Will Obama sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

posted at 7:21 pm on July 20, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

The UN-sponsored Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is being negotiated and finalized this month.  Adding spice to the proceedings is the election of Iran – yes, Iran – to the 15-member governing body overseeing the treaty draft.  Who wouldn’t want Iran coming up with ways to control America’s trade in arms, after all?

Kim Holmes of the Heritage Foundation critiqued the extant draft of the treaty in the Washington Times on 11 July, pointing out, essentially, that its language will work to the advantage of whoever has the most popular cause in the UN.  Russia and China, for example, could justify all their arms sales under the category of national security, whereas the US could be charged with “keeping conflicts going” by selling arms to Taiwan or Israel (or Japan or the UK, for that matter).

She also makes the case that the mere existence of the treaty, even if the US Senate doesn’t ratify it, will provide a ready slate of off-the-shelf provisions for Congress to incorporate into US law.  Other commentators have pointed out that Obama could, in theory, sign the treaty and develop executive-agency enforcement procedures against the US arms industry and American gun-owners, which Congress would have difficulty preventing.

Executive “initiative” has been a common practice of the Obama administration, and in the case of the drilling moratorium, was adhered to in the face of court orders to cease and desist.  A great deal of the traditional strength of checks and balances has been undermined during the Obama administration.  It is sensible to be concerned about unilateral “enforcement” of the Arms Trade Treaty by the Obama executive.  Court challenges might well not be dealt with before the end of Obama’s term.

Heritage analyst Ted Bromund testified at the Arms Trade Treaty Conference on 11 July, making the following points:

Supporters of the ATT argue that we need it to raise national standards on the import, export, and transfer of arms. But if any nation wishes to raise its standards, it is free to do so now. The fact is that many U.N. member states have neither the desire nor the ability to raise their standards. A treaty will not compel or enable them to do so.

The U.N. Security Council has adopted embargoes against the shipment of arms to particular nations. It has called on all U.N. member states to eliminate the supply of arms to terrorists. These embargoes and resolutions are regularly violated.

The ATT’s proponents claim that this is why we need the ATT. But it is a fantasy to believe that a universal ATT, backed by nothing more than the words of the treaty itself, will succeed where the Security Council, backed by the authority of Chapter 7 [of the U.N. charter], has failed.

The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms. The reason for this is simple: The U.N. has never defined terrorism, because some member states insist that terrorist groups like Hamas are struggling against so-called foreign occupation.

A key point from both Bromund and Holmes is that the treaty will merely be an excuse for selective, politically motivated attacks on some member states (and possibly populations, such as US gun owners).  The treaty’s consequences will depend entirely on how it’s enforced, since none of its meanings or definitions is precise or ironclad.  Iran, for example, on being elected to her new dignities, promptly clarified (euphemistically, but intelligibly) that the Arms Trade Treaty should not restrain Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons.

This is an idiotic treaty: one which our enemies could use to claim – before the World Court, presumably – that the US is promoting violence and instability, but which will not be interpreted to restrict the kinds of weapons radical Iran can buy or sell.  Indeed, Iran’s position seems to be that the treaty should “urge member states to avoid resorting to any kind of aggressive measures against other member states,” which would be well outside the purpose or scope of this treaty, and suggests that separate political motives are the main thing going on with Iran’s participation in drafting it.

Maybe we can trust Russia and China not to sign up for this thing.  At any rate, as a practical matter for American life in the next six months, the question for us is what Obama will do.

I find it hard to predict.  Obama has gone so far from the mainstream of US politics in the last year that it’s hardly out of the question that he might sign the treaty at the end of the summer, and perhaps even implement enforcement measures of some kind in the US.  I doubt that such enforcement would include the “nightmare” gun-grabbing scenarios described at many websites; I think it would probably be limited to increased regulation of firearm manufacturers and vendors, at least for now.  But Obama has doubled down on a lot of things that most Americans would have considered unthinkable four years ago.  It’s not credible to insist that he wouldn’t take executive action unilaterally.

But it’s still a question.  Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.  The National Rifle Association is still one of the handful of groups that can seriously clobber the halls of government with a citizen outcry.  I’m not sure anything would galvanize voters as much as Obama signing the Arms Trade Treaty; not only could it determine Obama’s fate in November, but it could well affect the outcomes in Congressional and state races as well.

