The flat-out paranoia of the NRA and Wayne LaPierre
Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, gave me a call at home the other day. In the taped message, my friend Wayne warned me that unless I and other patriotic Americans stepped forward to stop it, the dastardly United Nations, with Iran, China, North Korea and other evil countries behind it, would soon come into our country and into our very homes, strip the Second Amendment out of the Constitution and “take away every pistol, and rifle and shotgun” that we owned.
Riiiggghhht. I just have one question though:
How is the UN going to accomplish this? Are they going to import little bulbous-headed men from Mars toting rayguns to take away our weapons? If so, I’m clinging to my copy of Slim Whitman singing “Indian Love Call” and you can’t have it until you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Nosireebob.
Look, I recognize that the boundary between serious and seriously crazy has shifted considerably in recent years. But doesn’t this kind of nonsense still qualify on the fully crazy side of the ledger?
The ostensible cause of LaPierre’s hysteria is something called the International Arms Trade Treaty. If ratified by the United Nations and then by the U.S. Senate, it would require countries exporting conventional arms to certify that the weapons aren’t being sent to a terrorist or organized crime group, such as Hezbollah, and that they aren’t being sent to a nation conducting genocide or to a nation under a U.N. arms embargo, such as Iran and North Korea.
It would have no effect whatsoever on domestic ownership, possession or purchase of firearms. Such a claim is politically, practically, legally and constitutionally absurd. So why is Wayne LaPierre calling me and others to pretend otherwise?
Money is part of the reason. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the world’s exports of conventional arms, and the U.S. arms industry is nervous about legislation that might curtail their right to sell arms to whomever they wish. Those manufacturers, not coincidentally, are also heavy donors to the NRA, which is trying to whip up hysteria on their behalf.
In addition, such hysteria is part of the NRA’s own strategy for raising money for its coffers. Once the LaPierre robo-rant about the UN finished, for example, an operator quickly came on line to ask me to donate money to the NRA. I politely declined.
Finally, it’s also a matter of increasingly delusional paranoia infecting the NRA. Prior to the ‘08 election, the gun group warned its members that Barack Obama had a secret 10-point plan to end gun ownership in this country.
Point One was a federal ban on the use of guns for home defense. Point Three was a ban on the sale, manufacture and possession of handguns. Point Four was the closure of 90 percent of American gunshops. Federal taxes on guns and ammunition were supposed to go up 500 percent, and the sale of ammunition for hunting rifles was supposed to be banned altogether.
As you may recall, that bit of hysteria touched off quite a spree of gun-buying after the election, boosting the profits of the NRA’s sponsors in the gun industry. In fact, as ammunition disappeared from store shelves, that itself was quickly cited as evidence that ammo confiscation was already underway. The NRA, in other words, played its own members for patsies.
Today, three years later, none of that has come to pass. Obama has made no effort whatsoever to alter the nation’s gun laws. So, given their hyperbolic claims, you might think that would make LaPierre and others a little embarrassed, right? It’s like when evangelist Harold Camping predicted that the world would end on May 21. When he woke up May 22, you just know he felt at least a wee bit sheepish about it, right?
Well, no. Camping did no such thing, because you see, Camping is crazy. Instead of apologizing, he announced that May 21 had merely been the day of spiritual judgment, and that God was really coming to destroy the universe on Oct. 21, 2011. And that’s exactly the course that LaPierre and the NRA are taking.
In a speech at a conservative conference in Florida this month, LaPierre explained that by taking no action to implement his alleged 10-point program, Obama had actually proved that the NRA had been right all along.
You see, “before the president was even sworn into office, they met and hatched a conspiracy of public deception to guarantee his re-election in 2012″ by just PRETENDING not to seize guns. The failure to act “is all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment.”
“We see the president’s strategy crystal clear. Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution….
President Obama and his cohorts — yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some of the liberal media are probably already blogging about it. But we don’t care because as far as we’re concerned, that lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!”
The fact that such people have considerable influence over our nation’s policies — for example, 45 senators have signed a letter condemning the arms trade treaty, including the two from Georgia — does not speak well of us.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
603 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
10:44 pm
“I
don’t
argue
with
children.”
Can’t say the same about those who can be bothered to argue with YOU though.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 27th, 2011
10:48 pm
Doggone,
And repetitive posting of a “la la la, I don’t hear you” childish response is evidence of an adult. 
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 27th, 2011
10:54 pm
Dang it…I have finally found actual evidence of one of those job-killing laws that needs to be repealed….. the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed by Republicans in the lame duck session that puts burden on the postal service that no other agency or company has requiring the USPS to fund pension obligations for the future 75 years in 10 years…even for employees who are NOT yet employed.
Repeal this job killing bill!
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
10:54 pm
Keep Up – Oh sure, EVERYone knows that!
Ed
September 27th, 2011
10:56 pm
Bookman you are in liberal la la land. You are wrong about the International Arms Treaty.
buck@gon
September 27th, 2011
10:56 pm
“but it is also a fact that once a building is beyond a certain weight, it can’t be brought down with controlled explosives. The tallest building to date was 47 stories tall. Most are much shorter (and less heavy) The weakening of the support beams at the lower floors, making it possible for the demo charges to work, would make a very tall building much too unstable to be controlled.”
GLL,
If you’re saying that it would be incredibly foolish–and yet still physically possible–to bring down the WTC center with explosives then I agree with you. I was amazed at the time that the thing didn’t fall more spectacularly sideways, but when I thought about it, the steel would first fail mostly in compression (just falling down), instead of tension that a sideways bending would cause on the up-side of the bend.
I know this is a rather weighty topic but I have found that buildings weighing nothing cannot fall regardless of the level of gravitational attraction between said building and the planetary body upon which it may or may be resting at the moment.
Taxpayer,
Ha! Good one!
Except for the Hindenburg. You could call that maybe a floating building that weighed nothing “regardless of gravitational attraction”.
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
10:56 pm
“Repeal this job killing bill”
You gotta figure out how to fit that on a T-shirt!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 27th, 2011
10:59 pm
A t-shirt? And here I was going for the bumper sticker.
buck@gon
September 27th, 2011
11:00 pm
Keep up @ 10:54,
Good stuff. I think you should write the Obama campaign. Now THERE’S some real analysis on a burning hot issue. Stop the presses everyone! I’m sure that theme will soon be sweeping the nation, and Obama and the Democrat will ride the postal pension repeal or whatever back into absolute power.
It’s a GREAT distraction from the Obamaconomy and the fact that 15% of the nation is unemployed and another 25% are underemployed, don’t you think?
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:01 pm
Well, I was watching the movie I posted @ 8:47 so I didn’t know that anyone had commented about the post.
This a great movie about 9/11 which I encourage everyone to watch regardless of your current beliefs about 9/11. It is a compendium of expert opinions of engineers, physicists, mathmeticians, etc.
The most important part of the movie, in my opinion, are the interviews with psychologists at the end of the movie as to why Americans continue to believe the “official” account of 9/11 even though scientific evidence is completely different.
In the movie, they make the point about “cognitive dissonance.” Cognitive dissonance occurs when your worldview is challenged and causes turmoil in one’s own mind.
The worldview that most people have is that our government is somehow this great benevolent force for good. Thus, when presented with evidence that our government is almost certainly complicit in the destruction of the WTC towers and Building 7, it creates cognitive dissonance, and, it is only natural to deny that evidence.
Watch the movie. Make up your own mind. Here is the link again.
Save it to your favorites/bookmarks and watch when you can.
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:03 pm
GLL: The two WTC towers were exploded from the top down.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 27th, 2011
11:04 pm
Well Buck repealing it will save jobs and that will help with the 18 months of continuous private sector job creation after the disaster from the Bush administration and the repeated failure of the Boehner job creation effort that seems to focus on anything but jobs….
Enact the Obama Jobs bill and we can start getting the country back to work
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
11:06 pm
“And here I was going for the bumper sticker”
If it fits a bumper sticket it’ll fit a T-shirt
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:09 pm
Sooth,
I just have two quick questions on your 9/11 conspiracy theory. Do you or do you not believe that planes actually flew into the 2 towers?
And if you do agree that the planes did in fact crash into the 2 towers do you then believe that at the exact millisecond that the planes crashed into the buildings that their were controlled explosions that occurred at the exact point and the exact millisecond that the 2 planes hit the buildings? If so then that would be quite a feat. And our visual evidence of course shows that there were no further explosions after the initial plane collisions. So please explain in 1 or 2 quick paragraphs what you think happened.
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:16 pm
“Enact the Obama Jobs bill and we can start getting the country back to work
Bless their hearts. They think another stimulus would actually work. They just never seem to learn. The definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Got some insane libruls on here we do.
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:16 pm
Thulsa, 1st question: yes I do believes that planes flew into the WTC towers. Whether there were people on board is another question. 2nd question: the explosions that brought down the WTC towers occurred about 1 hour after the initial impact. Watch this video: the > symbol at the top advances the videotape frame-by-frame. Watch carefully from 13:06:15 through 18:09:00. You can easily see the explosions below the main explosions. I don’t really care if you deny it or not. It doesn’t change the truth. Click the < symbol to watch in reverse. Do it over and over. Do you really think this building "collapsed?"
out of the blue
September 27th, 2011
11:19 pm
Gll You state …”Two jet Airliners filled with J-2, (a jet fuel very close to kerosene, but not exactly, Mr. engineer). were crashed into the buildings.
To Tell you the truth GLL, I’ve got more than 5,000 hours logged….my ticket which includes rotary types at well as an ATP, MEL,SES….In other words I have basically flown them all, and in that time I have never heard of J-2…..since the early nineties it was referred to as JP-8!
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:21 pm
Regardless of what anyone wants to argue to the contrary, the only way to melt steel is with a blast furnace. You cannot melt steel with a 30-second blast of jet fuel. It simply is not possible.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
11:23 pm
Except for the Hindenburg.
That was not brought down by a controlled explosion though.
Martin Williams
September 27th, 2011
11:28 pm
Jay, you crazy too for not hanging the phone on this fool. Ok to listen to the other side but when they are that stupid you save your breath/time. Believe this person was DRUNK……
kayaker 71
September 27th, 2011
11:29 pm
Just watched Part One and Two on You Tube of Steve Bridges impersonations of Bozo. Said that the WH was offended by his portrayal of our president. Then watched Bridges impersonations of Bush 43 and a roast at the WH Press Corp dinner in Washington DC. Bush spoke with Bridges and didn’t seem offended at all. Be sure and bring them up…. no matter what your political affiliation, they are really a hoot.
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:31 pm
Sooth,
The planes were full of people. That is not in dispute. Hundreds of people disappeared and the airport videos are chock full of video of these people in the airports. You simply cannot put together a conspiracy that involves the cooperation of hundreds of people. It can’t be done.
As for what I’ve seen on a history channel special the beams never melted. They weakened to the point that they could not support the weight above them but I’ve not seen anyone claiming that they melted. And also when the scrapers were built I seriously doubt they were built with the intention of having to withstand thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Thirdly, I’ll view the video you presented but the bottom line is that if there was a controlled explosion on floors above the floors that were hit then how in the hell did the windows on those floors not get blown out? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Like I said I will view the video but I’m certain that what you think you see has already been debunked. And also you are not taking into account the very fact that the video you are viewing could easily have been doctored to convince the conspiracy theorist crowd. Did that ever even occur to you?
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:32 pm
kayaker,
The annointed one is particularly thin skinned. I think we’ve all noticed that.
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:38 pm
Sooth,
I’ll take the word of popularmechanics which assembled a team of 70 scientists and experts who examined all the theories in particular your comments on melted steel and controlled explosions which was thoroughly debunked. I’ve been open minded enough not to laugh at you but to actually take you seriously and look at your evidence. Hopefully you will be open minded enough to take a very credible magazine like Popular Mechanics seriously.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:38 pm
Thulsa: I understand what you are feeling more than you can imagine. Please see my post @ 11:01 and the discussion about “cognitive dissonance.” Believe me, I know that what I’m asking you to believe is very upsetting to you and your worldview.
You, like me, and 99% of Americans believe that our government is a force for good and could never do anything like this to its own people.
When I first accepted the “truth,” I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I couldn’t sleep for weeks. I still don’t sleep very well.
But, the reality is that the truth is truth, whether we want to accept it or not. I challenge you to watch the movie in your spare time.
If, after watching that movie with an open mind, you still believe the way you do now, I will understand.
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:41 pm
sooth, the melted steel argument is hereby debunked.
Claim: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.”
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”
“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
“The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”
Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Debunking the Myths – World Trade Center – Popular Mechanics
bman
September 27th, 2011
11:43 pm
9/11 conspiracy chat, still? oh by the way, the planes that flew into the WTC 1 and 2 were pretty freaking big, and they were flying pretty freaking fast. Think they hit the steel beams when they ripped through the buildings? Think those explosions from the collision had much impact?
gee whizzzz
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:47 pm
Thulsa: believe me, I understand. I don’t blame people who cannot accept facts, especially when they don’t know what the facts are. I encourage you to watch the movie I posted @ 11:01. It’s 2 hours and 15 minutes long, but lays out the facts in a way that is undeniable.
Again, watch the movie in your spare time and if you still don’t believe, then no hard feelings, I’ll understand. OK?
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:49 pm
bman: the WTC towers were designed to withstand a 707 (the largest aircraft at the time) impact and remain standing (which they did).
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:51 pm
Sooth,
Just because there is a psychological phenomena such as cognitive dissonance doesn’t mean everyone is being fooled because they don’t want to believe it.
The psychological evidence of why people believe in conspiracy theories is far more interesting. Please read below.
Essentially, societal disempowerment increases the probability of belief. One could read this two ways. First, that disempowerment leads to coping mechanisms to protect one’s ego. You’re not poor and powerless because you are unintelligent, or are lazy, or some other simple explanation. It’s because the man is keeping you down. The system is against you. A perceived enemy at odds with you is easier to face than one’s own defects.
A second explanation – that the wealthy and elite are no more rational than the disempowered, but because of their status, they have no desire to rock the boat.
Leman then goes on to discuss an experiment to show how conspiracy theories find root in people’s imaginations, as well as possibly developing a third explanation for why people believe:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/why_do_people_believe_in_consp.php
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:55 pm
Sooth,
While we are talking about facts please at least have the respect for science to acknowledge that the bit about steel being melted has been easily debunked. As I clearly pointed out with scientific evidence the steel in the towers did not need to be melted as you claimed. They merely needed to be weakened. And as science proves the heat induced by the jet fuel on top of other flammables proves that the steel would have been significantly weakened. Please at least acknowledge this as scientific fact. We are talking science after all.
theyeshaveit
September 27th, 2011
11:57 pm
Happiness is a warm gun…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o
Soothsayer
September 27th, 2011
11:58 pm
Thulsa: I’m not sure I really follow your discussion. I am certainly not poor nor am I disempowered.
It’s really pointless to continue this discussion. I have posted 2 videos, neither of which you have watched I gather. The frame-by-frame video I posted @ 11:16 is all the “proof” that most people need.
Again, Thulsa, I don’t blame you for your denial. Believe me, I understand. Keep your belief system intact. The alternative is probably to painful for you to accept now.
With that, I am going to sign off. Goodnight.
Thulsa Doom
September 27th, 2011
11:58 pm
Did someone say something about a preformed worldview?
Leman goes on to describe problems with conspiracy theorists and confirmation bias (surprise surprise) and how they ignore anything that contradicts their theory and only latch on to evidence consistent with their pre-formed worldview.
Thulsa Doom
September 28th, 2011
12:04 am
Sooth,
Talking about denial? I think you are in complete denial of the facts. Your main point of contention was that steel can’t be melted by jet fuel therefore the towers couldn’t have been destroyed by the jet fuel. To which I politely provided scientific evidence that the steel need not be melted, only weakened. And of course all I hear from you is crickets chirping.
Also, not to be mean but I think this psychologist was speaking directly about you when and other conspiracy theorists when writing this article. Your psychosis and your inability to even acknowledge the scientific evidence I presented shows you to be inflexible and solely interested in evidence consistent with your preformed worldview of what happened in 9/11. Ironic isnt it?
Leman then goes on to discuss an experiment to show how conspiracy theories find root in people’s imaginations, as well as possibly developing a third explanation for why people believe:
So what kind of thought processes contribute to belief in conspiracy theories? A study I carried out in 2002 explored a way of thinking sometimes called “major event – major cause” reasoning. Essentially, people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something substantial, significant or wide-ranging.
I gave volunteers variations of a newspaper story describing an assassination attempt on a fictitious president. Those who were given the version where the president died were significantly more likely to attribute the event to a conspiracy than those who read the one where the president survived, even though all other aspects of the story were equivalent.
