Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Takes a little bit to get to it but, just some more money gathering by the u.n. to infringe on US constitutional guarantees. Mr. Bromund is tougher than I am. No way could I have spent 2 seeks listening to that spewage.
1 posted on 07/02/2018 10:07:31 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rktman

Good article !

I didn’t know that the Paris attacks used re-activated guns.


2 posted on 07/02/2018 10:15:18 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rktman
``````````````

5. The demand to include ammunition. A lot of countries want the PoA to include ammunition. Right now, it doesn’t, and there’s a good reason for this: guns are durable, relatively easy to mark and trace, and don’t work without ammunition, whereas ammunition is consumable and is produced in enormous quantities that are impossibly burdensome to trace. The number of delegations here that can’t grasp this simple point is incredible. For the sake of the political thrill of including ammunition, they want to add an unworkable commitment to the PoA when most of the nations in the room aren’t fulfilling the much simpler ones they’ve failed to uphold for the past 17 years.

``````````````

10. Promoting gun control. Well, you knew it would come to this. In theory, the PoA is tightly limited to the international illicit trade. But the people who back it make no secret of their support for gun control. On Thursday, 17 nations, including Mexico, proposed including civilian possession in the PoA. Last Friday, we had a visit from Wear Orange, of Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg. They clearly see the PoA as relevant to domestic gun control. The best illustration of why came on Wednesday, when in a side event on domestic gun control laws an Australian representative stated that “every gun shop that disappeared was a point from which guns could no longer be diverted.” In other words, according to the gun controllers, the way to control the illicit arms trade is to make sure there are no legal places to buy guns, which will ensure that no legal guns exist to become illegal. The Australian representative went on to point out that the most important source of crime guns in Australia is thefts from legal gun owners. That sums up their point of view nicely: legal gun owners should be deprived of their right to buy a gun so that, when a thief invades their house, they will not have a gun that can be stolen. Also, they will be defenseless. The problem, by this way of thinking, is not the thief: it is the law-abiding gun owner, who should be punished accordingly.

3 posted on 07/02/2018 10:19:29 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rktman

As of noon Eastern Daylight Time today there have still not been any intelligent things heard about guns at the UN.


4 posted on 07/02/2018 10:47:05 AM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rktman
"is to encourage cooperation on the illicit international trade in small arms. If the PoA stuck to this, it might be modestly useful. "

Fast and Furious?

5 posted on 07/02/2018 10:47:33 AM PDT by nevergore (I have a terrible rash on my covfefe....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rktman

US out of the UN, UN off US soil!


7 posted on 07/02/2018 12:45:44 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rktman

Only ten????


8 posted on 07/02/2018 3:03:00 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson