US refuses to sign Arms Trade Treaty. . . . until after the election.

The U.N. has been trying to hammer out a treaty that would restrict (allegedly) imports of weapons from other countries, among other things. According to proponents, this wouldn't affect the U.S. too much, as if pricing Benelli, Beretta, Sig, HK, Glock, Stoeger, FN, Springfield XDs, ATI, Metro Arms, Taurus, Rock Island Armory and probably a few other brands out of the market isn't a big deal.

So today I read that the U.S. had refused to sign the treaty and thought, YAY! I wasn't expecting this from Secretary of State Clinton and the President who once supported a bill that would essentially ban all gun stores in the U.S.

Then I saw an Edit to Add link. http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/27/us_backs_away_from_supporting_global_arms_trade_treaty

The United States told delegates that it did not have "core" objections to the draft treaty under consideration, but that it needed more time, saying that while the U.N. negotiations have been playing out since July 2, they only received the final text in the past 24 hours.

In other words, they like the treaty, but if they signed it now they for sure wouldn't get re-elected, so they want to wait until their position is secure.

In other words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE 

In other words http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story.html 

 Buried on the last page of this Pro-Obama article from a Pro-Obama paper, is this glimmer of hope for the Pro-Obama reader.

Regarding a meeting between the President and Jim and Sarah Brady;

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

“He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.


This article is, of course from 2011, when the President was still saying he had absolutely no knowledge of the ATF smuggling guns into the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels in order to "get records into the system" to paraphrase.

This was also before Obama admitted to the world that he and Eric Holder had been having personal discussions regarding Fast and Furious by claiming Executive Privilege in order to obstruct a lawful Congressional investigation.

But I very, very clearly remember Obama saying during his campaign that he supports the second amendment.


The man is a liar who has been caught in his lies several times, and if he is willing to go to such great lengths, and put so many lives in danger over one issue that he personally believes in, what's to stop him from screwing around with a different 'minor' issue that you might feel strongly about?

For example, deportations of mexicans has increased by quite a bit under the Obama administrations, and yet he is now trying to buy mexican votes by implementing elements of the Dream Act. I think it's racist, or at least disrespectful to Mexicans to use them like poker chips just so that Obama can keep his great job for four more years.

My two bits on the colorado shooting

Having been a communication major, I notice the way things are phrased in news reports.

In a CNN opinion piece,  this guy made the claim that "And in a crowded setting, such as the movie theater clouded with tear gas and smoke, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the bad guy with a gun from the good guys with their guns."

This claim is tossed out as an automatic reaction, to discourage people from carrying guns for personal protection. While it may be accurate sometimes, the 'virtually impossible' line is misleading. Every situation is different, but most of time it's pretty easy to tell who the murderer is.

When someone says that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between good and bad, the implication is that it would be virtually impossible for the POLICE to distinguish, because the police will surely be arriving any second, and therefore you really don't need to carry a gun.

Of course in this case, the police showed up in time to grab the guy as he was getting into his car in the parking lot.

But as even more striking evidence that the line is at best a knee jerk reaction, and at worst a deliberate deception, see this video.

It is a video of a crowded business, where there are two men with guns. Do you think these patrons were confused about who was good or bad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t5f5AwkkiY





 In this case it was pretty easy, in some cases it might not be so easy to distinguish, but it's wrong to lie in order to discourage people from taking responsibility for themselves.