To appreciate why this form of reasoning is seductive, consider the alternative: major events having minor or mundane causes – for example, the assassination of a president by a single, possibly mentally unstable, gunman, or the death of a princess because of a drunk driver. This presents us with a rather chaotic and unpredictable relationship between cause and effect. Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; we prefer to imagine we live in a predictable, safe world, so in a strange way, some conspiracy theories offer us accounts of events that allow us to retain a sense of safety and predictability.
Another intriguing hypothesis. For the disempowered conspiracy theories might provide a more rational and predictable world, yet another coping-mechanism, but not based as much on personal failing as what he ascribes to anomie.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:06 am
“they ignore anything that contradicts their theory and only latch on to evidence consistent with their pre-formed worldview.”
Thulsa: this statement could be used to describe you as well. You completely refuse to entertain any theory other than you own.
I have read the Popular Mechanics article many times. I find that it is lacking in substance and mirrors the NIST findings.
Here’s my challenge to you: watch the 2 hour video I posted. That’s all I ask. That is if you’re not afraid of your opinion being changed.
Matti Git Yer Gun
September 28th, 2011
12:07 am
New conspiracy to ponder:
How come my Republican Congressman is always yammering about how regulations kill jobs, but today (in lieu of working) he grandstands at a press conference about wanting to pass a Constitutional Amendment regulating his own job because… wait for it… apparently he’s not capable of doing his job without adding another regulation onto it, which by the way, would take years and hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda to pass?
Could it be…. wait a minute…. could it be that HE’S REALLY A MARXIST? O.M.G.!!!
Discuss….
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:09 am
Soothsayer
There’s not an explosive charge in the world that will cleanly cut a 24″ I beam which is the basic building blocks of the WTC. Yes, there is plenty of explosives that would knock the WTC over, but controlled explosives are not nearly powerful enough to do that. They are designed to cut small sections of steel.
PLEASE, before you continue to waste this part of your life, do a little reasearch about the way buildings are brought down with explosives. The beams have to be first cut to a degree where the explosives will cut the remaining steel that is left.
Have you ever had a class in engineering statics? Physics is a close study, but statics applies the numbers to actual engineering. The beams are cut at an angle ABOVE 45 degrees so the downward vector pushes a huge amount of force on the small amount of steel that is left after the cut. The explosive charge is then planted IN the cut and when it is detonated, it kicks the steel just enough so that the downward force pushes the beam apart. The explosive does not just blow the beam into two pieces. THat’s why it is called a controlled explosive.
You can’t cut the beams at the base of a 120 story building and expect it to stand, fully loaded, with all the forces of wind and loading that it was designed to counter. .
I’ve tried to explain this to you before but you didn’t even come close to understanding it so I’m sure you won’t understand it now, but at least I tried.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:12 am
Soothsayer
“Thulsa: this statement could be used to describe you as well. You completely refuse to entertain any theory other than you own.”
Your theory has to include assumptions that are absolutely impossible. I’ve seen the movies that you list. Most people understand that they have been disproven.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:13 am
GLL: I answered this earlier. The WTC towers were exploded from the top down. Please see the video @ 11:16. I think I’ll “waste” the rest of my life trying to bring the “truth” about the events of 9/11 to light.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:15 am
GLL: you could not have seen the video I posted at 11:01, it has only just been released. I doubt very seriously if you have ever seen the video I posted at 11:16. If you have, I would be sincerely amazed.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:17 am
Soothsayer
I just watched the video that you posted at 11:16. There’s only one flash at frame 1:00:15. The buyilding was colapsing on burning floors so the pressure caused the fire to push outside the building.
And PLAESE look at buildings that are brought down with controlled explosives. They aren’t nearly as big as that flash.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:18 am
Look, Thulsa & GLL, I get it, OK? There is simply no way that your good and benevolent could possibly have done something as dastardly as 9/11. “Muslims” did it! Believe me, I understand. There are some people whose minds cannot be changed. Like I said, to accept otherwise is simply too painful.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:19 am
Soothsayer
From the top down? So are you saying that there were no explosives planted at the lower floors?
bman
September 28th, 2011
12:22 am
just wondering if the conspiracy crowd explains why the gov’t would want to wreck the WTC buildings and the pentagon, and the other plane that crashed and kill so many people?
Why would they do it?
Who in the gov’t did it?
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:23 am
Soothsayer
It has nothing to do with anyone defending anyone. it has to do with basic engineering, statics, dynamics, the nonsense that men got into the elevator shafts and cut the 24 inch steel I beams, planted explosives and then timed them to go off and bring down a 110 story building.
I know that you want to believe that only you know the truth, but it just isn’t true. The tensile strength of the steel beams were weakened by the contained fires and they gave way.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:24 am
“From the top down? So are you saying that there were no explosives planted at the lower floors?”
No, I’m saying that both WTC towers were brought down with explosives in a “contagion” fashion from the top down. With the explosions beginning on the top floors and continuing down to the ground.
Here’s a question for you: what happened to the floors above the initial flash you see in the video @ 11:16?
GLL: we can debate this forever, but you won’t believe me. Watch the 2 hour video I posted @ 11:01 and then we’ll talk. You won’t believe anything I say or post.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:24 am
bman
there are so many “whys” that conspiracy people will not address. Why would they bring down WTC 7 after the two towers were already down?
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:27 am
Why would they do it?
Who in the gov’t did it?
bman, I’m glad you asked that question.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:29 am
Soothsayer
It isn’t a matter of believeing you. I believe the engineering that I have taken. I believe my own eyes when I have produced TV pieces showing the controlled explosive demolision of buildings. I floowed the guys through the buildings with a camera to show them CUTTING the steel beams.
Even if the bnuilding is brought down by explosives starting at the top, the beams still need to be cut.
The fllors above the collapse and flash are clearly coming down as a large unit. Floor 110 clearly did not fall onto floor 109. The whole top section came down at one time.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:33 am
Soothsayer
Why did they bring down WTC 7, Sooth. Don’t point me to a video. Tell me.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:39 am
GLL: what you are describing is what took place in Building 7. The two WTC towers were a different matter altogether.
I want to invite you once again to watch the video I posted @ 11:01. Just so you can be sure in your own mind.
Forget about anything I have to say, OK?
bman
September 28th, 2011
12:39 am
GLL…..what’s wrong with you? Hans Gruber brought down #7
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:41 am
Soothsayer
One more thing since you have once again stopped responding.
The sarcastic video that you posted said that on September 10, the budget office in te Pentigon where the plane hit was working on some sort of investigation into Donald Rumsfilds lying about a trillion dollars missing.
So they are saying that the 9-11 attacks were designed, implimented and carried out in 24 hours to destroy an investigation in one office.
My god, man. You cannot believe that.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:42 am
Soothsayer
You posted the video a few days ago. I watched it. It’s nonsense. One day to plan the attacks? Do you really believe that?
ken
September 28th, 2011
12:43 am
How is the UN going to accomplish this? Answer: The elected morons that are in D.C.
Jefferson
September 28th, 2011
12:43 am
A constitutional amendment to regulate congress’s spending habits as abused by GOP regimes in the last 40 years, that is supported by the GOP, who blames government regulation as the problem with the government.
Really Matti, that so much an example of the mindset GOP and what oil they will sell.
Jefferson
September 28th, 2011
12:45 am
Uh, that should be about 30 years, not 40. I like the edit feature on the board.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:46 am
GLL: Larry Silverstein, who owned all three buildings collected $4.5 billion insurance proceeds on the those three buildings, which he had bought only a few months earlier. Immediately after purchasing those three buildings, he took out an insurance policy specifically covering airplane crashes. If you don’t believe me Google Larry Silverstein and insurance.
Before I leave you I want you take a good look at this photo. It’s from a 9/11 debunking website. This is the South tower. It was demolished in a completely different fashion, i.e., with concentric charges that race down the building. Look carefully at the top floors. They are already tilting away from the building and should continue crashing to the ground. What kept them from that? Do you recall reading about a 40 story section of the South Tower crashing to the ground? Think about it.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:51 am
Soothsayer
you’re kidding? Someone who bought sky scrapers took out insurance that included coverage of airplane crashes into the building? Say it ain’t so. I wonder if the fact that the buildings were in the landing paths of two of the most traveled airports in the world had anything to do with it?
and again . . . buildings over a specific wieght cannot be brought down by controlled explosives.
Soothsayer
September 28th, 2011
12:53 am
GLL: cling tightly to your beliefs. They will keep you safe from harm. Good night.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:55 am
Soothsayer
thulsa is Right. We present logic that blows away one conspiracy and you move to the next.
Please tell me how they brought down the WTC without first cutting the support beams. I really need to know how an explosive that can cut a 24 inch steel I beam would not have completely blown a horizontal blast that wouldn’t have been clearly seen. You showed one place where fire exited the structure and that was when the collapes went through the burning floors.
Good Little Liberal
September 28th, 2011
12:56 am
Soothsayer
That’s what I thought. Stop wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense.
Greg G.
September 28th, 2011
2:14 am
Jay, if you think that our government has not been looking for some way to actually do this then you are sadly mis-informed. If you look at the history behind this move, by the anti-gun movement, and read the fine print, then it is you that is gone crazy!
Patrick
September 28th, 2011
3:11 am
“Whenever I hear crazy leftist screeds, such as “republicans intend to take away your social security,” I just note the source and ignore it. Suggest the same to you, Jay.”
One of the leading GOP Presidential candidates called SS a ponzi scheme on national tv. Many leading conservative pundits have called it unconstitutional. More than once the gop has tried to privatize it. And for the past year all we have heard is “we have to cut it, to save it”, when there is NOTHING wrong with SS, it is in no way shape or form broken. But they “need” to cut it.
It isn’t a “crazy leftist screed”, it has been the main target of YOUR PARTY for the past 10 years.
fire eater
September 28th, 2011
3:32 am
The “paranoia” of the NRA and its members is a good thing. An NRA “prayer meeting” with then-Pres. Bush led to Congress’ allowed the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” to die a long-overdue death and now all states save Illinois have some form of concealed carry by citizens. A few still have “discretionary” permit systems, meaning that only celebrities and the politically connected get permits but the NRA is attacking that unfair system. NRA lobbying gives citizens the right to “stand your ground” against vicious criminals in civilized states and has gotten laws passed prohibiting corrupt big cities from passing gun restrictions.
NRA concern over a UN Treaty is absolutely prudent since by American law, any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes law – regardless of whether or not it conflicts with our own laws. Foundation-propelled busybody groups have long sought to bring European-style gun bans and free speech bans to the US.
Joel Edge
September 28th, 2011
5:36 am
“But doesn’t this kind of nonsense still qualify on the fully crazy side of the ledger?”
If someone had sent me a letter telling that the EPA was going to ban cheap asthma inhalers because of some treaty that was signed twenty years ago, I would have said, “That’s nuts.” Guess what, Jay.
Normal
September 28th, 2011
6:40 am
Kitty is NOT talkin’ about Wayne LaPierre….
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/09/27/funny-pictures-gud-newz-dad-is-ok/
Normal
September 28th, 2011
6:53 am
How do you say ‘bad shot’ in redneck?
Vegetarian.
—————————————–
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
Suddenly, an Islamic crazy with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Colt Model 1911 45 cal. automatic pistol, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat’s Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Republicans Answer:
BANG!
Redneck’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG ! Click….. (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: ‘Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?! ‘
Son: ‘Can I shoot the next one?!’
Wife: ‘You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist
——————–
The above were equal opportunity posts…
stands for decibels
September 28th, 2011
7:08 am
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
I shoot the guy in Karl Rove’s boiler room who wrote the original email.
seabeau
September 28th, 2011
7:12 am
Come on Jay,certainly you know that the largest arms dealer in the US is the US Government! Most all of the guns used by the Mexican cartels are US military issue sold or given as foreign aid to the Mexican Government and blackmarketed to the criminals. O yea, lets not forget all those guns bought and sold to the cartels by the ATF via Holder and Obama(The Fast and Furious tied nicely into the Democratic mantra that the Cartels were getting their guns fron the US)Hillery Clinton has been giving the UN all of her support ( and Obamas) to enact this very troubling aganda.
VladimirLenin'sCorpse
September 28th, 2011
7:19 am
Last.
Wayne LaPierre has a point. Guns tend to cause folks to make firm decisions at times, especially concerning their immediate survival when threatend by the proloteriet. This was a real impedence to the revolution, so we decided guns had to go. Just an FYI.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
September 28th, 2011
7:19 am
Normal, good one but Jay’s not going to like it. He must be sleeping in or your post would be in moderation.
stands for decibels
September 28th, 2011
7:22 am
He must be sleeping in or your post would be in moderation.
You mean like that last three or four times that stupid email forward was copy/pasted in here? I don’t think so, Del.
stands for decibels
September 28th, 2011
7:23 am
Hey, where are the fake Hitler quotes? you gun nuts are slipping.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
September 28th, 2011
7:24 am
stands, I’ve never seen it posted on here before but it is funny.
Granny Godzilla
September 28th, 2011
7:27 am
Anybody hungry?
Probably give a body gas though…..
stands for decibels
September 28th, 2011
7:32 am
toll road sheets, bitches.
GT
September 28th, 2011
7:38 am
For years much of the south was cut off from television. The big cities had it but out in the country, up in places like Young Harris or little towns in south Georgia all they could get was an evangelist preacher on radio and a grainy television picture that was not a fixation in every household. The south was a very under educated crowd and those that could read in the last century would read the Bible, which mixed into this evangelism they heard on the radio. God and fear became the same package. As we saw in the “Monkey Trail” even when education arrived it was not welcomed, the fear of being struck down by lighting for being too smart was real. Politicians, insurance salesman, business men from up north, worked this ignorance to a high pitch. Now, today, these uneducated people have too much information. It went from zero to one hundred in two seconds and people like FOX saw a market. No group of voters think more like sheep than this crowd and it took generations to create. It will take a long time to unravel. It creates huge pockets of poverty which recycles the disease for the next generation. If you want to fear something fear this. The brain is an organ just like the eyes and ears. Not using it makes you just as handicapped and the people that park in those spaces at the mall. The difference in the blind and deaf is they know they have a problem.
Adam
September 28th, 2011
7:54 am
You know Normal, if I was to take only the content of your post as an indicator of what political persuasion I am, I’d be Republican.
joe suggs
September 28th, 2011
8:00 am
With Obama the clown in office i would worry about the Constitution !!!
RAMZAD
September 28th, 2011
8:53 am
Just like 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened for the Republican Tea Party where fear, paranoia, propaganda, lies, hysteria, and disinformation could be used to get the frightened and bovine American population to bolt into the stables of hate, narcissism, military and political violence, and anti-Muslim fanaticism- it is the same way their NRA bed mates clipped on to the band wagon to tell each Americans that there will be no gun in his pot.
I love my Glock just like the next guy, but the NRA is like dish water coming out under the sink.
RAMZAD
September 28th, 2011
8:56 am
corrected to be “each American”
lynnie gal
September 28th, 2011
8:56 am
Whenever these fools are caught wrong in the middle of their bogus storyline they double down on it. The monied arms dealers are convinced that Americans are so stupid they will fall for anything. And they are right about one half of us. But the other half, the ones who still possess a brain, will call this out for what it is. Just a pack of right wing lies.
justin
September 28th, 2011
8:59 am
I’m just wondering, does anyone have a link to the actual treaty in question? Unlike people promoting the NRA’s decision without reading the actual document and decrying the U.N. I would like to read the document myself (not that i’m an expert) and make my own informed decision.
williebkind
September 28th, 2011
9:02 am
It has always been and always will be the progressive liberal agenda to do away with the second admt. This blog is a simple attempt to maintain that direction with the progressive liberal base. If it were not an issue, why this blog? The progressive liberals do not want me to have pistols, semi-auto rifles, large capacity magazines, and other items. The liberals demonize this as uncivil and unwarranted. So, if you believe in the constitution just tell the liberals they do not have the masses to bring down America.
Joe Mama
September 28th, 2011
9:06 am
Doom — “I dunno Joe. Recon has a point.”
What? Opening up with whining? I give what I get. If someone acts like a dick toward me, then I give dickishness back.
“Speaking of oblique insults in response. You went on a rant today about Dave R. who wasn’t even around and said some nasty things about him.”
I said nothing about Dave today. You are mistaken.
“You may not realize it but you have quite a habit of accusing others of not playing nice while being quite insulting yourself.”
Given your history of condescension and insults (e.g. ‘here, I’ll help you out’ and your ‘I’m a carrier and you’re a rowboat’ construction), I don’t particularly care what you have to say on this topic. You’re every bit as bad — if not worse — than you claim I am.
