Dakota War College offers another analysis-less red-meat nugget to the slobbering gun nuts whose faith in their trigger fingers is about 150 years behind political reality. DWC author Pat Powers spotlights Saturday's Senate vote on Senator James Inhofe's SA 139, an amendment to allow Congress to spend money to uphold Second Amendment rights by "preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." Senator John Thune and his Republican colleagues voted aye; Senator Tim Johnson and most of his Democratic colleagues voted no.
Powers doesn't tell us what this vote means. I'll tell you: it means Republicans are manufacturing another fake issue, much like the fairy tales Senator Thune told about bovine methane regulations and Rep. Kristi Noem told about rural dust regulations. No such treaty exists. The United Nations failed to reach consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty last year. Global trade in guns and ammunition remains largely unregulated, contributing to violence and poverty worldwide. The UN is trying again this week to craft international agreement, but member nations seem more concerned about protecting profits than lives (ah, much like the industry lobby NRA).
The United Nations has put out some draft text for an Arms Trade Treaty. It deals entirely with international trade. Not one word authorizes black helicopters to swoop in and take your guns on American soil. Such a treaty would not affect your right to keep and bear arms; you just couldn't sell them to promote genocide and war crimes overseas. Regulation of international arms deals would seem to be perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Second Amendment and the security of our free State.
South Dakota should be all about a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The only concrete objection an American gun lover might lodge is that such a treaty might allow the UN to keep records of his gun purchases from overseas arms manufacturers, which of course would move him up on the black-helicopter invasion/detention list. But such a treaty would only enhance the domestic gun manufacturing, which South Dakota strongly promotes. Tighten up gun import rules, and gunmakers would spring up all over South Dakota! Our economy would shoot through the roof!
There is no United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. There should be. And when there is, it won't hurt your Second Amendment rights one bit.
"There is no United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. There should be. And when there is, it won't hurt your Second Amendment rights one bit."
Spoken like a teacher in favor of the UNESCO agenda.
Spit it out Sibby! That burden on your shoulders needs some clarity. These fixations regarding the UN are just the remnants of a bad dream.
"That burden on your shoulders needs some clarity."
Check out this morning's post at Sibby Online.
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2013/03/cory-heidelberger-and-pat-powers-defend-agenda-21-as-conservatives-expose-the-totalitarian-agenda.html
I worry a little more about the meat of to whom we should not allow to have arms (Article 5 Section 6).
What happens if we want to support a group of rebel fighters fighting against a country which uses children soldiers?
I'm uncertain what "Adversely impacting the development of the importing state" means, but I imagine the argument could be made supplying arms to a group fighting against a dictatorial government could be construed as adversely impacting the development of that State; wars do adversely impact development.
I'm ambivalent on this... It's not as though China or Russia are going to stop sending arms to the countries they like (& we deplore). Nor are we about to change our calculus on who gets arms from America... Will this really change anything?
Steve you really need some help. Seriously.
Apparently UNESCO once ran pioneer Wyoming, too.
http://wyofile.com/2013/02/historic-perspective-on-gun-control-in-wyoming-2/
The point remains - control the morons access to and use of guns; don't fret about the calibers, rates of fire, or magazines.
Here's a link to the petition to stop the killing trade:
http://ht.ly/jtEIJ
Yeah. Because internet petitions are really really effective at stopping stuff.
free speech: use it or lose it.
Exactly. Use it effectively by posting on blogs not signing internet petitions for crazies.
Just exactly how has Fast and Furious been good for you, grudz?
Hey Lar, we're holding hands now. Who'd a thunk it. Ya think the UN can come in and get rid of Holder and gang?