Photo credits to Young Americans for Liberty
It seems that Obama still has the fan-boy crush he enjoyed while campaigning for presidency.  His latest admirers?  the Nobel Committee.  In their decision, they noted “Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given it better hope for the future.”  Obama’s broad campaign slogans of Hope and Change have become empty shells of their former meanings.

When Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prizes, he specified a peace prize, based on “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.  Despite Obama’s overtures to foreign nations, he still posts two glaring failures in the Middle East.  Despite a draw-down in forces in Iraq, Afghanistan has seen increased troop levels over the past nine months.  Furthermore, our efforts in Afghanistan are futile; replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt puppet government does little to further peace in the world.

In addition to Obama’s continued nation-building abroad, he has done little to maintain peace at home. With the Patriot Act still in full effect, Guantanamo Bay getting little more than a name change, and an escalating police state the notion of “peace” is further away than it was nine months ago. In the wake of Governmental actions such as A woman facing jail time for buying cold medicine or People being charged with Obstruction of Justice for using Twitter to communicate poilce actions during the G20 protests, America has grown from land of the free home of the brave to land of the oppressed home of the cowards.

Was the Nobel Prize a consolation to Obama for not getting the Olympics in Chicago?  Maybe not, but his actions are hardly fitting of a Nobel-Prize winner; let alone a President who has been in office for only nine months. Only after a full term in office, where Obama’s overtures have been met with success should he have been awarded such a prize. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to a nominee who has actually accomplished tangible peace; or at the very least did more than do political grandstanding to accomplish “change.”
CNN

More sensationalist take on the subject

Basic human rights have always been defined as simple things – life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  However, none of these four principles are possible without one other key element:  the ability and willingness to defend oneself.  In today’s day and age, defending oneself becomes possible only through the possession and use of a firearm, in one of its forms.  Contemporary complacency has sidelined the role of firearms in maintaining these rights.  However, firearms are necessary in reclaiming them.

Although contemporary culture is kept in line through the rule of law, and by extension the government, what keeps the government in check? Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  Someday, this tree may need to be watered.  At that point, the defense of house and home, the usurpation of a dictatorship to renew a democracy will require both the will of the people and the firearms in peoples’ possession.

In a world without firearms, governmental tyranny will be allowed to continue ad infinitum, because the opinions of the masses will be silenced by the opinions of the men with guns.  Turning to contemporary examples of places such as China or Tibet, the oppression of the proletariat by the ruling classes eliminates the right to life, liberty, property and happiness by constraining opportunities for advancement and speaking out.  By limiting the access to firearms, it becomes possible for those in power to oppress those without power.

The concept of life, liberty and property as essential human rights is derived from the Declaration of Independence, a document penned by Thomas Jefferson, but solidified by the blood of the patriots who desired freedom above all else, even their lives.  The time will come again when liberty must triumph over tyranny, where freedom overthrows a dictatorship.  When that day comes, Americans must be willing to stand up for what they believe in, and they must also to have the tools at hand to become a new wave of minutemen, responding to the crisis of the modern age at a moment’s notice to defend the liberty of those that have none.

Provisions restricting the possession of firearms can be categorized into three broad areas; age-related, location-based, and firearm-based.  Each of these areas constitutes a grave threat to the safety of our nation and the people within it, and the relevant legislation must be revised to allow Americans to secure their rights.

The first of these areas, age-related firearm legislation makes sense only in the most absolute of vacuums.  Enabling gun ownership allows the youth of our nation to protect themselves and their property.  While anti-gun advocates will insist that prohibiting gun ownership among youth is a protectionist measure that saves lives, people will always have the means to kill others.  Access to firearms may expedite the process, but weighing that against the benefits of gun ownership clearly shows society better off with firearms than without.  Furthermore, the current set of laws is ineffective; it is illegal to buy handgun ammunition when you are under the age of 21.  However, you are allowed to buy long gun ammunition, even if it is an identical cartridge.

The second of these groups, location-based prohibitions constitute the most dangerous and egregious firearm-related laws.  The most well-known of these laws is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act.  The Act prohibits the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school.  Despite the best intentions of lawmakers in safeguarding our youth, the Gun-Free School Zones Act simply enables people that seek to do harm to do so without restraint.  When incidents like the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre occur, the perpetrators do not obey the rule of law; rather, they violate federal statutes by bringing firearms into an educational institution.  The shooters at Columbine were then able to shoot without regard for personal harm; as the Federal government had stripped their classmates and teachers of the ability to shoot back.  An even more extreme example of a gun-free zone massacre took place in a mall in Omaha, Nebraska in December of 2007[MJC1] , where eight people were murdered and five more were wounded.  The mall had a prohibition on concealed carry of firearms, meaning that outside of the uniformed mall security, the shooter was the only person with a firearm.  This incident is more notable because the shooter was not stopped by mall security, but an off-duty police officer who was in the mall and broke the law by keeping his gun on him.

Firearm based provisions are the final facet of legislation on the subject.  Current federal law bans outright many of the most terrifying weapons available in this world.  However, as preposterous of a notion as it seems, legalization of all firearms, whether they are fully-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, or one of the other prohibitively restricted firearms under current federal statutes is necessary for supporting democracy in our country.  Although the current single-shot and semi-automatic weapons commonplace among American homes have the potential to aid in usurpation of an overbearing government, fully automatic weaponry will allow Americans to truly secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.

The minutemen of Lexington and Concord started a noble tradition of usurpation of an unfair government; a tradition only made possible by the climate surrounding guns in Colonial America.  In our current political climate, grave threats to our freedoms have been orchestrated under the notion of “security.”  When the day comes, Americans must be able to have the ability to take control of their own government once again.