Quantcast

«

»

Aug 28 2011

Really, Politico?

It’s bad enough that the Worldnutdaily gives Chuck Norris a weekly column, but Politico? Seriously? Yep. And it’s the same ignorant nonsense we’ve gotten used to already. This one is all about how Obama has a secret plot to get your guns.

It’s been said that guns have two enemies – rust and politicians. Rust never sleeps, and neither do those who would seek to restrict our constitutional rights. So let me tell you about a meeting you weren’t invited to, where those people were planning an attack on our rights that’s very much “under the radar.”

It happened in July at the United Nations headquarters in New York, at a meeting to draft of what they call the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.


Ooh, the U.N. too. The U.N. is coming to get your guns, probably using those famous markings on the backs of our road signs to find their way to your trailer park. Or maybe hitching a ride with all those Chinese troops that have forever been massing on the Mexican border, ready at a moment’s notice to take over the country. Or maybe even with those 100 million Muslims the Obama administration is planning to import before the 2012 election to make sure Obama wins. Isn’t right wing paranoia fun?

An Arms Trade Treaty doesn’t sound bad in concept — isn’t that what the U.N is for? The problem, however, is what U.N. diplomats consider to be “arms.” To you and me, the word means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing. But look no further than the U.N. plaza to see what the silk-stocking set considers “arms.” There you will find a bronze statue of a simple .38 revolver — with its barrel tied into a knot.

Yeah, those crazy people actually think guns are arms! Except that 90 percent of all civilian casualties in conflicts around the world are caused by small arms. The problem here isn’t individual gun ownership in the United States, it’s large-scale trafficking in guns overseas in areas where there is strife and conflict.

What’s ironic is that the United States already has the world’s preeminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty.

Wow, the sky must be bright on Planet Wingnuttia. The U.S. government and American companies sell 40% of all the world’s weapons — and that’s just the official sales from defense contractors, approved by the federal government. The illicit small arms trade, at which this UN treaty is aimed, is a booming business over which our government exercises little control, probably by choice.

More importantly, Norris doesn’t even seem to understand how treaties become law in this country.

For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.

The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year — just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.

Uh, Chuck. Presidents don’t ratify treaties, the Senate does. And by your own admission, the Senate isn’t going to ratify this one:

ifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

Nowhere in this article is any language from the draft treaty itself that indicates that it would have any effect at all on domestic gun ownership in the United States. But that’s the sort of substanceless paranoia we’ve gotten used to from the right.

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    BobApril

    Um…doesn’t the very title of the treaty indicate that this is no threat to domestic ownership of guns? If it is a UN measure, it is surely aimed at regulating international arms trade. I suspect the U.S. makes more than enough guns that could be sold within our own borders to keep even Chuck happily coated in gunpowder residue.
    Of course, the treaty could contain language that suggests or demands internal law changes – like that stupid anti-blasphemy resolution they were working on for awhile. But what are the odds that Norris and his handlers…er, advisers…actually read past the title?

  2. 2
    Francisco Bacopa

    Not what I expected from Politico. Maybe they wanted to get more hits on their “buy gold” ads.

  3. 3
    unbound

    Deja vu. Isn’t this something that was brought up (and debunked) a couple of years ago?

    Yep – http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-and-nras-lapierre-warn-insidiou

  4. 4
    jesse

    Something I always wondered about propaganda like this:

    Whenever I get into a discussion of gun ownership, I always detect a macho streak. That is, the whole, “I’m a badass” vibe. What do I mean? People always talk in terms of self-defense and going all Charles Bronson on someone.

    As to gun ownership being a guarantor of freedom, well then, Somalia should be the most democratic nation on earth if that were the case. So should Afghanistan. Hmmm….

    It’s like it’s a talisman or something.

  5. 5
    ManOutOfTime

    Chuck Norris is so crazy, bullshit makes him up.

    The only question in my mind is whether Chuck Norris: is literally a paid shill, a propagandist for the NRA and/or arms manufacturers; has a wink-wink relationship with those organizations and companies where he is rewarded with in-kind gifts and stroking, or; is a dupe and really and truly believes what he spouts, and is only parroting agitprop from the gun nut echo chamber.

    Let’s see. Professional actor. “Martial Arts” enthusiast and demonstrator, which is essentially a carnival thrill act, involving breaking balsa boards and fake cinder blocks.

    So my money is on paid shill.

    Your modern “Conservative” movement: if you seek its history, I believe the experts are James Randi and Ricky Jay. It’s not politics, it’s a grift. It’s too bad we don’t have a free press to expose it — they’d sell a lot of papers! But of course, they don’t make their money from circulation, they make it from ads bought by … whaddya know, Chuck Norris’s corporate overlords!

    Man, how do we get a piece of this action? ‘Cause this whole secular humanist rational jive is not making me one red cent!

  6. 6
    Phillip IV

    The problem, however, is what U.N. diplomats consider to be “arms.” To you and me, the word means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing.

    Ah, I see, so handgun aren’t “arms” by Mr. Norris’ definition. Naturally, that would leave them outside the scope of a UN Arms Trade Treaty – and likewise outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Not really a winning argument he’s making here – I guess that’s what a couple of kicks in the head from Bruce Lee can do to a man. ._.

  7. 7
    teawithbertrand

    Yeah, but Chuck Norris can kick you so hard with his beard that you’ll go back in time and…he’s a Fucking asshat.

