Assault Weapons for Syrian Rebels But not American Citizens

My wife and I have been watching the series “Island at War” on Netflix. “[It’s] a British television series that tells the story of the German Occupation of the Channel Islands.” British forces had left the Islands but Germany did not know that the islands had been demilitarized. The islands were under the complete control of Nazi forces.

There was resistance. “Resistance involved passive resistance, acts of minor sabotage, sheltering and aiding escaped slave workers and publishing underground newspapers containing news from BBC Radio.”

Why were the islands so easy to occupy? There were few if any weapons on the islands. The people were defenseless. They had depended on England to protect them. When military forces left, the islanders were sitting ducks.

The Second Amendment wasn’t added to the Constitution for the purpose of hunting but for such a time as the British Islanders encountered.

A liberal might say, “Well, that will never happen here.” I’m sure the British islanders thought the same thing.

In a June 2013 Huffington Post article, you’ll find this:

“President Barack Obama has authorized sending weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time, U.S. officials said Thursday [June 13, 2013], after the White House disclosed that the United States has conclusive evidence President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons against opposition forces trying to overthrow him.”

What kind of weapons?

“U.S. officials said the administration could provide the rebels with a range of weapons, including small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other missiles.”

So while it’s OK to send weapons — “assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other missiles” — to foreign civilians, Obama wants to deny Americans under the Constitution to own “military-style assault weapons.”

“President Barack Obama called on the Senate to vote on a controversial ban on semiautomatic firearms modeled after military-style assault weapons, despite dim predictions from Senate leadership that such a ban will have any luck passing the upper chamber.

“‘These ideas shouldn’t be controversial – they’re common sense. They’re supported by a majority of the American people. And I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote,’ Obama said in his weekly address.”

The Syrians have more Second Amendment rights than American citizens!new-ar-15-design

By the way, an AR-15 (a military-style assault weapon) is no more an assault rifle than a single shot rifle, because that’s what it is. In order to shoot a round, the shooter must pull the trigger each time. An automatic weapon operates on a single pull of the trigger to shoot off multiple rounds.

Changing the look of an AR-15 without changing its functionality is all it takes to remove the “assault weapon” designation and put it into compliance with recent laws made by idiots:

“The popular AR-15 recently underwent a few cosmetic changes which will allow New Yorkers to still possess the gun, despite SAFE Act laws. An article in the Times Union said, ‘Gun dealers, with the help of machine shops and gunsmiths, are on the cusp of offering what they call NY SAFE-compliant AR-15s and other military style rifles.’”

It may look different, but it operates the same way as before the cosmetic makeover.

Will we ever have to use our weapons in a way the British islanders couldn’t or the way the Syrian rebels are? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. The Second Amendment gives us the right to prepare for such a set of circumstances. And even without the Second Amendment, we have a God-given right to protect ourselves.