It's been my drift that IANSA's goal is to get the US to become a "treaty signatory," as opposed to having our own laws modified. The problem is then that there is no necessity for changing our laws --- the "treaty" can be abided by (the (in)appropriate officials with no legislative input. At least, that's the way all of the blah-blah was presented. I actually sat through the LaPierre/Peters Pseudo-Debate recordings. :banghead: :banghead:
:banghead: It makes for "interesting" viewing, provided on brings both paper bags: one for
, the other for Ms. Peters ...
Unfortunately, many of the folks who might have benefited from an ability to protect themselves also did not benefit from oriiginal ownership of defensive weapons. It has largely not been a case of "prying their weapons from their cold, dead fingers" --- since their fingers were, in many instances, not connected to the rest of them anymore, and there were no weapons available for their warm fingers to begin with.
I find it interesting that we, as a nation, owe so much to others who supplied us with tools to obtain freedom; and that we have done the same time and time again for others; yet there are people here who give even mild consideration to the maunderings of Soros, Peters, and the like.
Whatever thoughts/feelings there are about the current administration, one thing that warmed my heart was the Bush/Cheney/Bolton reaction to the UN proposition (so artfully scheduled for the July 4th week).
Perhaps the best option for IANSA is to issue an edict to us --- and then ... Molon Labe.
