>>43
"But back here on planet earth, the conference will address best practices for combating the illicit trafficking of small arms by transnational criminal organizations."
'Illicit'? Illicit to whom? Some dictatorship, totalitarian state, or authoritarian regime? Many of the treaties that the U.N. had in mind, if implimented would have prevented the U.S. from arming resistance from the Nazis during WW2 in areas like France. Freedom fighters fighting Saddam Hussein, like the Kurds, or some dictator or despot could be called 'criminals.' Should we tighten up restrictions to keep freedom fighters, or as the U.N. calls them... 'criminals' from owning guns so they can fight for their freedom in some of the less fortunate and less free areas of the world?
Anyhow, aside from all this, Wayne isn't overblowing what is happening at the U.N. in regards to gun control schemes. Lets think for a minute - what is necessary for the U.N. to impliment gun control here?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but supposing one day the U.S. elects an internationalist anti-gun House of Representatives, Senate, and President, we could very well pass these international laws, and essentially shred the 2nd amendment.
Of course, the supreme court would rule whether or not it is constitutional, or unconstitutional, but if we had liberal presidents, and liberal appointees who had a bone to pick with the Bill of Rights, I'd like you to tell me what else is standing between us and the loss of our freedoms before the U.N.? As I see it, Wayne saying 'the wolf is at the door already' (not exact quote) is NOT an understatement. All we'd need is a big liberal victory for it to be unleashed.
I fail to see how he is overblowing this. This is a serious threat to the Bill of Rights, and if the american people fall asleep and let too many anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment politicians slide into the government, they could be face to face with a massive loss of freedom - one of the most crucial freedoms.