Tuesday, December 18, 2012

More guns mean more guns?

Connecticut shootings conspiracy - Philadelphia Relationships | Examiner.com:

This video is one of the less extreme discussions on the subject which I've seen recently:

(I don't agree with much that is said, but it at least seems more balanced .. although not very balanced .. than most MSM discussions.)

The accompanying commentary, however, seems a bit over the top.   It's a Conspiracy Theory, and frankly it sounds .... to be kind ... stupid.

It's a Conspiracy Theory, and here's the Money Quote:

It is not a coincidence of circumstances of the tragedy as concerns the upcoming UN small arms treaty and gun control. Adam Lanza used legally registered weapons to perform a mass murder. Could this horrific event have been planned to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed?
The article is poorly written, and the premise is absurd.  It's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Conspiracy?  Who planned this?

In this country, the premier Conspiracy Theorist is The Federal Government of the United States of America.

The Feds did this?

Don't make me laugh!  (maniacal laughter)

The Feds .. especially the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) couldn't successfully engineer and keep secret a conspiracy.  Remember Watergate?

The Feds couldn't conspire a wet dream.   Remember Fellatio-Gate Lewensky?

I'm not saying that there are NOT people in this country who would like to United States to sign on to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty (UNSAT)

Oh, by the way?  UNSAT PASSEDAll nations signed it on September 20, 2012.  Apparently that includes the United States.

However, the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified the treaty.  That means, POTUS (Obama) directed his ambassador to the United Nations to sign the treaty.  But POTUS doesn't have the power to demand that it be ratified by the senate.

Apparently, this is the crisis point at which some folks think a conspiracy may have 'engineered' an 'event' to put the American people behind a drive which will do an end-run around the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

What if the treaty (this case, UNSAT) runs counter to the U.S. Constitution?    I've talked a little bit about this kind of contretemps before, and I just went back and revisited the "Treaty Clause"  (Article II of the Constitution) question here.

I'm not going to make any decision for myself at this point, because I'm not a constitutional scholar .. and neither is Wikipedia.  Just .. consider this an 'overview' presented for your consideration.

It's controversial, it's scary, and it's hard to get any idea about how America will jump vis a vis the UNSAT treaty.

The point of this discussion, however, is whether the Connecticut school shooting was engineered to sway public opinion toward adoption and acceptance of UNSAT.

I don't believe it.  One of the reasons, I don't believe it is that there have been enough Mass Murders in this country in the past 30 years that another one is just not necessary.

And THAT consideration is the reason I'm not going to get much sleep tonite.

In the word of John Lennon (perhaps slightly perverted here) ... I'm not the only one.

No comments: