6 comments

  1. Bill Elder says:

    The arms trade is far older than the UN. I doubt a congress of despots like the UN will stem the flow – particularly when the 3 primary sources of these military conflict arms sit on the UN security council (Russia,China,US). Canada has never been an agent of arms to military conflict so why are we even there?

    So let’s stop wading in illusion and face reality – this treaty represses lawful civilan sporting firearms use in free nations and cannot be signed by any free nation, and the despots who wrote it will be overthrown one way or another as military small arms will always find their way to revolutions via the 3 permanent UN security council members.

    Canada should show some self respect and back away from this farce and not even pay lip service to such deluded vacuity.

  2. Zaphod879 says:

    Just as the gun registry was suppose to stop violent crime in Canada but has not really made a dent. Legal gun owners aren’t the ones pulling crimes. And you can’t tell me that criminals are getting all their guns from stealing them from legal gun owners. If people knew on the storage requirements, etc. they would know how hard it would be to steal a gun. If the government would spend more money on finding the real source of these guns instead of wasting it on the registry they might get somewhere.

    As for the UN how do they think a gun registry is going to stop wars, etc. when most of these guns are again not obtained legally. How is a registry going to stop gunrunners. It’s not.

  3. TO Duffy says:

    The US State Dept. (Hillary) is going to sign this treaty. It will take effect immediately in the US pending ratification in the senate. An international treaty in US law can override even the constitution. This is Obamas back method of achieving gun control by overriding the 2nd amendment. He’s in fine company with other guntrol advocates such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Pol Pot among others.

    Of course the media seems to be missing in action in explaining the ramifications of this slick move. It will be slated to come before the senate after the election in a lame duck session where anything can happen.

  4. Jen says:

    This should please the ndp/lib/bloc and the greens a great deal.

    ‘It is time to leave the UN’

    Well Brian, not according to the opposition parties whenever canada experiences a problem or so said the NDP, they call on the UN to intefer in our governmental affairs and Canada.

    Obama and his bandits as I call them did not support canada to get a seat at the Security Council instead Portugal and another were supported.
    Well, the opposition parties blamed the CPC for the whole mess not their friend OBAMA.

    BTW, does Gerry Caplan the NDP who constantly appears on our paid for CBC supports Iran and no one said a word not a peep no outrage of any kind?

  5. Constantin says:

    What needs to be clearly understood is that, like too many of these international conventions, the proposed Arms Trade Treaty is a recitation of lofty and vaguely expressed liberal ideas. The devil is in the details of implementation. For example, member states are required to ensure that no guns are diverted from their intended recipients. Such a requirement appears quite inoffensive on its face, unless one stops to actually consider what is required to ensure such an obligation. How could this be achieved without a vastly expanded gun registry?
    On the one hand we are trying to curtail an exploding bureaucracy and we just got rid of a long gun registry that was imposed for all the wrong reasons in the first place. On the other we contemplate bringing it back but vastly expanded, allegedly to ensure that small arms are not used by poor people against poor people mostly on the African continent and in the Middle East. No Canadian guns are running amuck in Africa or Iran. For a liberal the abysmal and guaranteed failure of the end result is far outweighed by the lofty good intention accompanied by some small gain of government control over private ownership.
    Think drug control, the prohibition and all the examples of government control that never achieved their goals and never will. Why should we sign a treaty that nobody else will enforce other than to the detriment of their own populations? If so preoccupied with wiping Israel off the map, what is Iran’s new found leadership on this proposed treaty other than a self-serving means to control its own population along with a way to slowly bankrupt Western countries by ensuring the never ending growth of their bureaucracies?
    No international bureaucracy will be able to police what the member states themselves are unable or worse – unwilling to enforce. This simple truth was the foundation of President’s Bush response to this feel good liberal UN proposal. Let’s hope that we don’t confuse showing leadership and resolve at the UN with mindless adherence to any liberal feel good agenda that aims at a vast expansion of our government and vastly expanded international obligations.

  6. Dan says:

    Brian, thanks for keeping up the attention on this all too important subject.

Comments are closed.