Re: Patrick J. Buchanan's article A Nation Arms Itself—for What?
From: Dave Hook [Email him]
I have the greatest respect for Pat Buchanan. His information on gun ownership and the importance of being armed in deterring crime are consistent with Dr. John Lott’s. But there is a significant problem with the reasoning in the article—it won’t work out that way.
While preparing to vote without having the text of the treaty, the Senate finally refused to ratify it. Clinton signed the UN Biodiversity Treaty and implemented it through the Dept. of Interior and USDA Forest Service. Several years later Congress passed a law requiring all public land to be managed for biological diversity—a prime directive of the UN treaty. Administratively, the Wildlands Project is still being assembled—another prime directive of the UN treaty. The implementation has continued through three administrations.
Obama has already done much damage the same way. When he’s reelected (as he told Medvedev), the UN Small Arms Treaty will be signed by Obama and implemented by the DOJ and BATFE, and subsequently by most local authorities. What the Senate does won’t matter.
What matters more is the accelerating rate of crime in worsening times, especially urban types like flash mobs which will continue to proliferate into previously safe suburban and rural areas. Are the rates of violent crime really down as the feds say? I don’t believe it given how much disinformation is coming from DC and the Marxist state media. This scenario underscores the critical necessity of making Obama a one term president.
James Fulford writes: After Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson, I noted that for a change, the left was “attacking the First Amendment rather than the Second”. That is, in the wake of this mass shooting, they were calling for restrictions on speech, rather than guns.
And yes, the danger that Obama will refuse to obey the law as President is obvious, especially given the evidence of the Obama Administrative Amnesty