For this reason, I find Robert Farago at The Truth About Guns especially refreshing. Sometimes I wonder whose side he's on, but that's only when I slip back into that black-and-white thinking. I suppose he's just an honest and reasonable, although passionate gun owner. Take this post for example where he accuses the GOA of distorting the United Nations Small Arms Treaty for its own purposes.
The gist of it is the GOA, and many other pro-gun voices, keep talking about the U.N. interfering with their gun rights, but really the U.N. is interested in "military arm sales between countries."
Farago's conclusion:
I’ve taken the NRA to task for fear-mongering. Ditto the GOA. If you want to be more effective with mainstream American voters—-and why not?—tell the truth about guns. There are U.N. plots to disarm the world. But this ain’t one of them. And you know it. And if you don’t, that’s even worse.What's your opinion? Is it fair to describe the author of The Truth About Guns as "honest and reasonable, although passionate about guns?" Do you think he represents a large swath of gun owners or are the more contentious voices characteristic?
Please tell us what you think.
I wish that it were all that simple. If the UN were going to disarm the US, it could have done it long ago by boycotting and putting pressure on the US. There is a lot more of them then there is US (that's a pun).
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there is way too much money to be made in the arms trade. One reason Sig-Sauer is Sig-Sauer is to get around the Swiss laws on selling military equipment by having a German based corporation.
This also seems a bit like the War for American Independence where North American born Tories were cast as British in that US and Them. The "Antis" are unamerican (or dual citizens). The forces of gun control in this case aren't US, they're UN.
Regardless of what the NRA, GOA or this Farago clown has to say, the fact that Rebecca Peters is running IANSA is reason enough to resist anything they come up with. Peters is a notorious gun banner and socialist who believes that ALL guns should be controlled by the government. She has said so time and again and she said so while debating Wayne LaPierre, where she got her ass handed to her in the debate I might ad.
ReplyDeleteIf the ATT is not a citizen gun control scheme there are others that are. CIFTA is quite clearly an invitation for foreign control of U.S. citizens' guns and ammunition. The definitions of what are illicit guns and ammunition do not make any distinction between those owned by citizens and those owned by the state. In fact, the proposed CIFTA treaty goes as far to make loading your own ammunition, without a license to do so by them, a crime. It also would make assembling your own firearms from parts, something that is perfectly legal to do in the U.S. (the receiver is considered "the gun") a crime as well.
Further, whether or not ATT is a gun control measure or not does not matter. If it does apply to arms owned by civilians, then it is bad. If it does not, as Farago says, it still seeks to control arms owned by the United States government, before and after any export and that is wrong too. America knows what is best for America, not some foreign government or some toothless, insignificant organization like the United Nations.
FWM: As we both know, Peters' comment was taken out of context by the NRA. In the same debate, Peters clearly stated she wasn't opposed to hunting guns or guns used for sportshooting.
ReplyDeleteFarago kind of misses why the NRA and GOA are doing this. He thinks these organizations are about the 2A and gun rights. They aren't. They are lobbying arms of the firearm industry.
"FWM: As we both know, Peters' comment was taken out of context by the NRA. In the same debate, Peters clearly stated she wasn't opposed to hunting guns or guns used for sportshooting."
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not true. She is not opposed to guns used for sporting purposes as long as they are single-shot only and also stored with a government agency when not used in a sporting event or hunt.
"I wish that it were all that simple. If the UN were going to disarm the US, it could have done it long ago by boycotting and putting pressure on the US. There is a lot more of them then there is US (that's a pun)."
ReplyDeleteThe UN cannot apply pressure on the US because there are more of them than us. The UN cannot apply pressure to the US because they know that they exist at our pleasure. All we have to do is close our checkbook and withdrawal our military and the UN would cease to exist.
"Peters clearly stated she wasn't opposed to hunting guns or guns used for sportshooting."
ReplyDeleteIs that why the contemptuous harpy told sport shooters to find another sport?
Jadegold, Thanks for mentioning that the GOA and the NRA are really lobbyig bodies for the gun industry rather than champions of the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteFWM, Your low opinion of the U.N. notwithstanding, they are an influential organization in the world and in the U.S. If your beloved United States quit contributing, programs and agencies would be cut, but to say the U.N. would cease to exist is nothing more than silly jingoism.
"If your beloved United States quit contributing, programs and agencies would be cut, but to say the U.N. would cease to exist is nothing more than silly jingoism."
ReplyDeleteIf we kicked them out of New York, the UN would fight and argue about a new location so much as well as how to pay for it that they would disband long before the first brick was laid.
MikeB: “Thanks for mentioning that the GOA and the NRA are really lobbyig bodies for the gun industry rather than champions of the 2nd Amendment.”
ReplyDeleteDid you really mean “rather”? As much as you want to fixate on industry money, these two are not mutually exclusive. If my second amendment rights happen to be protected on the way to them banking money for the arms industry, so be it.