"Yet if you follow what’s been going on with the United Nations this year, you know that the USA came perilously close to having other countries dictate our gun laws."
"In other words, the proposed treaty is a mechanism for Iran and other tyrannical powers to have a say in your gun ownership."
"In several drafts, the treaty would have mandated that every round of ammunition be tracked globally."
"Throughout my life, I’ve been committed to preserving our freedom from threats, both foreign and domestic."
"This proposed U.N. global gun control treaty may not be an “invasion” in the classic sense of the word, but believe me; over time, it represents the potential for encroachment of the greatest kind. "
It's hard to believe he can say some of that stuff with a straight face, but he does. And conservatives, Republicans, right-wingers, Obama-haters, UN-haters, gun-nuts and several other groups eat it up.
You know what they say about Chuck, he has a grizzly bear carpet in his room. The bear isn't dead it is just afriad to move.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Chuck Norris wrote a great article. I totally agree with him.
ReplyDeleteI read the draft treaty. It had the goal of doing everything that you quoted here. Besides, the United Nations is useful when it does exactly what we tell it to do, but otherwise, it's generally a nuisance.
ReplyDeleteMikeyBoy, did you read the draft treaty? I'd bet a large sum of money that you have not.
DeleteNo, I've only read about it. Is that not enough for me to have an opinion?
DeleteNot an informed opinion. I've read the draft. I've also read the statements of groups supporting the treaty. It was bad news for liberty, and I'm glad that it went nowhere. We'll keep an eye on any efforts to bring it back.
DeleteI'm still pissed we signed onto Agenda 21.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
This weenie (Chuck) is spouting off all kinds of nonsense that is untruthful and dangerous. How many people are going to die because he helped drive away the U.N. Small Arms treaty?
ReplyDeleteThis shows us that we must put an end to free speech, because all too often people use free speech to harm other people.
Can we all agree that free speech can only exist when everyone always speaks truthfully and never, ever harms anyone with their speech?
I also propose that we have strict requirements and a government panel to screen everyone before they can speak freely. After passing an 8 hour free-speech training class (which typically costs about $100), the person will appear before a panel who will determine if a person is mentally stable, if they have a criminal record, if their speech has ever been untruthful or harmed anyone before, and if the person has a good and substantial reason to speak freely. Finally, anyone who wants to distribute their speech to large numbers of people will have to get approval from their local County Sheriff or Chief of Police, apply for a distribution permit, and pay a $200 tax.
Of course if anyone approved to speak freely speaks untruthfully or harms someone with their speech just one time, the panel will revoke their free speech rights and the person will never again be able to speak freely.
DeleteDon't expect Mikeb to agree with your interpretation of rights. In his view, it's only guns that must be restricted. Every other right must be free.
DeleteNo, you the one who thinks rights cannot be restricted or else they're not rights.
DeleteTHAT'S WRONG.