Every so often on social media there will be a flurry of Memes claiming Congress is on the very brink of adopting one owner is United Nations resolution on firearms or another as the law of the land.
On the one hand, it’s never true, as such – at the moment, our Congress, like the Minnesota state legislature, is very lopsidedy controlled by proponents of the Second Amendment.
Which is not to say the United Nations isn’t up to some of their usual bureaucratic, impotent mischief.
Ted Bromund at Forbes attended an event at the UN with her name only and, well, UN bureaucrat could love: the Third U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. It is referred to throughout the article as RevCon Three of the PoA.
Because there’s always something to learn, especially for me – because while the flurry of photo Memes claiming the UN is on the brink of banning guns in the knighted states are always wrong, it’s not for lack of trying on the part of, well, the UN and American gun grabbers:
On Thursday, 17 nations, including Mexico, proposed including civilian possession in the PoA. Last Friday, we had a visit from Wear Orange, of Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg. They clearly see the PoA as relevant to domestic gun control. The best illustration of why came on Wednesday, when in a side event on domestic gun control laws an Australian representative stated that “every gun shop that disappeared was a point from which guns could no longer be diverted.” In other words, according to the gun controllers, the way to control the illicit arms trade is to make sure there are no legal places to buy guns, which will ensure that no legal guns exist to become illegal. The Australian representative went on to point out that the most important source of crime guns in Australia is thefts from legal gun owners. That sums up their point of view nicely: legal gun owners should be deprived of their right to buy a gun so that, when a thief invades their house, they will not have a gun that can be stolen. Also, they will be defenseless. The problem, by this way of thinking, is not the thief: it is the law-abiding gun owner, who should be punished accordingly.
In other words – well just about everything you read on social media is false, that doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily true.
I’ll have to work on that sends to help it make more sense.
Donald Truimp proposes to separate children of legal immigrants from their parents for 25 hours a week for instruction in American values – including traditions like Christmas, Easter, and of course fluency in English. Spokespeople for the proposal say that if immigrants won’t willingly assimilate to American life, they – or at least their next generation – should be forced to assimilate.
The proposal would also hike sentences for crimes committed in immigrant neighborhoods, and impose potential prison terms on parents who send their kids on extended trips back to the home culture for de-assimilation.
The left is rolling out its big guns against this latest Trump atrocity.
Of course, it’s not Trump. It’s Denmark – “The Canada of Europe”.
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled.
And the Danes have hit the point where they realize Danish culiture is on the ropes:
For decades, integrating immigrants has posed a thorny challenge to the Danish model, intended to serve a small, homogeneous population. Leaders are focusing their ire on urban neighborhoods where immigrants, some of them placed there by the government, live in dense concentrations with high rates of unemployment and gang violence…By focusing heavily on the collective cost of supporting refugee and immigrant families, the Danish People’s Party has won many voters away from the center-left Social Democrats, who had long been seen as the defenders of the welfare state. With a general election approaching next year, the Social Democrat party has shifted to the right on immigration, saying tougher measures are necessary to protect the welfare state.
What’s interesting to me, as someone who’s spent decades watching the European welfare states evolve/devolve, is how in the months after Trump’s election, coastal “progressives” turned to Europe as the bulwark of their version of civilization.
But with Angela Merkel’s’ leadership on the rocks over immigration, Eastern Europe rebelling against the EU, and now the placid (but immensely stubborn) Danes changing course, I’m wondering if it isn’t pretty much the opposite.
Anyway – wonder if all the celebs soiling themselves over Obama’s immigration policies down on the border are going to turn their attention to this?