It’s an important question how well Obama understands the firestorm, and the reaction from other branches and levels of government, that he would stir up by signing the treaty.  The right to bear arms is one of the very few that citizens still generally interpret the same way, can locate in the US Constitution, and – whether they are for it or against it – understand to be a uniquely American guarantee.

I believe the meaning of our Second Amendment rights is more solidly understood by the populace than even our right to freedom of religion.  Only the freedoms of speech, press, and religion – and the right to remain silent – are as sacred and identifiable to most Americans as the right to bear arms.  I know Obama and his advisors move in a climate of urban-elite leftism, but it would be remarkable if they were so out of touch as to dismiss the electoral significance of appearing to override the Second Amendment.

The administration hasn’t even made a concerted public case for the treaty – an onslaught of soundbites and narratives – as it has with other plans for regulation like Obamacare, “net neutrality,” and environmental regulations.  Maybe it has felt that that would be impolitic.  If so, perhaps that excellent instinct for political self-preservation will induce Obama to shelve this one until after the election.

What say you, readers?

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.

Gun owners and other pro-2nd-amendment sorts weren’t going to be voting for Obama anyway. Unless his advisers and campaign staff are worried enough about the closeness of the election (in which case issues of voter enthusiasm and turnout become crucial), I doubt that would affect his judgement at all. And besides… regardless of how the election goes, he has more flexibility after it’s over… the outcome only determines whether he gets two months or four years.

Mr. Prodigy on July 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Well, I stayed here so long because I’ve been avoiding the CO shooting threads all day. (I mourn the victims and feel for their loved ones–it’s just not a topic I can comment on. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone…)

And, since the QOTD is on the topic also, I guess I’ll watch a little TV.

Later, y’all.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Molom Labe!

Maybe the Lyin kING has done us a great favor and it’s time to settle this thing, freedom or not freedom!

ConcealedKerry on July 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

MoloN arg!

ConcealedKerry on July 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Here is the text of the Vienna Convention:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I had no idea from reading you here at HA. You have risen so far above all of that. You deserve to be very proud. You are strong, very strong… in the best way.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I have a better idea: Leave the UN, kick them out of NYC and stop sending US dollars to them.

ButterflyDragon on July 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

If only…They would probably go under without the money they get from us.

Night Owl on July 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Here is the text of the Vienna Convention:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Thank you!

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM

It would be good to remember that no matter what the rhetoric, or more appropriately dissembling, the International Network on Small Arms is the 800 pound gorilla in moving this forward. You can see the results of IANSA’s effect on Australian gun ownership here and here and here.

eeyore on July 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

It would be signing a declaration of war.

tom daschle concerned on July 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Btw, KWR, I enjoy reading your posts.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM

The treaty to use low sulfur fuel in cold waters as in Alaska has not been passed, but guess what, the EPA is implementing it. Alaska is suing. So. IMO, Obama would have DHS start enforcing the small arms treaty ASAP, Senate approval or not.

Holder, during Clinton’s Admin, was caught keeping the firearms purchase FBI insta-check records (as was DE) against federal law. I can well imagine that is happening now and those who purchased firearms in the past 3 1/2 years is known by the government and they will be the first visited by government agents. If done, it will be done quietly, a few at a time to see how American’s react. I have friends who are mild mannered and who I am a bit shocked that they say they will fight the government if this happens. If Obama wants to start a revolution, doing this will cause it.

amr on July 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Strong like Allen West!

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM

No one things CO shooting will be used by Manchurian to explain why we need the treaty and his approval of it? I really don’t think CO shooting today and treaty signing in the next week or so are somehow “co-incidental” after the failure of Fast and Furious to reach its goal.

riddick on July 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM

μολὼν λαβέ

It’s Greek.

axshon on July 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM

riddick on July 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM

IMO, unlikely. But keep it on the back burner, pending future developments.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.

Gun owners and other pro-2nd-amendment sorts weren’t going to be voting for Obama anyway. Unless his advisers and campaign staff are worried enough about the closeness of the election (in which case issues of voter enthusiasm and turnout become crucial), I doubt that would affect his judgement at all. And besides… regardless of how the election goes, he has more flexibility after it’s over… the outcome only determines whether he gets two months or four years.

