Kerry Signs UN Arms Treaty - Still Doesn't Matter

So, the ever so horrifying UN Arms Treaty (that every gun forum talks about like the boogie man), is indeed going to be signed. John Kerry, our injection molded Secretary of State, says he'll sign the controversial treaty. This of course led to a huge response from all manner of gun forums suggesting that the UN will be rolling tanks in any day now.

Returning to reality - Kerry signing the treaty doesn't mean anything. Really, nothing, not a thing. He can sign whatever he wants but if the congress doesn't ratify the treaty, then it doesn't matter; and the congress has already shown that they have no intention of ratifying it. So is this much ado about nothing?

Well, kinda'. The real question is why Kerry is signing a treaty that he knows has no chance of being ratified, and hence is totally meaningless. Is it for the sake of appearances? The democratic party desperately wants some kind of victory on gun control after the bashing they took trying to pass the AWB earlier in the year. Well, the treaty isn't any kind of victory since it won't do anything so that's probably not it.

So, if they know it's not going to be ratified, why sign it if it won't make them look good. Easy - they think it will make the political right look bad. Signing the treaty is their "oh look, we tried". It's a setup so they can claim that they were going to "end arms trafficking worldwide" and the "evil Republicans" stopped them.

It's fun when you get to see the propaganda forming while it's still in the pupa stage isn't it.  

Here's the best part, this won't help them at all. The general public doesn't care about this stuff in the least; so the only people who this would "impress" are their core constituents. What does that mean? It means that their base has lost interest, they're disenchanted with an administration that (thus far) has been an unmitigated failure.

To be fair, I can't say I blame them for losing interest. After all, the administrations signature legislation is either going to be gutted or repealed completely, their attempts to push gun control have been a joke, and their economic "stimulus" has largely been revealed as no more than a payoff to supporters (vis a vi Solyndra).

In summation:
Treaty is a carrot held in the faces of the liberal base in a vain attempt to encourage them - it does nothing, it means nothing, it will do nothing. Relax, take a breath, move on.

Christie vs. Paul: A Tail of Two Sucker Punches

So, Chris Christie decided that the "libertarian streak" in the Republican party is dangerous, and Rand Paul essentially replies "Oh yeah, well we never liked you anyway." Anyone else ever sit back and think "Wow, someone voted for these people!" 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Rand Paul fan, and I'm even less of a Chris Christie fan; but there's something sad about two grown men (who should at least be united by a common enemy) descending into fits of name calling for the sake of political theater. 

Paul does his "You're the establishment, so we're sticking it to you" bit and Christie does his "These whipper snappers are out of line" bit. Everyone stop already. Really. The two of you don't get along, news flash - nobody cares. There's a much more significant divide in the GOP, and that's the divide between the voters and the stuffed suits on the hill - and yes Paul that includes you. 

Rand, you need to understand that not everyone agrees with you (as so many libertarians seem to think). I don't want the government telling me what guns I can and can't own, but I don't think people should be able to own an RPG or a box of hand grenades - yes, I REALLY DO believe that the Second Amendment has limitations. I don't care if New Jersey takes aid after a hurricane, coordinating disaster efforts is part of what the federal government is for. I don't want people listening in on my phone calls, but I don't care if the NSA has a list of numbers I call, the local police already have one because my phone company has one. I don't think letting Iran get a nuke in the interest of "fairness" is a good idea - and yes, I think us "policing the world" is a better move than fighting the same enemies on our own soil.

As for disagreements with Christie, he's a Republican governor in a liberal state, he's a RINO to the core. Why would anyone be surprised that he's a big spender and an Obama fanboy? How is that news? 

To recap:
Establishment doesn't like new guys. 
New guys doesn't like establishment. 
Regular people don't really like either of them.  

In other words, it's business as usual. 

Start With the Basics

Q: What is this? 

A: This is Uncle Remmy's Blog. 

Q: Who's that? 
A: That's me. 

Q: Why are you "Uncle Remmy"? You're not my uncle.  
A: Probably not, but I am one kid's uncle. Anyway, why can't I be your uncle? Everyone needs an uncle to tell them the stuff that their dad is too embarrassed to say, and that's what I'm here for. 

Q: So who are you really? 
A: None of your business. The Remmy persona' is meant to separate what I'm doing and talking about here from my personal life. That's why any of my appearances on camera will be coupled with a mask. 

Q: Why do you keep talking about California? 
A: Because I live in California. Lots of the reviews and suggestions will be given from the perspective of someone who lives in a very anti-gun state, and hence needs to keep everything "on the down low". 

Q: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian? 
A: I'm a registered Republican with a Libertarian philosophy. Frankly I think everyone is a libertarian - they just don't know it. You tell people you're a libertarian and they think of Ron Paul; so they associate libertarians with crazy people. When you explain that "Libertarian" just means you want everyone to get out of everyone else's business, they all say "Ooh, I'm that!"

Q: What makes this different from other gear reviews? 
A: I'm reviewing primarily from the perspective of daily use and use in urban environments, where most of the reviewers are either reviewing from a "range use" perspective or a SHTF perspective. I want to talk about stuff you can actually use. 

Q: Why isn't all the gear you talk about "tacticool"?
A: Because not everything needs to be "tacticool" and more often than not, it doesn't help you. Example: Maxpedition is a great company and they make high quality "tacticool" bags and cases, but carry their stuff around and you may as well strap on a neon sign that says "I'm carrying a gun". Since we're reviewing for an urban landscape, not everything can be "tacticool" without attracting unwanted attention.