The official policy, written and implemented by those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, is to join forces with the most radical anti-gun zealots on the planet. And to be "pleased" about it. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at the ongoing subversive activities of enemies foreign and domestic. There's really no other way to describe them.
Share the link?
2 comments:
Doesn't the UN plan mandate a massive build-down of national militaries and a UN Rapid Reaction Force to act as the world's sole standing army and world policeman? Have the signatories to the treaty READ IT ALL?
Gee, I guess we're not supposed to remember that 120 million people in the 20th Century were killed by their own governments. Conflict zones? Yes, please. Better that than liquidation camps.
And always, the UN embargoes weapons from the side fighting for self-determination and freedom and survival. That would mean us, too, if it came to it.
Keeping what I got. Getting more.
So, GOVERNMENTS will be the only legal possessors of deadly force. Governments, who killed 120 million of their own citizens in the 20th Century.
I dont think the signatories have read the fine print. The UN plan mandates an eventual build-down of world militaries, except for minimal self-defense forces, leaving a UN Rapid Reaction Force as the sole standing army and world police. Or is that conspiracy theory propaganda? It sure sounds like the UN we know.
Conflict zones? Preferable by far to the one-sidedness of liquidation camps. Remember the African Hutu vs. Tutsi war: machetes are very effective against the unarmed, and cheap and easy to make.
This treaty is ironic. Pretending to care for human life, it reduces its value to near zero.
Keeping what we've got. Getting more. Willing to share when the time comes.
Post a Comment