“And that wasn’t the first time you took shots at Dave R. when he wasn’t even around.”
And you’ve taken pot shots at me when I wasn’t around. You once claimed that I had complained about some of your posts that went into moderation, and Jay told you that not only had I not complained, but that the auto-censor had caught you.
I know you did it, because I found the topic (which was posted on a day when I wasn’t even here) interesting and I read the thread all the way through. Pot, kettle, black.
“You and him have gone at it numerous times and it seems to me that he always gets the better of you and hence your snipes at him when he’s not around.”
Dave doesn’t get the better of me, because Dave sometimes spouts off regarding topics on which he is uninformed (like NATO). I’m smart enough to keep my mouth shut if I don’t know much about a topic. Dave isn’t. (laughing)
“Recon just noticed something that many of us see. You have no problem calling out others for insulting behavior while conveniently ignoring your own”
As I told Recon, if he’s got a problem with how I’m treating him, then he can strap on a pair and tell me about it like a man. And that goes for you, too, Doom.
“and your rant on Dave today was typical.”
Didn’t rant on Dave today. You’re mistaken — which is typical. Shrug.
Michael
September 28th, 2011
9:34 am
I’m not convinced that Wayne is stable enough to be allowed to own a gun.
Lou
September 28th, 2011
9:37 am
hmmmmm; was in Caracas when guns were outlawed; last time I looked the average number of murders was 44 per week end which makes Kabul a lot safer place to be and most of the murders were by firearms which only criminals possess;actually have had to use a firearm in self defense to stay alive am glad we have the second amendment; just my 0.02
Lou
dwain holmes
September 28th, 2011
9:52 am
Say what You want Jay,they may be a little over the top but look at History.I am 72 years old and when I was 12 I ordered a gun from a trapping supply co. and it was delivered to me by the US Postal service.When they first came out with having to do all the paper work for guns people like You said no problem,what can it hurt.This was just the start of the slide to what We have today.I have researched this whole issue and the UN treaty is another first step,say what You want but if You care for the second amendment You better wake up.If it wasn’t for the NRA We would be like England and most other countries today.No I do not care for some of the things they do but I have been a life member for 32 years and proud of it.Some one remarked about the statement They are a bunch of jack booted thugs which was in my opinion a true statement if You look into the situations that it was in reference to.To people who didn’t know this statement sounded out of it.NRA should have toned it down because a majority of people do not pay attention to news unless they see an eye catching headline and then they don’t even read the article sometimes.
Robert Young
September 28th, 2011
10:03 am
I did not realize this was a Liberal site until I read the comments. I don’t care to read anything else from Mr.Bookman.
SamAdams1776
September 28th, 2011
10:05 am
Are you kidding? The UN arms treaty, like the UN itself (anti-US and anti-capitalist FROM it’s inception!) is a disgrace. And any treaty we ratify becomes the supreme law of the land (Article 7 US Constitution) and CAN nullify us law. We should listen to the warning of George Washington regarding foreign entanglements and as the bumper sticker says: “Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.”
We NEED to get back to the constitution and to LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers for the FEDERAL government and all non-enumerated powers SOLELY in the hands of the states or PEOPLE as REQUIRED under the 10th Amendment. There is NO EXCUSE for the USURPATION OF POWERS that has occurred and been tolerated hitherto.
SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters
Robert
September 28th, 2011
10:11 am
For those of you who think this is crazy, you’d better think again. The NRA may be political and a lot of other things, but the threat of losing our Second Amendment rights are real and dangerous. Whether the UN is a threat to that or not is beside the point. There are powerful forces alive in our government that want to ban all firearms and weapons of self-defense from the citizens of America. If not for the NRA and other organizations that fight this, left to their own devises, we will lose our right to bear arms. Just like the other freedoms that the leftist agenda is taking from us, we will end up a vassal state to the socialist forces that are so prevalent in our society today. Wake up America before it is to late.
rooster
September 28th, 2011
10:12 am
There are two groups in this country which promote absolutism based on misreadings of items in the Bill of Rights. The NRA intentionally misreads the Second Amendment, while the ACLU intentionally misreads the First. The result is often a rigid insistence upon positions that most people recognize as crazy or stupid. The Second Amendment confers a right to possess any sort of gun whatsoever; the First Amendment protects the public display of a crucifix in a jar of urine while forbidding prayers before ball games in little Texas towns. Horse hockey on both counts.
MaDeuce
September 28th, 2011
10:18 am
Wow, I just read an article written by a myopic moron, it made me feel dirty as if I was reading the smut section of some sleezy local rag – I guess this is what your dedicated fetish readers enjoy(bona petite). Suffice it to say, but have you read the UN resolution? I didn’t think so… Lets bypass the UN resolution for a quick second as it is painfully obvious you have a disdain for the NRA. Let’s talk about project gun walker, PrezBO’s and the current administrations interdiction to the drug war in Mexico. PrezBO & his crony’s sold arms direct to the Mexican drug cartels to inflate the number of firearms flowing to Mexico to impassion a call for more & stricter gun control on law abiding citizens here in the USA. Not necessarily part of the 10 point agenda you listed above, but it is part of a evil under handed agenda nonetheless. But Guess what ??? PrezBO’s little scam was exposed and now his chief dog washer (E.Holder) is on the hook and stonewalling to save face. But PrezBO’s fluffers & boot lickers like you will spout your venom to satisfy your lib-tard audience.
James A. Farmer
September 28th, 2011
10:20 am
It’s not paranoia! The United Nations continues to be and poses a subversive threat against
our constitutional republic. The “Get Us Out Of The UN” campaign at http://www.getusout.org
campaign of The John Birch Society (www.jbs.org) addresses this. So does JPFO, Inc. at
http://www.jpfo.org.
