It is interesting to note that the U.S. Government has apparently indicated that it is possibly willing to send arms to Libya. The arms would be for the rebels which in part includes factions which have sponsored terrorism against the U.S. and it allies.
Given that the current administration is seeking to greatly expand gun control the question comes to mind how is it that we are going to at least in part risk arming sworn enemies of our country and yet our offices of state are seeking ever further gun control?
Without debating the politics or political party’s involved I ask you, how is it possible to have such a contradiction in law? Can we continuously restrict firearms to ever greater levels and yet arm or at them minimum risk arming some of our country's sworn enemies? Is it legal, and in the within the limits of this forum where do you stand on this contradiction as it applies to law and the current legislation pending against our freedoms concerning 2A?
http://http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/considering-arming-libyan-rebels-fight-qaddafi/
Given that the current administration is seeking to greatly expand gun control the question comes to mind how is it that we are going to at least in part risk arming sworn enemies of our country and yet our offices of state are seeking ever further gun control?
Without debating the politics or political party’s involved I ask you, how is it possible to have such a contradiction in law? Can we continuously restrict firearms to ever greater levels and yet arm or at them minimum risk arming some of our country's sworn enemies? Is it legal, and in the within the limits of this forum where do you stand on this contradiction as it applies to law and the current legislation pending against our freedoms concerning 2A?
http://http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/considering-arming-libyan-rebels-fight-qaddafi/
Last edited: