Obama's 'Get the Guns' Plan Goes Global By Bobby Eberle On April 6, 2009 at 6:41 am Barack Obama has a history of ignoring the Constitution's Second Amendment. Over and over and over again, he has supported measures that would make it harder for citizens to possess firearms and easier for criminals to gain the upper hand. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder is of the same mold and has argued for gun control measures at every turn. Now, we come to Obama's debut on the world stage with the recent G-20 Summit. Yes, he pushed America's new "spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax" strategy on the world, but he also used the opportunity to take his "get the guns" philosophy to all nations. Obama called for the U.S. to take the lead in ending all nuclear weapons. This, just like his policies on gun control, would make America less safe and more vulnerable to rogue leaders around the world. Here's a little background on the Obama/Holder gun record. As noted by OnTheIssues.org, Obama has a record of promoting gun control.Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar. In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure. In another instance cited by the web site:Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." I could go on and on with Obama and the gun topic, but the real point is that this same philosophy of restricting the rights of citizens and, in turn, making it easier for criminals to gain the upper hand was put on display on a global level this past week. Obama took to the stage in the Czech Republic of Prague to call for an end to nuclear weapons. Of course, this would shift more power and leverage away from the United States and into the hands of imperialist nations and unstable leaders. As noted in the story Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world, Obama "said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a 'moral responsibility' to lead because no other country has used one." A moral responsibility? This sounds eerily similar to calls for the U.S. to "apologize" for slavery or other wrongs of the past. Rather than moving on and building up relationships, liberals constantly want to paint reminders of how bad things are (or were) in order to have leverage over a group or nation. So, America is supposed to take the lead on making ourselves less safe simply because we are the only ones who have used nuclear weapons. We are supposed to apologize for this? Isn't it the core job of the federal government to keep our citizens safe. Does Obama forget how many American lives were saved by ending the war early? "This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime," Obama said. "We "must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.'" Yes, we can? Yes, we can what? Have "law abiding" countries get rid of their nuclear weapons. What happens when one of those countries is no longer friendly and decides to invade another country... thrusting an entire region into conventional war. This of course would be thousands or tens of thousands of lives at risk. Did it ever occur to Obama and company that situations like this are less likely because of the nuclear threat? Obama's "feel good" rhetoric is designed for one thing. To make him sound like the kumbaya leader and to make rogue dictators feel good. The leaders at the G-20 Summit more or less rejected Obama's tax and spend plan for the world, and they should reject this rhetoric as well. Taking guns or nukes out of the hands of law-abiding citizens or nations is unconstitutional for guns and ridiculous policy for nukes. Oh yes, and as Obama was preparing for his speech, what was North Korea doing? Kim Jong Il made good on his pledge to launch a long-range missile. Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya... oh Lord, kumbaya. © 2009 GOPUSA, The Loft.