I don't think he was either. I think he was trying to make a point about a past behavior. The opening post link pointed to an opinion piece, rather than straight to the facts of the matter.
Making a point about past behavior is a part of it. The other part is that I want to know if FAL actually looked up the U.N. treaty. Also, it would be interesting to know what FAL was using for a source. Could be something legit, could be a conspiracy site.
However, in this case, I have to admit it was easy to take the information from the opinion piece and do a search to verify that such a treaty and such legislation exist.
It was easy--so why didn't FAL post his source? Yes, I looked it up. But it's one thing to look it up and it's another thing to read it and also know some background information. For example, the decision by the Obama admin to enter negotiations occurred in October 2009, over 2 1/2 years ago. Furthermore, the treaty covers
international sales of conventional weaponry and small arms. It would not affect gun ownership or sales within U.S. borders. Also, legal sales of sporting and hunting guns would be exempt in the U.N. treaty.
Even more, any U.N. treaty would have to be approved by 2/3 vote of the Senate. Finally, even if it were approved it would be subject to a legal challenge because there is Supreme Court precedent that the U.S. Constitution usurps any treaty with a foreign country (Reid vs. Covert, 1957)
So you see, FAL's post is all bluster and has no basis in reality. Yet he posts this crap unchallenged, and when challenged gives the equivalent of a playground taunt, "Nah, nah, nah..."
My personal preference is to look up the facts of the matter and posts links to the actual story, rather than someone's opinion of it.
Exactly. But that's too much to ask from FAL.
