|Thursday, September 24, 2020
You are here: Home » North America » The American Gun Control Political Theater

The American Gun Control Political Theater 


The world uses around $1,000 billion annually on military spending. According to a U.S. Congressional Report dated August 2012, conventional arms transfers to developing nations, accounted for just over 79 percent of all U.S. arms transfer agreements between 2008 and 2010. By 2011, arms transfer agreements between the U.S. and developing nations increased to 83 percent. These are not good figures for a country that fancies itself as an opponent of violence. The total sales of arms by the U.S. to developing nations in 2011 amounted to over $71.5 billion. This value shows a significant increase when compared to 2010, when the U.S. sold around $32.7 billion in conventional arms.

Along with the United States, Russia is another country that favors from the sale of weapons to the rest of the world. Between 2008 and 2011, Russia made $31.1 billion in arms sales through the agreements the country signed with developing nations. Overall, in the same period cited above, both the U.S. and Russia made 69.5% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations, for a total value of $207.3 billion in current dollars. The Americans and the Russians are the top two countries that sell more arms to the rest of the world, and have occupied these positions for many years. The Americans and the Russians have profited from the sale of weapons to developing nations. They have profited from the manufacture of those weapons and from the murder they have caused.

Is there any reason for anyone to believe that the Americans and the Russians have any interest in signing an Arms Treaty that effectively limits or regulates their sales of weapons to developing nations or anyone else? There sure is not. Unless, the U.S., Russia, China and other countries that profit from death are exempted from the new rules and regulations imposed on the manufacture and sale of such weapons. Besides being a tool to confiscate individuals firearms, the United Nations Arms Treaty also accomplishes another goal: it centralizes the control over manufacturing and sale of weapons in the hands of its core members. Among them are of course, the United States, Russia and China, who opposed the U.N. Arms Treaty at first because it did not provided them enough liberty to continue selling their weapons to developing nations.

As it is now public, the three major players — U.S., Russia and China — ended up favoring the approval of the Arms Treaty, which had been initially proposed and supported by a group of small nations in their supposed attempt to end gun violence in their own countries and to put a limit to illegal sales of weapons around the world. One of the countries that participated in the creation and promotion of the U.N. Arms Treaty is Costa Rica, a country that does not even have an army, and whose government can’t even manage to build an interstate highway. Due to political inaction, Costa Rica has been used for many years as a passage way for weapons and drugs from the Southern to the Northern hemisphere and vice-versa.

It’s all political theater works in the U.S.

In the United States, the debate over gun control is a charade where some politicians pose as defenders of gun rights while others want to simply do away with the Second Amendment once and for all. The recent rejection by the U.S. Senate of a bill that, among other things, sought to create a gun registry to be managed by the Federal Government, fail to gain the support of enough Congressmen. The Senate rejected the enhancing of background checks on gun purchases with a vote of 54 in favor and 46 against the measure. Republicans supported by some Democrats voted to block legislation that would tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms, which caused an immediate outcry from the anti-Second Amendment groups.

U.S. President, Barack Obama, who has enacted more anti-American legislation than any other predecessor, called Republicans names while his aides emphasized that gun control would be implemented. “Background checks will happen,” he added, minutes after the vote. “This outcome is a delay, not a defeat,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. “I never saw a president fight so hard, a vice president, never on any issue… It shows us the cowardice of the Senate,” added Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

While Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it, — Reid did so only because it will enable him to bring the bill back into debate — GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted “yes.”

“As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools,” said NRA executive director Chris Cox.

Reactions from places outside Washington D.C. did not take too long to arrive. New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, perhaps the most influential person when it comes to violating people’s rights, mounted his own political theater, saying that the vote against gun control legislation was “a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington.” He added that the Senators who voted against the measure had given their backs to 90 percent of Americans who according to him support gun control. “The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t forget,” he added.

New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, also a supporter of gun control, strongly denounced the failure of the bills in the Senate: “The Senate’s failure to pass a bipartisan measure that is supported by the vast majority of American people is a sad statement on the power of extremists to stand in the way of reason and common sense. Background checks for firearm sales is a reasonable measure that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and help keep Americans safe from gun violence.”

Meanwhile, another supporter of gun control, Congresswoman Diane Feinstein, said she was truly concerned because the Senate had not supported the ban on manufacture, sale, and importation of military-style assault weapons.” Feinstein wrote legislation that sought to ban assault-weapons from being in the hands of civilians as she considers them to be tools that should only be in the hands of the military. Her bill was defeated by a margin of 60 to 40.

What do all these political clowns have in common?

They all seem to be keen about keeping gun violence to a minimum, so the fewest number of Americans get hurt by gun violence, or so they say. However, none of them calls for a full stop on the sale of conventional weapons, the same kind of weapons they want to ban in the United States, down to a hand gun, by the United States, Russia or China. Does this mean that these political prostitutes value American lives more than those in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria? Not likely.

As many of you may already know, the United States government is complicit in the murder of Americans as well. The U.S. transferred high caliber firearms to Mexican Drug Cartels, which ended up killing Mexicans and Americans. None of the alleged opponents of gun violence called for a full investigation of the gun running scheme known as Fast and Furious.

Are we supposed to believe that governments such as the American, Russian and Chinese are really concerned about gun violence when they deal conventional and non-conventional weapons across their borders and to developing nations? Are we supposed to believe that banning guns from the hands of law-abiding people will decrease gun violence or murder in a determined country or in the world as a whole, when the United States, Russia and China make billions of dollars a year form the sale of the weapons they are supposedly trying to ban? Are we supposed to believe these politicians, who publicly pose for photo-ops and who speak against gun violence to their supporters, while they authorize the sale of conventional and non-conventional weapons to the world?<

Please make sure you read the Conventional Arms Transfer document, and once you finish reading it, think again whether or not these politicians who greet supporters, hug victims of gun violence and speak against arms proliferation are truly honest, or if they are just attempting to secure their government seat in perpetuity to continue making backroom deals with the largest industrial weapons producers who lobby them and who finance their political campaigns every election, while they pose as saviors.

Many people like you read and support The Real Agenda News’ independent, journalism than ever before. Different from other news organisations, we keep our journalism accessible to all.

The Real Agenda News is independent. Our journalism is free from commercial, religious or political bias. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. Editorial independence is what makes our journalism different at a time when factual, honest reporting is lacking elsewhere.

In exchange for this, we simply ask that you read, like and share all articles. This support enables us to keep working as we do.

About the author: Luis Miranda

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 19 years and almost every form of news media. He attended Montclair State University's School of Broadcasting and also obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica. Luis speaks English, Spanish Portuguese and Italian.

Add a Comment