    I guess he does need guns to defend himself. He sure as hell can’t do it with words.

  8. 8
    Ellie

    To quote comment #3 at Politico: “wow. i didn’t think politico was this low-rent.”

  9. 9
    Chris from Europe

    It’s time people realize how bad Politico is. I welcome their honesty.

    Isn’t it amazing how important it is for the NRA and people like Chuck Norris not just to defend legal handguns, but also illegal ones and their trafficking? Well, it makes sense if you want to be able to overthrow your government.

  10. 10
    ehmm

    I’m sure the SUPER CAPS LOCK chain email that Chuck used as his source is totally reliable on this one.

    A brief scan at the comments thread attached to the article suggests most of their readers aren’t having any of it.

  11. 11
    democommie

    “The only question in my mind is whether Chuck Norris: is literally a paid shill, a propagandist for the NRA and/or arms manufacturers; has a wink-wink relationship with those organizations and companies where he is rewarded with in-kind gifts and stroking, or; is a dupe and really and truly believes what he spouts, and is only parroting agitprop from the gun nut echo chamber.”

    The answer is, “Yes.”.

    It’s just too bad that Chuck and his fellow travesties couldn’t have gotten into pornos. I mean, killin’ a brazillion sperm or so a day ‘stead of havin’ to go all orgazmical with the M60.

  12. 12
    James B

    Remember how Obama was going to outlaw and confiscate all guns immediately after he was sworn into office? I quickly tried of that stupidity but didn’t want to let the subject go and have my very pro-gun friends forget about it and move on to the next major conspiracy. So I developed a surprising simple and profitable trick. I bet each of them $20.00 (US) that there wouldn’t be any anti-gun laws passed in Obama’s first term.

    This did a couple of things, whenever one would bring up nonsense like this instead of discussing it, I simply ask if I lost the bet yet. When they admit I hadn’t I tell them to talk to me when I have. It also got them to focus on what is actually happening with gun control, instead of bullshit like this. The best is that I will make an easy $120.00 in 2012.

  13. 13
    Dr X

    Why does Chuck Norris want to protect arms sales to Mexican narco-traffickers?

  14. 14
    Marcus Ranum

    People always talk in terms of self-defense and going all Charles Bronson on someone.

    Always Really? Overgeneralize much?

  15. 15
    DiscordianStooge

    For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control

    So secretive they have done nothing whatsoever to control guns. Sneaky bastards!

  16. 16
    feralboy12

    Again, Chuckles has failed to do his homework. As penance, he should be assigned to give a report on the League of Nations. Then we can let him go back to kicking people in the head.

  17. 17
    Artor

    Hey Chuck, play to your strengths. Intelligent policy analysis is not one of them. Try kicking the UN in the head; you’ll be more likely to achieve something trying that. The rest of us will sit back and watch.

  18. 18
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    Well, he certainly knows how to speak “gun nut” doesn’t he? Gun nuts(as opposed to regular people who happen to own guns) live in a fantasy world where they’re the hero and the only thing standing between the people they love and the worst threats the world has ever known. They’re ready, READY!, to go Death Wish on a roving band of multicultural thugs, or take to the hills Red Dawn-style when the Red Chinese invade. Crazy UN conspiracies are almost a masturbation fantasy for these chumps.

  19. 19
    Aquaria

    a dupe and really and truly believes what he spouts, and is only parroting agitprop from the gun nut echo chamber.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

    Norris is that stupid and crazy.

    Really.

  20. 20
    Bronze Dog

    I didn’t really think about the small arms trade until Lord of War put a bit of perspective on it. I don’t know how accurate the movie is, but it did make me look at some war-torn regions in a new light. I’d certainly like to see if we can make it harder to put weapons in the hands of the various groups struggling to be the next oppressive regime. Of course, restricting arms sales might also make things difficult for the current oppressive regimes.

    As for the Chuck Norris facts, I’ve been contemplating trying to spread some counter-Chuck Norris facts. Fair Warning: There’s a TV Tropes link in there.

    “In the time it takes Chuck Norris to perform one roundhouse kick, Bruce Lee could perform the Hokuto Hyakuretsu Ken. Twice.”

  21. 21
    ManOutOfTime

    @Bronze Dog – I like!

    Chuck Norris’s tears can cure cancer, which is a shame because Chuck Norris never cries – so The Rock will just have to bitchslap him until he does!

  22. 22
    Alareth

    Off topic but I wasn’t sure how to tip Ed off to the news:

    Court says state law used to ban recording of police officers in public is unconstitutional

    A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim “qualified immunity” because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

  23. 23
    Modusoperandi

    Chuck Norris? Was Ted Nugent busy?

  24. 24
    Pinky

    Chuck Norris is to thoughtful, informed commentary what porn is to sex education.

  25. 25
    dingojack

    To you and me, the word ['arms'] means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing.
    So Chunky thinks that the 2nd Amendment gives the people to bear tanks, fighter jets and missiles? Nice to know.
    Guess you won’t be too worried, Chunky, when that take you handguns away then, being they are unconstitutional and all. We all know how much Right-wing loons- uh, I mean patriots- just looove that thar constitution and would do anything (except read it) to defend it.
    Dingo

  26. 26
    jameshanley

    fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan.

    Leaving 42 senators possibly in support. Since it takes 67 to ratify a treaty, what’s Chuckie so worried about? Don’t tell me he’s really that bad at math, too.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site