Mr. Prodigy on July 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Obama can do what he wants.

It’s the Senate that needs to be watched and the Senators know that they’d better be careful or the Tea Party may move on them as well.

However, when the voting is over, and the New Senate has not been sworn in, that is when the 2nd Amendment is in Danger.

jaydee_007 on July 20, 2012 at 9:24 PM

The UN can write up whatever treaty it wants, and Obama can sign it or stuff it full of choom, roll it, and smoke it for all the difference it makes. There is a higher authority. The right to defend yourself, your family, your property, and your freedom is a God given right. +100,000,000 is a pretty convincing veto on a junk UN treaty.

Just FYI… October 24 is UN day …

bitsy on July 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.”

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you ARE an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh- pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.”

“But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.”

But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worse act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.”

“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done, (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the University when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.”

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 9:45 PM

. All it takes is hillarys pen.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

“Hillary’s pen” doesn’t mean squat. When/if she signs the ATT – as the representative of the USA – all it means is that we (America) accept – in a general way! – the treaty as written.
Until it is signed by the president, it cannot be presented to the senate to be ratified by the senate. If there is no vote in the senate, the treaty is ‘dead’ until presented again. That can go on for decades. (Look at the Law of the Sea Treaty)
And NO treaty can supersede the Constitution! It can supersede federal laws and state laws — but no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution.

Solaratov on July 20, 2012 at 10:39 PM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Schadenfreude on July 20, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Of course he will and the Senate will cave – just to appear moderate.

Fuquay Steve on July 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Has no-one commented on the force and reach of the NRA?

Is no-one a member of the NRA?

Is no-one a student of history?

Do I have to school you all? Really…

CorporatePiggy on July 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I have 2 lines in the sand. This is the 1st one.

If our ‘Representative” government caves on this, that’s where the rubber will meet the road. Period.

You want to make me an outlaw? Then just go ahead. There will be no further debate or discussion on the matter.

Molon Labe.

Flyboy on July 21, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Has no-one commented on the force and reach of the NRA?

Is no-one a member of the NRA?

Is no-one a student of history?

Do I have to school you all? Really…

CorporatePiggy on July 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM

The National Recovery Administration?

sharrukin on July 21, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Will he sign it?

IS the Pope Catholic?

Is Eric Holder a racist?

Of *course* he will sign it. I bet he has the pen all ready and everything.

CrazyFool on July 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Anyone know if he could do this?

1. Hitlery signs off at the U.N.
2. Barack signs off at the White House
3. Harry Reid shelves it without a vote where it sits for the next five years (assuming Barack wins reelection)
4. Until voted in the Senate the treaty has the force of law
5. Result – the treaty is in force

Hard Right on July 21, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Why would Russia and China not sign. They have no intention of abiding by the international portions, but will be very careful to follow all within their countries…..and ours. Obama is an idiot.

pat on July 21, 2012 at 2:55 AM

4. Until voted in the Senate the treaty has the force of law
5. Result – the treaty is in force

I will not comply, so the result for me, is all the Washington DC bureaucrats can take their treaty and stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine. All this treaty crap is dependent on people rolling over and allowing the government to do whatever they want, They are counting on good law abiding citizens allowing the government thugs, to disarm the people. When the people stand up and say no more, who they going to get to force people to give up their guns? Local sheriffs? Anybody want that job?

The military? All the generals know they would be tried for treason, and hung out to dry. Maybe IRS agents, that should go over well breaking down doors and charging into homes knowing the people are armed, and have decided to stand. Anybody want that Job?

I would say Washington has a problem, the folks are awake and they are Pizzed and ready to put some hurt on Barry and his boys. Seems the smartest President ever, is lacking understanding, intelligence and courage. Maybe he isn’t quite as smart as the MSM wants us to believe.

stormridercx4 on July 21, 2012 at 3:24 AM

Sharrukin, that was a quote from ‘They Thought They Were Free,’ by Milton Mayer, wasn’t it?

chotii on July 21, 2012 at 3:28 AM

Sharrukin, that was a quote from ‘They Thought They Were Free,’ by Milton Mayer, wasn’t it?

chotii on July 21, 2012 at 3:28 AM

Yes. It seemed appropriate.

sharrukin on July 21, 2012 at 3:31 AM

Just an idea: Disassemble, get a PVC tube and fill it with nitrogen, cap it, and bury it deep with ammo.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

If it is time to bury them, it is time to use them.

quax1 on July 21, 2012 at 5:36 AM

Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.

Or just before the start of huntin’ season. No one has an answer to controlling what just happened in Aurora, but heavier regulations controlling guns doesn’t seem to be working, either. I really don’t want to see the govt meddling in our lives any more than they already do. A solution might be to revisit the laws regarding checking a person’s mental health.

Kissmygrits on July 21, 2012 at 7:40 AM

*snip*
The military? All the generals know they would be tried for treason, and hung out to dry. *snip*

stormridercx4 on July 21, 2012 at 3:24 AM

Have no faith in the generals, thanks to Clinton’s purges they are political lapdogs. These are the same people that are going fullbore with forcing troops to accept the Progressive plans. They have been promoted for pushing agendas that are directly harmful to our military’s ability to defend the US. The generals will not step on their masters’ toes.

Put more faith in the Captains, Sergeants, and troops having a good head on their shoulders and not caring about the ‘big picture’, but understanding right and wrong.

Nathan_OH on July 21, 2012 at 8:49 AM

For those of you who are Catholic, the Catholic church (at least St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Cath.Church wth orders from the Diocese of St. Augustine, FL) is pushing Catholics to go to the Pax Christi International website to support this campaign to push the ATT. I have been reading about PCI on the net, and it seems to be quite the liberal organization partly run by an American woman who was a bigwig in the Maryknoll mission of the Catholic Church. I am fast losing my belief in the true “purpose” of the Catholic Church. My daughter’s high school religion book (also Catholic) states that “Our membership in the family of God takes precedence over our allegiance to our country.” That has me questioning what I am supporting by being a member of the Catholic Church. God bless America.

shepswife3 on July 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I disagree that people “don’t do anything” and that A leads to B leads to C without response. Many Jews Fled Germany (Such as Einstein) and many prepared for war as best they could. Europe was taken by military force, the USA can not be done the same way. There is no American “Dunkirk” because we are all in the same Country.

Further, Civil war and close Urban conflict is an entirely different matter than the Pan-European conflict. The enemy lives amongst us and can be dealt with effectively and has no supply lines or safe zones. They are targets at Wal-Mart, at night at home or on the toilet.

However, I agree that the trigger is very important. For some, it would be the stealing of the elections. For others it would be a Treaty of guns (Which would be Treason, of Course). For others it would be the silencing of voices like Rush, even if they disagree with them the silencing would be enough.

But 1st Amendment or 2nd or Election cancelation, tactically the Government is screwed. The Bureaucracy live with us and finding them is a hacker away. Read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross.

It will be ugly but short.

Bulletchaser on July 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM

A great deal of the traditional strength of checks and balances has been undermined during the Obama administration.

Barry signs this treaty, then starts enforcing it via Executive Order, he’d better get his lawyers ready for THE IMPEACHMENT.

GarandFan on July 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Who would do the actual impeachment? The House may do the first part, the articles of impeachment, but the Senate would amend them to give him the throne. Look at how firmly they stuck up for their right to say when, or when not, they were in recess for those so-called recess appointments.

Kevin K. on July 21, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I may have not studied on this particular treaty and so, but am I to assume it passed the Senate on a two-thirds majority vote? It doesn’t matter how many times he signs this it wouldn’t be rule of law until then.

Then again he would jusr enforce it regardless. The administration seems to enjoy acting like a dictator nowadays.

eva3071 on July 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Eva, I do not think you are noting the cause for concern. yes, it is dead in the Senate BUT, this government is now governing increasingly by executive order. They write some rule based on the treaty for the ATF/DEA/FBI, Customs, ICE or Homeland Security (Good God, there is an endless list of armed agencies today)to enforce and so it is until some person has his rights under the Constitution stamped on or some federal police or citizens shot full of holes trying to enforce the scheme and he gets to court. Then we have all the delays our Justice system is so well known for and we still have the danger some political District Court will rule outside the law and constitution, as they so very often do…We could find ourselves living under the treaty even though the treaty is no legal or ratified.

