On Sending Weapons to Syria

Michael Bane asks:

I’m a little puzzled why we’re going to give small arms to Al Qaeda in Syria without requiring universal background checks on each one of those so-called “rebels.” I mean, it’s for all those little Middle Eastern children, isn’t it? And is there gong to be a registry of the serial numbers of all those small arms so we can trace them back to the individual terrorist we gave the guns to when those guns are used against Americans — as they inevitably will be? And I’m concerned that those containers full of small arms being shipped Al Qaeda Syria may all feature magazines with a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds! And real assault weapons!

And here we’ve been told, again and again, by Obama’s supporters that small arms are useless in the face of a government armed with airplanes, tanks, artillery, and weapons of mass destruction. This is pretty good evidence that none of these people actually believe their own bull.

7 thoughts on “On Sending Weapons to Syria”

  1. Bane actually alludes to an interesting phenomenon. Well into the 1980s there were many scenarios where in regional conflicts, the leftists were armed with M-16s captured by the enemy in Vietnam, while “our” guys were armed with AKs captured by the Israelis in the Six Days and October Wars. There were cases where we supplied captured Russian weapons, acquired from the Israelis, in order to provide an appearance of a “communist insurgency.”

  2. Well surely you didn’t expect them to be truthful, did you?
    That wouldn’t suit their agenda!

  3. I attempted to start this meme in my office: “I support universal background checks for Syrian rebels.”

    One colleague told me that was in poor taste, and jokes weren’t appropriate given the seriousness of the situation. My response was along the line of “no shit Sherlock of course this is serious”, though among mixed company in a professional setting I was forced to tone it down somewhat…

  4. don’t forget the UN treaty and the one with Mexico about gun trafficking. I wonder how this fits in to that frame of reference.

  5. Isn’t this exactly the sort of scenario that the UN Small Arms Treaty was written for? Or was the posturing of the Democrats just a dog and pony show disguising a domestic gun grab? (The question is rhetorical, of course it was)

    I’m so happy that our President is willing to sign international treaties that would restrict our rights, while actively subverting the letter of that same treaty.

Comments are closed.