AP Slants a Second Amendment Story
Now I'm sure this is no big surprise to the two people reading this blog, but the Associated Press just couldn't quite bring themselves to report the USA citizens' response to the upcoming small arms conference without adding a slam on the NRA and slanting the report in favor of the reasonable, benevolent UN. When the left wing launches a mail protest with pre-printed post cards and downloadable letters for their advocates to sign, stamp, and mail, does the AP report that the recipients are "bombarded with form letters"? Not in my memory. But let freedom-loving citizens send letters to Kofi Anan and the conference chairman and that is precisely how it is characterized.
Now, to be fair, I'm sure many of the letters received to protest this conference are indeed just copied and printed. But even the AP has to admit that only "Many of the letters contained a form message" downloaded from the NRA's "Stop the UN Gun Ban" web site. Not "all," or even "most," but "many." Reading between the lines, it says that at least half the senders took the time to write their own letters or at least customize the text to include their own thoughts and passions.
After having done all it can to discount the writers and their messages, the AP proceeds to justify the conference as affecting only illegal firearms trade, not the individual ownership of such weapons by law abiding world citizens. This is the official position of the UN regarding the focus of this conference. Since that's what they say it's all about, shouldn't we just believe them?
If only it was that easy.
The UN has a history of supporting the rights of dictators and despots over those of the people they subjegate and slaughter. The NGOs it listens to and who become darlings of the global media follow the same path. Amnesty International is one of those NGOs. Given their stated human rights focus, you'd think they would certainly oppose such nonsense...and you would be wrong. According to them, providing citizens with the ability to defend themselves against genocide is a bad thing in that firearms may upset an "uncertain violent situation". Translated, it means that Amnesty International opposes arming citizens because doing so will make it more difficult to predict. I would think that's a good thing given that the current predicted outcome is a subjegated population.
Amnesty International also fully supports IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms, headed by Rebecca Peters. The UN give IANSA privileged access to meetings regarding gun control, even when other NGOs are excluded. And IANSA has repeatedly held that small arms are a problem no matter who owns them. Athough they avoid putting it in writing, their objective is to make private ownership of all small arms illegal, then collecting and destroying them. Rebecca Peters stated it most clearly in her debate with Wayne LaPierre.
So, if you combine the statement that the UN only wants to eliminate illegal gun sales with IANSA's objective that personal ownership of firearms be outlawed, it sure seems to me like our Second Amendment rights are under fire.
And, just in case you're still not convinced, the report from the last conference is posted on its own domain - disarmament.un.org. Hoisted with their own petard...
Now, to be fair, I'm sure many of the letters received to protest this conference are indeed just copied and printed. But even the AP has to admit that only "Many of the letters contained a form message" downloaded from the NRA's "Stop the UN Gun Ban" web site. Not "all," or even "most," but "many." Reading between the lines, it says that at least half the senders took the time to write their own letters or at least customize the text to include their own thoughts and passions.
After having done all it can to discount the writers and their messages, the AP proceeds to justify the conference as affecting only illegal firearms trade, not the individual ownership of such weapons by law abiding world citizens. This is the official position of the UN regarding the focus of this conference. Since that's what they say it's all about, shouldn't we just believe them?
If only it was that easy.
The UN has a history of supporting the rights of dictators and despots over those of the people they subjegate and slaughter. The NGOs it listens to and who become darlings of the global media follow the same path. Amnesty International is one of those NGOs. Given their stated human rights focus, you'd think they would certainly oppose such nonsense...and you would be wrong. According to them, providing citizens with the ability to defend themselves against genocide is a bad thing in that firearms may upset an "uncertain violent situation". Translated, it means that Amnesty International opposes arming citizens because doing so will make it more difficult to predict. I would think that's a good thing given that the current predicted outcome is a subjegated population.
Amnesty International also fully supports IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms, headed by Rebecca Peters. The UN give IANSA privileged access to meetings regarding gun control, even when other NGOs are excluded. And IANSA has repeatedly held that small arms are a problem no matter who owns them. Athough they avoid putting it in writing, their objective is to make private ownership of all small arms illegal, then collecting and destroying them. Rebecca Peters stated it most clearly in her debate with Wayne LaPierre.
So, if you combine the statement that the UN only wants to eliminate illegal gun sales with IANSA's objective that personal ownership of firearms be outlawed, it sure seems to me like our Second Amendment rights are under fire.
And, just in case you're still not convinced, the report from the last conference is posted on its own domain - disarmament.un.org. Hoisted with their own petard...
posted by NRAMark at 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home