Kofi Annan has recently attempted to reassure those who might feel they have reason to be suspicous of his motives, and that of the UN, that the organizations attempts to instigate an international ban on weapons sales is not aimed at limiting or ending the right of various countries citizens to bear arms according to their ownnational laws. No, he insists, it is merely an attempt to rein in illegal weapons trafficking, to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and is aimed primarily at intrnational trafficking. Well, if that was all it is, I could agree to that-maybe. But, as usual, I want to read the fine print.
For one thing, just what constitutes a criminal in the eyes of the UN. If the US were to become a signatory to this treaty, would I be obliged to hand in my firearms, no longer allowed to purchase one or the ammunition for them, if I were convicted of, say, sptting on the sidewalk. Or jaywalking. Or any kind of traffic violation of varying degrees of seriousness.
This is not an attempt at humor, I ask this in all seriousness. Remember, the main reason that marijuana will probably never be legal in this coutnry is due to the fact that, back in the 1930’s, or thereabouts, the US signed various treaties which, for all I know, are still in effect, and are legally binding, at least technically so. The brainchild behind this was the man who went on to become the founding director of the DEA, which went on to become what is arguably the most corrupt government agency in
In other words, international treaties are legally binding, for a variety of reasons, having mainly to do with trade and other aspects of international relations, and have long term ramifications that are not easily reversed. That is why
