That looks loud.
In the past, Obama’s position on the second amendment has been less than ideal.
While the Obama administration hasn’t mentioned the Second Amendment by name, it seems he may have recently had a change of opinion.
The new opinion takes the much more hardcore view that because the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed then owning guns is important as sometimes it is necessary to use arms to assert that consent (or lack thereof) and overthrow a government.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed for the first time in London that the United Nations resolution did allow for the ”legitimate transfer of arms” to rebels if a nation chose to do so.
”Our interpretation of 1973 amended is that it overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya … so there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country chose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time,” she said.
Not even a mention of any plans to do background checks for the new owners!
I know, I know. You might be skeptical. But we also know that his administration allowed known gunrunners to transport thousands of guns into Mexico. Granted, allowing guns to Mexican drug gangs instead of the law abiding seems like a questionable idea.
I suppose that arming people in other countries might be the first step to acknowledging that people in his own country aren’t “bitter clingers.”
The Tizona Group 