JIMV on July 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

“Read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross”.

+100

Unintendend Consequences is the blue print for the next home game.

GaryC on July 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Jaydee 9:24 pm

As long as these scum know they can live their lives in peace and get a nice, cushy job after they screw us, they’ll continue to do so. They should be treated like Ben Nelson, who couldn’t go into restaurants because he was treated like trash after the Cornhusker Kickback. The difference is that they should be hounded until the day they die, even if it’s 50 years after they do their damage. No threats, no physical violence,nothing illegal, just pure enmity in public, treat them as if they have a scarlet ‘A’ on their chest, treat their public friends and business associates the same way, no forgiveness or (figurative) quarter. Do it right, and no employer will touch them with a 100 ft pole. That’s how you deal with these people. Americans of all stripes need to relearn that idiotic actions have consequences. We average people are learning that with BHO. The ‘ruling class’ needs to learn it at (a) the poll and (b) in the public part of their private life. Shame is a very powerful tool when used right and we should put it back in our tool box.

avgjo on July 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I believe the meaning of our Second Amendment rights is more solidly understood by the populace than even our right to freedom of religion.

After yesterday’s events in Aurora, Colorado, and seeing Twitter comments about it under the trending topic, “AR-15,” my impression is quite different. Ignorance about the 2nd Amendment there was stunning! Those who were aware of its existence seemed only to understand it as a right to own hunting weapons. For them, any capability beyond hunting for food should be banned. For many others, all weapons should be banned, regardless of purpose. I can only hope that that particular Twitter topic did not draw a representative sampling of Americans!

RRFCL on July 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I was impressed with the media’s constant reference to permits and registered guns, neither of which have anything to do with the Colorado situation or Colorado law.

JIMV on July 21, 2012 at 9:40 PM

If Obummer tries to enforce this all h*ll will break out. I’d be willing to bet money (and I’m not a betting person) that the governor of our southern state would call up the National Guard to stop enforcement of this.

Also, my husband is a retired army LTC and he still has contacts with some people on active duty. He doesn’t think most brigade level and lower officers and NCOs would execute an order to disarm their fellow citizens. I hope and pray that we never have to find out what would actually happen.

sherrimae on July 21, 2012 at 11:53 PM

After yesterday’s events in Aurora, Colorado, and seeing Twitter comments about it under the trending topic, “AR-15,” my impression is quite different. Ignorance about the 2nd Amendment there was stunning! Those who were aware of its existence seemed only to understand it as a right to own hunting weapons. For them, any capability beyond hunting for food should be banned. For many others, all weapons should be banned, regardless of purpose. I can only hope that that particular Twitter topic did not draw a representative sampling of Americans!

RRFCL on July 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM

You can thank the NRA for the Fudd mindset. They have been marketing their brand as the only ‘responsible’ gun ownership group for two generations, and they have primarily marketed it as ‘uncle Bob’s hunting gear’.

As of three years ago, when I went to get my NRA training cert, you could not use the term weapon when discussing a home defense scenario. You were to use correct term to describe what tool that was being used. Pistol, rifle, or shotgun.

Nathan_OH on July 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM

You can thank the NRA for the Fudd mindset. They have been marketing their brand as the only ‘responsible’ gun ownership group for two generations, and they have primarily marketed it as ‘uncle Bob’s hunting gear’.

As of three years ago, when I went to get my NRA training cert, you could not use the term weapon when discussing a home defense scenario. You were to use correct term to describe what tool that was being used. Pistol, rifle, or shotgun.

Thanks for that insight. That explains a lot. By that standard, not having taken NRA training for decades, I have been politically incorrect for many years, and as recently as yesterday. (But I don’t mind that.)

RRFCL on July 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

That has me questioning what I am supporting by being a member of the Catholic Church. God bless America.

shepswife3 on July 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I am a Catholic who knows what Christ said about God and Caesar. If anything coming from the Catholic Church now conflicts with that, screw the church and cleave to Christ. My membership in the church is neither hardened by nor shaken by the idiotic proclamations of weak and fragile men. No, not even the Pope.

swinia sutki on July 23, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2