BambiB
September 28th, 2011
12:44 pm
Over 170 million people were killed by their own governments in the past century. The founders were prescient in their ratification of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the power to violently overthrow the government would remain in the hands of the People. But further, the small arms treaties seek to limit arms control to governments only – like those that murdered 170 million people. Forget Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China – take a modern-day example like Rwanda where the government doled out machine guns and mortars to Hutu gangs so they could go slaughter Tutsis. The usual practice was to surround the villages and round up the inhabitants. Those who tried to run away were shot. Those who didn’t were hacked to death with machetes. And yet, these are precisely the entities that will continue to receive arms under the proposed treaties – while those in the role of Tutsi victims (all 800,000+ of them) will be barred from obtaining arms for their own defense.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. One man’s government functionary is another man’s murdering thug.
While much of the NRA’s actions are indeed aimed at “scaring up” money, to say that Obama has not attempted any gun control would be to lie. The entire “Fast and Furious” operation, Project Castaway, and recent cases where BATF personnel trafficked guns to Chicago gang members were ALL efforts at gun control. Do you think the recent demand by BATF to record multiple purchases of semi-auto rifles in border states took place in a vacuum? No. First Obama had to lie about the percentage of guns used in Mexican crime. Then when the lie was unmasked, he had to try to inflate the numbers. The push for gun control requires a reason for gun control. In trafficking firearms expected to result in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexicans, Obama and his henchman Eric Holder sought to create a reason for gun control. Obama himself has reassured his anti-gun allies that he is working on gun control “under the radar”.
So, yes. The NRA is a money machine. Wayne LaPierre gets pay and perqs far beyond need or reason. The NRA hypes issues to stampede donations. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong about Obama’s gun control agenda.
Pookie
September 28th, 2011
2:19 pm
Has the author of this article or any of the rest of you not heard about the criminal conspiracy called “Fast and Furious.” The United States government under the ATF purchased firearms and illegally sold or gave them to criminals who transported them accross the border to Drug Dealers in Mexico. The ATF high command prevented their employees from arresting any of the criminals and told them to stand down allowing over 2000 firearms to be illegally transfered into Mexico. Two US agents were killed with weapons transferred to the drug dealers by this criminal conspiracy as well as 100s of Mexican citizens.
Our Government under Obama did this. Congressman Issa has attempted to supeona records from Obama and Holder to investigate this crime. The government is trying to prevent and obstruct the investigation. Obama and the WH agreed to this plan to use it as an excuse to introduce new anti-gun legislation “Under the Radar” as Obama said to Pelosi.
Obama is trying to do his best to get new anti-gun legislation passed. The Congress knows that the US People do not want any new anti-gun legislation and that it would be defeated if introduced at this time. That is why Obama and Holder cooked up this criminal conspiracy to get new “evidence” that would support the need for and help to make new anti-gun legislation possible. The White House (Obama) and the Justice Department (Holder) initiated the program and are trying to deny and obstruct the investigation into this criminal conspiracy.
Nobody was killed during the Watergate Conspiracy. It was the cover up that took Nixon down not the actual crime. Under Obama, we have multiple murderes and a criminal cover-up. Does anyone think that Obama had no knowledge of this operation? H. Clinton talked about it on her trip to Mexico early in the Obama tenure in office. Holder talked about gun control under the raddar like Obama. They knew and should be held accountable for their crimes. Obama should be IMPEACHED. NOW!!!!!!
BHirsh
September 28th, 2011
2:39 pm
“Can’t wait to hear the cool, calm, collected and Very Logical conservative response to this.”
Wait no longer, thrall.
The article covers the main talking points of the treaty, but does not point out that under its present language, private reloaders could be, under color of law, considered “ammunition manufacturers” and forced to get licenses mnerely to reload their own ammunition, and subject to all sorts of warrantless ATF intrusions. I’d say that that’s a foray into our national gun rightsm, no?
“It would have no effect whatsoever on domestic ownership, possession or purchase of firearms. Such a claim is politically, practically, legally and constitutionally absurd.”
This is an outright lie. The Supremecy Clause of the Constitution includes ratified treaties, which supercede anything in the Constitution in effect before their ratification.
If this were merely an export treaty, it would deal solely with exports. It does not, it goes much further.
Jay
September 28th, 2011
3:05 pm
The article covers the main talking points of the treaty, but does not point out that under its present language, private reloaders could be, under color of law, considered “ammunition manufacturers” and forced to get licenses mnerely to reload their own ammunition, and subject to all sorts of warrantless ATF intrusions. I’d say that that’s a foray into our national gun rightsm, no?
“It would have no effect whatsoever on domestic ownership, possession or purchase of firearms. Such a claim is politically, practically, legally and constitutionally absurd.”
This is an outright lie. The Supremecy Clause of the Constitution includes ratified treaties, which supercede anything in the Constitution in effect before their ratification.
If this were merely an export treaty, it would deal solely with exports. It does not, it goes much further.”
I’d call that a pack of lies, but since I suspect BHirsch believes them, that probably wouldn’t be appropriate. I will, however, call it a bunch of pre-fabricated nonsense. I don’t know which is more ridiculous, the claim about private reloaders or the notion that the “supremacy clause” means that new treaties would trump the Constitution. Nothing trumps the Constitution, and you can’t rewrite the Constitution by passing some treaty.
In addition, the draft preamble of the proposed treaty states explicitly:
“Acknowledging the right of all States to manufacture, import, export, transfer and retain conventional arms for self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations,
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory,”