Reject the UN treaty
By Al Kuchinka
On Dec. 7, 2012, Reuters reported the United States backed a UN committee’s call to resume debate on a draft treaty to regulate international arms trade.
Talks collapsed the previous July over “sticky issues;” however, UN delegates and gun activists claimed it was because it would hurt the presidential campaign. Within hours of re-election, both sides agreed to resume discussion.
A prime UN objective is to disarm the general population of all countries and allow only government agents to possess firearms. According to Reuters, a United States official at the UN said, “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional right of our citizens to bear arms.”
If true, why resume negotiations? The UN will never abandon its goal. It is only the American people who could be beaten into submission.
Our Founding Fathers believed no foreign nation could occupy or conquer the United States: if we are to fail, it must be from within. And that is impossible as long as the right to keep and bear arms in not infringed.
The above occurred before the tragic and senseless killings in Newtown, Connecticut – otherwise known as the Sandy Hook Massacre. I fear for our God-given and Constitutional right to self-protection when it is abused to cause harm. The immediate response is always the same – limit the right of those who obey laws to own and bear firearms in an effort to reduce the occurrence of violence.
Ignore the fact that the perpetrators usually broke several already existing laws when they committed their horrific act. Seldom do naysayers advocate proper analysis to determine underlying causes.
I do not know why the perpetrator chose Sandy Hook Elementary as his target, but the fact that it was a gun-free zone probably influenced his decision. If you believe otherwise, why didn’t he — or any of the others — attack a police station? He was mentally impaired, but not that crazy!
Al Kuchinka is a local resident and columnist.
Commentscomments powered by Disqus
Local Gas Prices