When All You Have Is A Hammer…

Every so often on social media there will be a flurry of Memes claiming Congress is on the very brink of adopting one owner is United Nations resolution on firearms or another as the law of the land.

On the one hand, it’s never true, as such – at the moment, our Congress, like the Minnesota state legislature, is very lopsidedy controlled by proponents of the Second Amendment.

Which is not to say the United Nations isn’t up to some of their usual bureaucratic, impotent mischief.

Ted Bromund at Forbes attended an event at the UN with her name only and, well, UN bureaucrat could love: the Third U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. It is referred to throughout the article as RevCon Three of the PoA.

The whole article is worth reading, and I hope you do.

Because there’s always something to learn, especially for me – because while the flurry of photo Memes claiming the UN is on the brink of banning guns in the knighted states are always wrong, it’s not for lack of trying on the part of, well, the UN and American gun grabbers:

On Thursday, 17 nations, including Mexico, proposed including civilian possession in the PoA. Last Friday, we had a visit from Wear Orange, of Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg. They clearly see the PoA as relevant to domestic gun control. The best illustration of why came on Wednesday, when in a side event on domestic gun control laws an Australian representative stated that “every gun shop that disappeared was a point from which guns could no longer be diverted.” In other words, according to the gun controllers, the way to control the illicit arms trade is to make sure there are no legal places to buy guns, which will ensure that no legal guns exist to become illegal. The Australian representative went on to point out that the most important source of crime guns in Australia is thefts from legal gun owners. That sums up their point of view nicely: legal gun owners should be deprived of their right to buy a gun so that, when a thief invades their house, they will not have a gun that can be stolen. Also, they will be defenseless. The problem, by this way of thinking, is not the thief: it is the law-abiding gun owner, who should be punished accordingly.

In other words – well just about everything you read on social media is false, that doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily true.

I’ll have to work on that sends to help it make more sense.

3 thoughts on “When All You Have Is A Hammer…

  1. The proposal goes to far. You don’t need to disarm law-abiding citizens to reduce the crime rate. Simply change the definitions.

    There can be no murder if the intended victim commits suicide quickly enough. Change the definition of “murder” to “assisted suicide” and the murder rate drops to zero.

    There can be no robbery if the intended victim gives the thief the property quickly enough. Change the definition of “robbery” to “assisted giving” and the robbery rate drops to zero.

    After the crime rate falls to zero, why should Liberals care about my guns? There’s no murder or robbery so what’s the problem?

  2. The United Nations is kinda like the Minneapolis City Council, it focuses on everything other than its reason for existence.

  3. What this Australian fascist fails to mention is that, since the mandatory turn in of personal firearms was carried out, crime rates have actually increased. Murders are down, but other violent crimes are at or above pre-ban levels. Suicide rates by guns dropped, but not the overall numbers. People just found new ways to kill themselves.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.