* The following is a special guest blog post from a good friend of mine. I would like to preface this post by saying in no way do the following views or opinions reflect my own. In fact, me and him are pretty divergent in opinion *
It happened last year, though not many people paid it much mind. A non-binding resolution was voted on in the UN in April 2007. The UN, most notably Mary Robinson, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002, used the massacre at Virginia Tech to push this resolution through the General Assembly. The vote? 153-1 with 24 abstentions. The US was the only member nation to vote against it. Yes this WAS in the news last spring. What isn’t in the news this year the part of the resolution which “[A]sked the secretary-general to submit a report to the current General Assembly session which ends in September, and to establish a group of government experts to examine the feasibility of a treaty, based on the report, starting in 2008.”
“Ah”, but you say, “it puts restrictions on terrible terrible weapons like the AK-47.” “But, it will curtail the arms sales in Africa!” they shout. “The blood thirsty Americans care only for themselves,” are the accusations. Really? Then show me some hard, scientific and/or mathematical statistics that show limiting the legal sale of weapons lowers crime. In fact, how many of those arms dealers in Africa are legal in the first place, much less be part of the people to jump on the UN’s gun control bandwagon. I digress at this point. I am not writing another pro-gun/anti-gun control blog. No, that argument is old and if you believe in the science of mathematical probability and statistics the pro-gun factual evidence won this argument years ago.
Unfortunately I enjoy ALL my rights protected under the Bill of Rights, to include the Second Amendment. Rights that are “Self Evident” and “Inalienable”. Meaning that they aren’t granted, and they cannot be taken away by any power foreign or domestic. Yet we sit here and think that the UN knows better than us, or we think they’re idiots that have no effect on us. But just say, in a 1984-esque way, that the UN and the world masses united in this, and threatened us, put Blue Beret wearing troops on our soil. For no other reason than that we allow our citizens to own guns. What could you do? Go out right now, spend $250 and buy yourself a little snub nosed five shot .38 special. Why, you ask. Because the UN and it’s socialistic masses will see the sales of guns skyrocket. They will fear a society that is armed to the last person. That inadvertent threat of force by arming ourselves would give them pause. Are they willing to die for what they believe in. Are you?
Will it come to that? I seriously doubt it, but the paradox of violence: The threat of violence can prevent violence, holds true in this case.
Search on this resolution, for the internet gods know that my kartoo and googling skills are limited. Wonder, into the vastness of the internet, why there is no word of a report being prepared on turning this into a binding treaty. Is it important? The first, tiny, babystep we all take is physically insignificant. Yet we learn to run from that one step.
