Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?Absolutely, Frida Berrigan, you tool.
Bring it on.
A favorite new talking point of the gunhaters is that the RKBA crowd is being hysterical when we claim that anyone wants to take our guns. Heller, they tell us, took that concern away, and now we can focus on other ways to render the right useless.
So thanks for letting us know the agenda hasn't changed, Frida, and that you and your fellow traveler centralized control freaks at the New America Foundation are just going about it in a different way.
A while back I wrote a critique against "lobbying" the globalists on gun ban treaties. This does not change my position one bit. The answer is "No," and unless some characterizations involving their parentage, virtue or behaviors are added, that's the end of the discussion.
Any enemy, foreign or domestic, who wants to enforce global disarmament by treaty, will be starting a very dangerous game. Kind of like a combination race and hunt.
[Via Bruce Mills]
5 comments:
A race, then a hunt? Or a hunt, then a race? Either way sounds ok to me, but what I had in mind is a kind of a wilding. If not a honey-pot ambush or a pre-emptive strike. Actually, I prefer pre-empt ambushes, and then search and destroy. I remember G.R.Clarks' advice, about keeping your hatchet scoured and your knife sharp. I do hope they bring on the seizures. Time for a lil' payback.
You mean like the movie Surviving the Game?
I think now, just before the elections, would be a good time to drop by the police station to inquire about their policy towards gun confiscations. If they support our constitutional rights, I am sure they would be grateful for the knowlege that the citizens will stand behind them when they refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Or would such an inquiry be deemed a threat and result in sanctions against me?
Maybe the safest course would be to wait until the confiscations begin, then conduct the inquiry? At that point, the inquiry would more likely result in a truthful response.
Much to ponder as the future hurtles towards us, like a train.
How effective is it when 1% of the military aggresses with the ban?
The United States did not sight the cluster bomb ban
"Also opposing the treaty and absent from the summit are Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and China, who together produce 99% of the world’s supply of cluster bombs."
(http://diplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/05/31/us-absent-at-signing-of-cluster-bomb-treaty/)
I wonder if they will publish my post
-------------
The facts regarding the cluster bomb ban are inaccurate.
The United States did not sight the cluster bomb ban, neither did many other countries. There is a ban in name alone.
Your use of the cluster bomb analogy is quite ironic, essentially you’ve already proven through your own analogy that a ban on guns would be ineffective. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. When cluster bombs are banned only those that ignore the ban will have them. Witch is everyone! 99% of the weapons producing countries did not sign the treaty.
-------------
Post a Comment