"a scourge that fuels conflict worldwide"

That's how the LA Times (writing in today's Philadelphia Inquirer) describes what it calls "the illegal weapons trade" (code-language to describe what the gun grabbers want made illegal):

UNITED NATIONS - A two-week U.N. conference reviewing efforts to fight the illegal weapons trade has ended in failure, with nations too divided on too many contentious issues to agree on the best way to combat a scourge that fuels conflict worldwide.

After days of negotiations, delegates on Friday gave up their bid to agree on an "outcome document" meant to reflect their consensus on the most serious threats and the best way to fight the illegal trade in small arms, worth about $1 billion a year.

"It's a squandered opportunity," said Anthea Lawson, spokeswoman with the International Action Network on Small Arms. "It's preposterous, especially when there was so much will from so many countries to do something."

The conference was reviewing progress made toward achieving a 2001 program of action to curb the illicit sale of pistols, machine guns, and other light weapons.

The global small-arms trade is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal, according to the annual Small Arms Survey, an authoritative report on such weapons. The weapons cause 60 percent to 90 percent of deaths in conflicts yearly.

I think this is yet another editorial masquerading as a "story." Notice the typical code language: guns "fuels conflict". (And, of course, weapons "cause" deaths.) That's the same logic as saying guns cause crime. Never mind that in Rwanda so much of the genocide was perpetrated by Hutus armed with machetes that there's even a book about it titled "Machete Season." Is anyone at the UN complaining that machetes are "fuel"? Is anyone at the UN complaining about the fact that Rwandan gun control meant that only the government-backed Hutus had guns, while their Tutsi victims were legally disarmed and helpless?

Jeff Soyer takes a different view from the Inquirer and the LA Times:

Well then maybe, instead of trying to implement a world-wide government control of firearms, it should be left where it belongs -- to the discretion of each country. That way, if England wants to completely disarm their victim populace and grant criminals open season, go for it. And if the U.S. doesn't, bravo!

If rogue dictatorships want to slaughter innocents, maybe others could try arming the victims of such regimes and evening the playing field.

Precisely. Had the minority Tutsis been armed, I think the genocidal slaughter would have been rendered impossible.

Adolf Hitler (leading expert on slaughtering innocents if ever there was one) put it this way:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
While we're all appalled by idea of "subject races," it's a lesser known fact that gun control plays a major role in their creation and continued subjugation. The most regrettable chapter in U.S. history was slavery, which was based on the creation and perpetuation of a "subject race." American gun control began precisely as a means for white people to keep black slaves and former slaves subjugated. This despicable story has been amply documented by Clayton Cramer in "The Racist Roots of Gun Control," but it's not considered part of conventional history. Why might that be?

I hope there isn't a movement to reduce humanity to a collection of "subject races," as I prefer the idea of all men being created equal, and governments which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

posted by Eric on 07.09.06 at 11:54 AM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits