Comments on: Oh Nos a summit http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:55:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Billll http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/comment-page-1/#comment-143189 Billll Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:26:52 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/#comment-143189 “No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,” Does this prevent Glock from selling to the ATF? “No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,”

Does this prevent Glock from selling to the ATF?

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/comment-page-1/#comment-142631 SayUncle Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:17:48 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/#comment-142631 I know but the article said <em>The United States, the world’s largest supplier of small arms, was the only country that opposed the resolution.</em> Then said <em>Other major arms-manufacturing nations that oppose the treaty but did not participate in the voting include Russia, China, India and Pakistan.</em> I know but the article said The United States, the world’s largest supplier of small arms, was the only country that opposed the resolution. Then said Other major arms-manufacturing nations that oppose the treaty but did not participate in the voting include Russia, China, India and Pakistan.

]]> By: Sailorcurt http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/comment-page-1/#comment-142630 Sailorcurt Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:06:44 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/10/30/oh_nos_a_summit/#comment-142630 <i>Err, so the US was not the only country that opposed the resolution.</i> No one said that. What they said is that the US was the only nation that VOTED NO. This is a fact. There are other nations that opposed the measure, but they didn't vote no, they abstained. This is not a good sign, it says to me that they oppose the measure because it will adversely affect their arms manufacturing industries but that they agree in principle with restricting the transfer of arms. That's my take anyway. The US was the only nation that voted No and, thereby made a clear statement opposing the restriction of trade in small arms to law abiding citizens. <i>“No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,”</i> Sounds great, the only problem is that the UN "Special Rapporteur" assigned to evaluate the issue recently declared that self-defence is NOT a "human right" and that the exercise of self defence by individuals violates the "human rights" of the person (or "state actor") they defend against. Therefore, the trade of small arms for the purposes of self defence (or opposition to tyrannical government) may easily be defined as "weapons...[that] will be used for serious violations of human rights" It is no secret that the ultimate goal is to disarm civilians completely and utterly. The better to ensure the longevity of "state actors" like Robert Mugabe, Jim Jong Il and Kofi Anon. Another reason to make sure the Dems don't take control of our government. How long do you think President Hillary, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid would take to sign and ratify a treaty restricting gun rights? Err, so the US was not the only country that opposed the resolution.

No one said that. What they said is that the US was the only nation that VOTED NO. This is a fact. There are other nations that opposed the measure, but they didn’t vote no, they abstained. This is not a good sign, it says to me that they oppose the measure because it will adversely affect their arms manufacturing industries but that they agree in principle with restricting the transfer of arms. That’s my take anyway. The US was the only nation that voted No and, thereby made a clear statement opposing the restriction of trade in small arms to law abiding citizens.

“No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,”

Sounds great, the only problem is that the UN “Special Rapporteur” assigned to evaluate the issue recently declared that self-defence is NOT a “human right” and that the exercise of self defence by individuals violates the “human rights” of the person (or “state actor”) they defend against. Therefore, the trade of small arms for the purposes of self defence (or opposition to tyrannical government) may easily be defined as “weapons…[that] will be used for serious violations of human rights”

It is no secret that the ultimate goal is to disarm civilians completely and utterly. The better to ensure the longevity of “state actors” like Robert Mugabe, Jim Jong Il and Kofi Anon.

Another reason to make sure the Dems don’t take control of our government. How long do you think President Hillary, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid would take to sign and ratify a treaty restricting gun rights?

]]>