Har! "Up in arms" like in "stockpiling arms." Very cute pun there Mr. thebaron. Otherwise this is great news. Like all conquerers, we have learned that the removal of citizen's weapons is the keystone to imperialism. As taught to us by ...
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 372
Our practice run during hurricane Katrina where two thirds of the police went AWOL, Egypt where all the cops split, "the absence of police at the vortex" of the L.A. riots,, hurricane Andrew where citizens had to resort on themselves for self defense, and former anti-gunner Egyptian Ozalp's statements about now officially being a gunnut proved to us that in the disaster we create, an unarmed populace will be easy pickens, while the armed body guards of pro FF politicians and progressive celebrities will rightly remain safe.
Gee can they keep dragging this out so that real RKBA issues can be ignored? Please?
One, the UN would actually have to come up with something.
Two, you'd ahve to have none of the entities with veto power veto it. Most of them make significant money form small arm trade. so....
Three, if that happened, we'd have to sign off on it. In case you haven't noticed, gun ownership is growing, it's picking a lot of folks up form the independent swing vote as well as more radical leftists, and elections are pretty much running on small margins for the presidency. It MIGHT get approved during a lame duck second term by Obama, but even that is dubious if the house or senate is actually in play.
Four, then the senate would have to sign off on it and go on record as violating the constitution. No, I'm not even talking about violation of the 2nd, I'm talking about granting foreign entities powers within our borders that they are not permitted to.
Five, then they would actually have to try to enforce it.
Six, then they would have to drag it to the supreme court who has established that the 2nd is indeed a right of individuals, and incorporated.
Seven, then they'd have to STILL try and enforce it in the face of that or repeal the 2nd within congress with a 2/3 majority.
Eight, I suspect before then New hampshire, Texas, and montanna would be whipping out their threats of secession in much greater detail.
Nine, those trying to enforce it would have to like being shot at. Because if they persist to this point, I think it will be pretty clear that the government has pretty much broken down and is trying to come up with excuses to shoot you the law abiding citizen.
Ten, those instructed to enforce this would have to prefer being shot at by citizens for the benefit of those giving them the orders while screwing over those enacting the orders. AT this point, I suspect you will see those giving the orders screwed over either because the enforcement officers don't feel like getting killed, or because if one is that morally bankrupt, why not get rid of the bosses while everything is in chaos and put yourselves in the bosses chair?
Yes, not telling the UN hell no up front like the last several administrations have should encourage you to not trust the democratic party one bit on what they say about RKBA. However, I wouldn't lose sleep over this.
thebaron
Yet another reason to disband the UN.