The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice. The threats to gun ownership are as real as ever.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't buy that one. To me it sounds like Prof. Lott is operating as the mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers of America, attempting to keep sales and paranoia as high as possible. But, maybe he's just concerned.
There was one other part of the article that I really enjoyed.
Americans have seen the increase in murder rates in DC and Chicago after their bans, and the sudden 25 percent drop in DC’s murder rates last year after their ban was removed. But as recent research shows, gun bans have consistently lead to higher murder rates around the world.
The "recent research" is his own book. Isn't that a riot?
What's your opinion? Is John Lott serious about the need to continue worrying about Obama as an enemy of gun rights? Sarah Palin said the same thing at the convention recently, after all. Are they right? Or, are these tireless doomsayers acting on some agenda of their own?
Is he on the right track about the UN Small Arms Treaty? Or, is there a bit of distortion there applying it to such laudable movements as the French Resistance?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I don't see how you of all people can call the French Resistance laudable.
ReplyDeleteThey were nothing more than a bunch of domestic terrorists, who if they existed today would be denounced by every gun control group as a bunch of insurrectionists and you'd probably be writing blog entries about how Glennbeck should be held responsible for their actions.
We must close the French Resistance Loophole!
ReplyDelete"What's your opinion? Is John Lott serious about the need to continue worrying about Obama as an enemy of gun rights? Sarah Palin said the same thing at the convention recently, after all. Are they right? Or, are these tireless doomsayers acting on some agenda of their own?"
If Sarah and John and the rest are wrong about President Obama then you can say "I told you so" and call them paranoid freaks. But since he did call for gun control as a part of his platform posted on his campaign and transition websites, maybe they should remain vigilant just in case. What is the harm in that?
Not content with being a fraud, Lott has decided to expand his horizons and become a revisionist historian.
ReplyDeleteThe French Resistance's primary contribution was two-fold: they provided intelligence and they sabotaged French industry. Very little of their efforts involved actually confronting German units in combat.
This is not to say it they didn't--it happened on occasion. But where did the FR get their weapons? Primarily they were dropped into France by the allies. Some were stolen from the Germans.
So, Lott claiming the FR would be harmed by a UN treaty is, well, bordering on the rantings of Mike W.
--JadeGold
Thanks JadeGold. I agree with everything you said in that comment.
ReplyDeleteJade was almost right for a change--except for the last part of course.
ReplyDelete"This is not to say it they didn't--it happened on occasion. But where did the FR get their weapons? Primarily they were dropped into France by the allies."
And under the treaty, the Allies would not be able to drop weapons to the FR. That was Lott's point.
And under the treaty, the Allies would not be able to drop weapons to the FR. That was Lott's point.
ReplyDeleteI see. So we start honoring treaties when we're at war...when?
It seems to me that when you're dropping bombs on a country, actively trying to kill their soldiers and populace---you're probably not too worried about the whole treaty thingy anymore.
--JadeGold
Jade, lots of treaties are still honored in time of war. The Geneva Conv ention, The Hague Treaty and the chemical warfare prohibition of the Treaty of Versailles were all honored by the allies in WW2 and continue so today even though we have had no declared war since.
ReplyDeleteThe Spanish Civil War would be a better example.
ReplyDeleteNazi Germany sent weapons and troops to overthrow the Spanish government. To save it, the governments of the free world sent... nothing.
Private citizens sent money and weapons, and some went as volunteers to fight the fascists. They would be labeled terrorists under the UN agreement.
I suggest you read "Homage to Catalonia."
Even Hitler honoured the chemical weapons convention.
ReplyDeleteJade, are you really suggesting that conflict makes all rules void?
Doesn't that undermine the initial purpose of weapons restrictions?
MikeB: “The "recent research" is his own book. Isn't that a riot?”
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Just like every time Josh Sugarmann says in his blog, “according to a new study issued by….ME…” I always got a kick out of that.