In 2010, GOP gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes drew avalanches of scorn for theorizing that the city of Denver’s bicycle sharing program, B-Cycle, was part of a conspiracy to turn Colorado into a “U.N. community.” “This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,” Maes said.
Today, the GOP’s 2010 U.S. Senate nominee in Colorado joins Maes in U.N. conspiracyland:
In the video above, 2010 GOP Senate nominee and Weld County DA Ken Buck declares his opposition to the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, a subject we’ve covered in this space a number of times. Each time we’ve brought it up, it’s been to point out the absurdity of this idea that Hillary Clinton and blue-helmeted stormtroopers are headed to–let’s use Greeley for today’s example–to confiscate the firearms of ordinary law-abiding American citizens. As if the United States, which already blows off the U.N. whenever we feel like it, is suddenly going to start confiscating firearms in defiance of the sacrosanct Second Amendment.
Folks, because Ken Buck is the highest-profile Coloradan yet to jump on the U.N. gun ban conspiracy bandwagon, we’re going to say it one more time: the U.N. Small Arms treaty is intended to regulate international trafficking in firearms. The U.S. representative to the treaty negotiations himself has said so repeatedly and unequivocally:
[W]e must acknowledge and respect that this negotiation is not an attempt to intrude, either in principle or process, into states’ internal activities, laws, or practices concerning the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms. Rather, this treaty will regulate only the international trade in arms. Any attempt to include provisions in the treaty that would interfere with each state’s sovereign control over the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms is clearly outside the scope of our mandate. [Pols emphasis]
Ambassador Donald A. Mahley, the U.S. representative assigned to arms control negotiations who wrote the above summary, is a 27-year U.S. Army veteran, who served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Threat Reduction and Export Control.
So…this guy is part of the conspiracy too? We’d love to see somebody ask Buck that.
We were a bit surprised to see such a strongly-worded opinion on this issue from Buck, who could be considered to have more credibility than, say, state Rep. J. Paul Brown–for whom the “U.N. gun ban” is a lead-off topic of conversation on the stump. Whether meant to provide political cover for people like Brown, or a sincere statement of belief in what seems to be a far fetched, self-debunking conspiracy theory, this is a sad day for Buck’s reputation…or whatever is left of “the reputation formerly enjoyed by Ken Buck.”
These people are freaking nuts. There is no way to explain a lack of understanding or thinking. I used to believe they were looking at an issue from a different angle than I. Now, they are not even on the same planet looking at anything we humans recognize.
They been chipped, not with a id chip; with a stupid moron chip. And for many, a racist chip.
It’s not the first time he’s had trouble grasping sophisticated legal concepts
Or more likely, he’s just gone Wack-a-doodle-doo
What Buck is obviously doing is providing cover for President Obama on the Operation Fast and Furious issue. The U.N. Small Arms treaty is intended to regulate international trafficking in firearms. By opposing the treaty, he is supporting Operation Fast and Furious. I think this will backfire on him in the Republican Party. Hard to believe he would undercut his own party and miss a chance to close a loophole that let AG Holder get away with so much. Alternatively, he is supporting those people who facilitate the flow of guns from the US to the Mexican drug cartels. What a confusing political season this is.
The more I hear this over the top, no-way no-how anti-gun control rhetoric, the more convinced I become that this is orchestrated talking points to protect the commercial gun manufacturing and sales industry, both domestically and on the international arms market. There is big money here, and anything to limit the free flow of arms gores that ox. I think Repub pols (and their allies the NRA) are fomenting hysteria about gun control among rank and file conservatives to protect the big money players in the background.
The NRA doesn’t so much represent the hunter or target shooter, it is there for the arms companies, foreign and domestic. But pikers compared to the military arms that this “peace loving” nation sells all over the world.
Do you really want the UN to control who the US can export arms to? I’ll bet there are liberals who would really support that, as treasonable an idea as that may be.
The UN might control our multi-billion dollar a year arms exports? Wow, another example of far right off the charts irrationality.
Our arms exporting is absolutely shameful. We, not Iran, are the true Merchants of Death. Not that Iran doesn’t do it’s own version of exporting violence.
leads to only one conclusion: the un-American President of the US is getting ready to give away the US sovereignty because he hates America. Keep up willya.
you have no clue what the treaty says.
Or you do and you are just misrepresenting what it says for a political purpose.
Oh that explains it.
Wow. What a sorry state your party has devolved into. No statesmen left, just angry, paranoid nuts and the party lackeys that do their bidding, too frightened to stand up to the crazy, so parroting it instead: AGENDA 21, UN BICYCLES! (Both ’causes’ championed by candidates from YOUR party BTW), OUR GUNS OUR GUNS OUR GUNS OUR GUNS OUR GUNS!!!!!
But there are many constitutional scholars who are against this treaty. Your first move is always to demonize. I hope you’re right because it’s better than the alternative, but the Soviets denounced their opponents as insane too.
So, hypothetically (since the treaty isn’t even written yet), what is unconstitutional about this treaty?
I find it fascinating when “constitutional scholars” come out with analysis of something that hasn’t been drafted yet.
denounced? The Nazis! Do I get double Godwin’s points for that?!
Could you name a few?
…waiting for those many constitutional scholars from AG. (He makes me embarrassed to have lived in Arapahoe County.)
Tick tock, tick tock. Where’s the Nock?
It’s 13 hours overnight, after all. Who knows – if we’re really lucky, he might actually compare what these constitutional scholars said about the treaty to the treaty’s text before responding.
Think about that for second, PR.
It could be quiet from AGOP on the treaty if he does, since there is no treaty text yet. 🙂
I was referring to the output of effort required to read same and think, when it does become reality.
If it is more complicated than your average comic book…nah. 🙂
liberals who support something you don’t have info on but describe as treasonous and you say there are unnamed constitutional scholars who you claim have a certain opinion of something you fail to describe using any sourced facts. No links. No quotes. You obviously have your credibility bar set for the lowest segment of fringe right morons.
Soviets!!!! Remember: Just because we all think ArapaBlahBlahBlah is insame, doesn’t mean he’s not.
Lenin! Stalin! Woodrow Wilson! Van Jones!!!!!!
Why is that?
You sound so certain that “constitional scholars” are against this treaty.
If these scholars (and you) are so Ill informed, perhaps you should send them the following link:
I tend to agree with Ravendawg, follow the money. The GOP seems to be very good at creating hysteria and fear among the ill-informed when it allows them to line their pockets.
ArapGOP, please name the scholars you’re referring to.
You are totally Dame Edna.
Buck wants to remain relevant for a run for attorney general in 2014 but in the Republican Party the only way to do that is openly endorse nonsensical positions like the one he takes in the video. I’ve known Buck for almost twenty years and he will do anything to promote himself but he has never had the judgment to gage how positions like this will damage him with the general electorate. This same blind spot showed up in the 2010 U.S. Senate race.
Would this treaty prevent Saudi Arabia from shipping arms into Syria to help the rebels?
an act of God/Allah that brings the mother of all storms and closes off Syria from the ROTW will stop that.
You are all, of course, aware that the shooting at the Aurora theater was an attempt by the FBI to ensure the US did not sign the Small Arms Treaty, right?
Russia and China oppose action in Syria, as they did in Libya, because they think the UN does not and should not have jurisdiction inside of a country. They firmly oppose UN action even if it is to avoid massacres.
Same with the Small Arms Treaty. Conservatives see it as starting internationally but that it will slide down the slope to sales internally.
So, with the usual twisted logic, Conservatives are on the side of Russia and China.