Infobyte: Banning Guns is Like Banning War, It Doesn't Work!

Noble, even lofty ideas are all fine and dandy. Yet, the practicality of setting such things into motion, that’s another story entirely. Take as an example the Kellogg–Briand Pact of nineteen hundred and twenty-nine. Fresh off the heels of World War I many war-fatigued Nation-states came together to ban the act of war overnight.

In fact, the treaty is either partly or wholly to blame for how and why war crimes came about. War, in-and-of-itself, is the crime according to the agreement and so the victors of WWII used the Pact to prosecute their political foes after the fact. This, regardless of the small detail that they themselves were also engaged in "illegal warfare."

When you think of the above in relation to gun bans, one can conclude that even if they make all guns everywhere illegal via the dark magic of politicians, or modern-day sorcerers if you will, then people will continue to die from gunshot wounds. Only we won’t call them gunshot wounds, it will be more like; "Patient arrived with a KAW (kinetic action wound) to the chest."

Even the CIA had their lulz regarding the "propaganda" of outlawing warfare. A declassified and formerly TOP SECRET document from 1951 shows that the Soviets were pushing for a peace pact between France, China, Russia, the US, and the UK in 1949. The author of the paper referred to the impracticality of such an agreement pointing to the Kellogg-Briand Pact as a good example of a bad example, i.e., peace treaties and the like.

"It is clear, therefore, that the chief reason for the continued emphasis on a Five Power Peace Pact is the propaganda value of such a simplified concept. One need only recall the magic effect of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which convinced millions of people (including its authors) that war had been outlawed for all time, to realize that the Five Power Peace Pact idea provides an excellent psychological focal point around which to build the structure of an allegedly peaceful foreign policy." – CIA-RDP79S01060A000100090001-5.pdf (Page 9)

We can wrap up today’s Infobyte with a bit of double-think to contemplate. The screenshot for the video above, of the gun whose barrel is tied in a knot, is featured prominently outside of the United Nation’s headquarters. Yes, these are the folks who’d like to disarm the world. Perhaps the UN can lead by example and have their blue helmet wearing "peacekeepers" give up their weapons first. It only makes sense right?

Okay, I lied. I've got one more thing to say. Seeing as how war is illegal according to the U.S. and many other signators, this is probably why the United States no longer declares war. For if they did, any soldier with cold feet could choose to not war on account that it's an unlawful order.

That, I believe, is why they brought in all those colorful euphemisms like kinetic military actions, as well as military conflicts and the like. In fact, a case could probably be made that these euphemisms are just that -- and that orders to participate in wars by any other name are equally unlawful. However, the judges that soldiers have empowered with their enlistment signatures are hardly impartial, and likely war-ready men.