Anybody who can fact-check this?
Don’t worry about “fact checking” - a logic checking will do just fine.
First, she did not do a single thing to remove private fire arms from private owners.
Second, the article attributes some of Obama’s justice Department language to Bush.
Third, the author, like all liberals, is obesessed with people, and not principles. If Palin had taken guns away from private owners, conservatives would have indeed criticized her. We wouldn’t have supported that simply because it was Palin doing it...
This is what liberals don’t understad, because they are so eaten up with cult of personality, and ideas just bounce off their tiny little heads.
(Here is one of the original articles from 2008.)
Defense commander resigns after complaints
Published: October 28, 2008
http://www.adn.com/2008/10/28/570834/defense-commander-resigns-after.html
Happy to oblige.
Actual article title: "Defense commander resigns after complaints" . . . The report . . . found that administering a part-time civilian force brings a high liability risk to the state, he said. . . . "The report says the state defense force, it's a voluntary organization, it's part time, it's dedicated volunteers serving their state, but they don't have the intensity of training, the skill sets the National Guard has." As a result, Campbell recommended to Gov. Sarah Palin that brigade members should no longer be armed.
In other words, Governor Sarah Palin made a financial decision that the litigation risk to the state did not justify the benefits of arming the militia. That is absolutely and completely unrelated to disarming civilians or in any way violating the Second Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean that the government is obligated to provide arms, just that it is forbidden to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The snark and vitriol are the typical Sarah bashing, with no substance behind it. This writer, like most liberals, is mistaking the individual freedoms in the Bill of Rights for a description of job responsibilities applicable to government employees.
It's a diversion wrapped in a partial truth. She didn't "disarm" anyone. She stopped supplying state-owned weapons to them and changed the duty to one of not being armed. Like a judge deciding that the bailliff didn't need to be armed for his duties and then taking back the city-supplied weapons. The bailliff, as a private citizen can still own/bear arms...