Well, with all the issues that the world has to face today, it appears that the United Nations is once again living up to its reputation of not actually being productive, and pursuing ideas that are simply not realistic. This week's Economist magazine reports in an article that the UN is now focusing on campaigns to rid member countries of their guns. As expected the National Rifle Association has a few things to say about this, and the push to do so in the United States.
For my part, I don't think this will happen in the United States. Let's look at what has to happen in order for that to occur. First, an anti-gun president will need to be elected (not very likely in today's America). Then, said president will need to sign a treaty that would enact this (which would be political suicide in today's America, so it's not very likely that they'd do it). Once that was done, there would have to be an anti-gun majority in the senate, which is extremely unlikely, and those people will have to vote to ratify said treaty (which, again, would be political suicide). Once that is done, a majority of anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court would have to rule that the treaty is constitutional (which isn't true, so it won't happen). In short, I'm not sure I see where the UN gets off trying to push its will on the United States. Then again, the UN is so ineffective at pretty much anything it tries that I really don't see this progressing very far. Just look at the dazzling successes that they've had in Africa...
Del.icio.us