Two items much in the news these days are: 1) The rebels in Syria trying to bring down the dictator, Assad; 2) The U.N. Small Arms Control Treaty.
The Syrians rebels (we’re all pulling for them, right?) have been saying for months that they need more weapons, more ammo. They’re having to make their own grenades.
Meanwhile, President Obama is urging approval by the Senate of the Small Arms Control Treaty — a treaty that would make it all but impossible for freedom fighters like the Syrian rebels to get weapons.
The treaty would make all sales and transfers of small arms contingent upon approval of the governments involved. That is, the U.S. could not supply arms to Syrian rebels without the Syrian government’s approval.
Now, officially, the treaty is needed, we’re told, to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. I would hasten to point out, however, that genocidal governments have killed many times more people than terrorists and criminals combined — tens of millions.
Preventing genocide is the best reason not to approve the small arms treaty. Disarming the populace is a necessary precursor to genocide. Governments have a much harder time committing genocide when citizens can fight back. Why would we want to sign this treaty and make the world safe for genocidal governments? Connect the dots.
The small arms treaty is all about creating / preserving the monopoly on projection of power to benefit governments world-wide. It’s about letting governments prevent the very thing going on in Syria.
Our own government tells us we need tougher “gun control” laws to prevent crime but crime typically increases as “gun control” gets tougher. So, they’re lying.
And the countries pushing world-wide gun control in the form of this small arms treaty are lying too. It’s not about terrorists or cartels. It’s about preventing overthrow of repressive governments.