The ‘ahem’ man pictured above hasn’t changed an iota since his
turning awakening and enlightenment to help the deconstructing enlightening of the American republic. If you’re not aware of his background, here’s a great link to peruse. It won’t be too good for your blood pressure, but it’ll be informative, that’s certain.
Now, on to WeaponsMan’s post: I’ve pasted a real nugget that you need to read if you read nothing else over at WeaponsMan’s place in the post (but by all means take the time to check the links and read everything):
“Now, one may not be inclined to take the word of a retired sergeant, who is known in team room and Chancery alike for his disdain for diplomats and all their demoniac works, that this treaty is a steaming pile of that which issues from the south end of a northbound equine. So allow us to refer you to these words written four years ago by an actual striped-pants diplomat, and one who has, moreover, retired to not-quite-gun-free-but-working-on-it California, no less. In a long post on this treaty, he notes:
The treaty, as with all liberal/leftist efforts, seeks a massive role for the state and an implied one for lawyers, in those countries, such as ours, where we take the law seriously. Look at Article I, for example. The objectives laid out there would require an enormous new body of law and regulations to be drafted and implemented in the US; it would require it to be drafted in such a way as “to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms.” In other words, we would have to try to bring our laws and regulations into sync with those of the rest of the world. I do not need to spell out what that means when it comes to bearing arms.
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 comprise the core of the treaty. These articles would provide endless employment activity for “activists’ and their lawyers. They establish obligations on the “State Parties” that would, in essence, kill the trade in small arms. The language about weapons “being diverted to the illicit market,” or “used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children” means endless lawsuits against exporting and importing states, manufacturers, and sellers. While the ostensible purpose is international trade, that would quickly become a domestic legal issue in the US. Say, for example, that a Glock, either one made in Austria or in a Glock factory in the US, were used for “illicit” purposes or was involved in an incident of “gender-based violence” in the US, the lawsuits would be ferocious. The threat of constant legal action effectively would halt the export and import of small arms–at least from and to those countries that take laws and treaty obligations seriously. The treaty would provide the basis for additional US domestic legislation that would incorporate the UN language and ideas into our laws. Private firm gun manufacturing and sales would be halted by the constant threat of lawsuits.
Again, these are the words of an actual diplomat, one who has served in Foggy Bottom, in many missions abroad, and actually in the United Nations itself. He speaks with the authority of the insider. And his conclusion?
While proponents claim that the UN Treaty would not infringe on the second amendment rights of Americans, that is a lie. The purpose of the treaty is to circumvent the second amendment by destroying the small arms industry and trade. It is an effort at a gun ban. They know that and we know that.“