argument out there that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. This is summarily dismissed by the masses and politicians since the government has never been "out to get us" and because laws, treaties, and the Constitution prohibit such an act. But, I wonder if the Bin Laden situation now provides some validity to that concern. After all, the president did break laws, violate treaties, and ignore a Constitutional restriction for the purpose of killing someone he thought the people would like to see dead.
George Washington called guns the people's "teeth." It is our insurance of liberty and our protection against tyranny. But, only now do I ever find myself wondering if the reason liberal politicians want to disarm America is so they can carry out these types of actions without fear of reprisal. After all, Obama is a lawyer that knows full well the violations he just engaged in and is aware of the unconstitutionality of his anti-gun legislation in his home state. It didn't stop him from ordering a politically popular execution.
Can this government ordered execution be a precedent that justifies the fears of many gun owners? That one day our government may give itself over to the tyrannical practice of taking life for political gain? Is Judge Napolitano right when he asks who is next?
The Judge and his comments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZWcFzUBsdA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I was elated to hear that this coward was found and killed. Still am. But, I now have to consider a line of reasoning I had previously thought to be pretty far-fetched. Gun owners sometimes throw the argument out there that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. This is summarily dismissed by the masses and politicians since the government has never been "out to get us" and because laws, treaties, and the Constitution prohibit such an act. But, I wonder if the Bin Laden situation now provides some validity to that concern. After all, the president did break laws, violate treaties, and ignore a Constitutional restriction for the purpose of killing someone he thought the people would like to see dead.
George Washington called guns the people's "teeth." It is our insurance of liberty and our protection against tyranny. But, only now do I ever find myself wondering if the reason liberal politicians want to disarm America is so they can carry out these types of actions without fear of reprisal. After all, Obama is a lawyer that knows full well the violations he just engaged in and is aware of the unconstitutionality of his anti-gun legislation in his home state. It didn't stop him from ordering a politically popular execution.
Can this government ordered execution be a precedent that justifies the fears of many gun owners? That one day our government may give itself over to the tyrannical practice of taking life for political gain? Is Judge Napolitano right when he asks who is next?
The Judge and his comments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZWcFzUBsdA&feature=youtube_gdata_player