Check it out. Rand Paul is trying to replace a treasonous oath to Grover Nordquist
with a treasonous oath for Senators to Rand Paul:
- to interfere with the efforts of other countries, who seek UN assistance with their own internal security,
- in order to "protect" gun-ownership in the US, which is NOT even threatened.
http://www.nagr.org/UN_RP_Survey2.aspx?pid=711A
I received this on FaceBook. INTERESTING that the person I received it from also raises hell about how we should not vote for Obama because of his use of drones. Hmmmmmm . . .
My reply:
Let me see if I have this right. "They" are going to take away guns here by preventing and controlling their spread in 3rd world countries, say, like Uganda, where children are kidnapped and forced into killing enemies of "Lord's Army" or Rwanda where hate-radio inspired genocide. So . . . so that gun-owners will not feel threatened, justified or not, about their gun-ownership, we should allow children to be turned into murdering addicts with guns and allow hate media to fill the rivers of 3rd-world countries with the rotting bodies of entire villages at the next opportunity.
What if the people of such countries WANT some help with weapons control from this UN treaty? Should the UN refuse to assist them in protecting themselves, so that our needlessly paranoid gun owners can have all the guns they want? Even though I yield a right to own whatever weapons you want, I can't believe this claim to the PRIVILEGE of deciding the fate of so many other people's lives in sovereign nations. Are these other countries not free to decide their own fate and elicit what co-operation they can find in doing that? Or are American gun owners and those who agree with them the only "free" persons who matter?
Perhaps someone should look up the definition of "sovereign nation".
= new reply since forum marked as read
