When second or third world Muslim Freedom fighters want to overthrow a controlling oppressive government, the Obama administration is Johnny-on-the-spot with…well…guns; other peoples money for guns or training in the use of guns, or some such thing. But when American citizens want to exercise their second amendment right to lawful gun ownership (at their own expense) as a long term deterrent to the potential threat of a controlling and oppressive government, Obama and the Democrats want to do everything and anything they can to make that exercise as difficult as possible, if not impossible.
So yes, you need guns in pursuit of liberty and freedom from controlling oppressive regimes just not this one.
This brings me to Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry (whom I believe served in Vietnam) who can’t wait for the Obama Administration to sign the UN arms treaty in violation of the US Constitution and the will of the US Senate.
“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”
So how do we stem the trade in non-illicit conventional weapons, provided by anti-gun progressive-running western nations, which continue to fuel conflict, empower violent extremists, and contribute to violations of human rights?
Put another way, would that UN Treaty keep Obama from sending arms to the Middle-East that then end up in the hands of violent extremists pretending to be freedom fighters who then use them to, I don’t know, take over a US embassy and kill the ambassador, or perhaps attack a neighboring ‘so called’ ally? I’m inclined to think not. In fact, I’d guess it gives him a share of the monopoly on such things. Not exactly the kind of permission slip you’d want handed to a guy who has no clue what his branch of the government is up to, nor knows who might be responsible for the things it does.
So here’s and idea. Instead of the arms treaty maybe the UN could just institute Obama’s enhanced background checks? It’s bound to be just as “successful” as an arms treaty thrown together by an organization that puts some of the worlds most heinous tyrants in charge of its human rights council. That is to say, it probably wont do a damn thing except hamper law abiding citizens and nations from engaging in some kind of conduct while doing nothing to stop the evil people from punishing the rest of us.
Is it safe to say that were that to happen the UN would be no more accountable for their own failures than Obama?
