According to gun control advocates the state must use its capacity for force to prevent violent people form getting guns. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut Mr. Obama was one of the loudest proponents of gun control so it’s pretty ironic to see that he’s now considering arming rebels in Syria:
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has acknowledged his government is no longer ruling out arming Syrian rebels.
It is the first time a senior US official has said openly that the US is reconsidering its opposition to supplying weapons to rebel forces.
President Barack Obama – who rejected such a proposal last year – said the US was now looking at “all options”.
Something tells me that the rebels receiving arms won’t have to pass a background check. If, or should I say when, the United States starts arming Syrian rebels I don’t want to hear Mr. Obama ever talk about the need to prevent violent people from getting guns ever again. You can’t be against something you’re openly endorsing.
In addition to Mr. Obama’s hypocrisy this story also demonstrates the biggest flaw in the reasoning used by gun control advocates. They demand that the state prevent violent people from acquiring guns but the state is the biggest perpetrator of gun violence and has no issue arming violent individuals so long as those individuals server a political purpose. Demanding the state implement gun control is like putting a fox in charge of hen house security.