Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Larry Bell on the U.N. Small Arms Treaty

Forbes Magazine published an alarmist op-ed about the United Nations' plan to destroy our Cunstitution.

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
Larry goes on to list the eventual consequenses, including things such as "Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course)." He then goes on to reference the famous 2.5 million DGUs which take place EACH YEAR, you know in order to prove how much good guns actually do. It's a truly bizarre article, well worth the time to read.

I realize it's hard for gun-rights advocates to be objective, impossible really, but how about this for consideration. In recent years, under the last two very-different-from-one-another presidents, we've invaded Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, without asking the U.N. for their permission and in some cases against their express wishes. Is it reasonable to believe that the United States will suddenly become internationally compliant and allow its gun policy to be determined by the policies of the United Nations?

No, it's not. What this is, is more paranoia and fantasy.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. Larry Bell?

    Just another old, white crank recycling the New World Order conspiracy fantasy.

    It's almost like clockwork; about every 10 years or so--the lunatic white right wing fringe starts seeing black helicopter and UN troops putting fluoride in our drinking water.

    Face facts, Bell has no experience in the issues in which he opines. He's also a climate change denier, so it's not too odd for this old crank to worry about furriners.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " Is it reasonable to believe that the United States will suddenly become internationally compliant and allow its gun policy to be determined by the policies of the United Nations?

    No, it's not. What this is, is more paranoia and fantasy."

    You mistake improbability for impossibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mikeb wrote " Is it reasonable to believe that the United States will suddenly become internationally compliant and allow its gun policy to be determined by the policies of the United Nations?

    No, it's not. What this is, is more paranoia and fantasy."

    RedAz wrote:
    "You mistake improbability for impossibility."

    No, AR, there is such a high improbability, that it is an effective impossiblity.

    On a par with the sun rising in the west instead of the east, on a par with Sasquatch being crowned the next king of England, on a par with the Loch Ness Monster being in the Rose Bowl Parade waddling between the floats on New Years Day. It is remotely possible that unicorns scattering glitter will leap onto your roof, but I wouldn't put it in Forbes Magazine as an op ed unless they really WANT to be a laughingstock.

    Are those things possible? Yes, if by possible you mean about as possible / probable the U.S. will allow any other organization to decide our policies. We can, as a nation, affirm and agree to international proposals, but we are at all times sovereign in doing so.

    Be sure to check under your bed before you go to sleep tonight, to make sure there are no communist voodoo zombies waiting to eat your brains.

    Better put an extra strong second padlock on your Anxiety Closet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No, AR, there is such a high improbability, that it is an effective impossiblity. "

    Any non-zero probability is still a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AztecRed, Did I say "impossible?" I remember writing "unreasonable" and I often liken your fears to meteorite strikes, so what exactly are you saying?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm saying that regardless of the improbability, you should always be vigilant.

    ReplyDelete