Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 威廉·哈通(William Hartung)档案
唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump),《 Gunrunner》(雇用)
NRA与全球平流层中的枪支行业
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

American weapons makers have dominated the global arms trade for decades. In any given year, they’ve accounted for somewhere between 三分之一 与以上 一半 the value of all international weapons sales. It’s hard to imagine things getting much worse — or better, if you happen to be an arms trader — but they could, and soon, if a new Trump 排除 on firearms exports goes through.

But let’s hold off a moment on that and assess just how bad it’s gotten before even worse hits the fan. Until recently, the Trump administration had focused its arms sales policies on the promotion of big-ticket items like fighter planes, tanks, and missile defense systems around the world. Trump himself has loudly touted U.S. weapons systems just about every time he’s had the chance, whether amid insults to allies at the recent 北约峰会 or at a chummy White House 会议 with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose brutal war in Yemen is fueled by U.S.-supplied arms.

A recent presidential export policy directive, in fact, specifically 指示 American diplomats to put special effort into promoting arms sales, effectively turning them into agents for the country’s largest weapons makers. As an analysis by the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy has noted, human rights and even national security concerns have taken a 后座 to creating domestic jobs via such arms sales. Evidence of this can be found in, for example, the ending of Obama administration arms sales suspensions to Nigeria, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The first of those had been imposed because of the way the Nigerian government 压抑 its own citizens; the second for Bahrain’s 残酷镇压 on the democracy movement there; and the last for Saudi Arabia’s commission of acts that one member of Congress has 说过 “look like war crimes” in its Yemeni intervention.

Fueling death and destruction, however, turns out not to be a particularly effective job creator. Such military spending actually generates significantly 更少的工作 per dollar than almost any other kind of investment. In addition, many of those jobs will actually be located overseas, thanks to production-sharing 交易 with weapons-purchasing countries like Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and other U.S. allies. To cite an example, one of the 目标 of Saudi Arabia’s economic reform plan — 亮相 in 2017 — is to ensure that, by 2030, half the value of the kingdom’s arms purchases will be produced in Saudi Arabia. U.S. firms have scrambled to comply, setting up affiliates in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and in the case of Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky unit, agreeing to begin 组装 military helicopters there. McClatchy news service summed up the situation in this 标题: “Trump’s Historic Arms Deal Is a Likely Jobs Creator — In Saudi Arabia.”

For most Americans, there should be serious questions about the economic benefits of overseas arms sales, but if you’re a weapons maker looking to pump up sales and profits, the Trump approach has already been a smashing success. According to the head of the Pentagon’s arms sales division, known euphemistically as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the Department of Defense has brokered 协议 for sales of major systems worth \$46 billion in the first six months of 2018, more than the \$41 billion in deals made during all of 2017.

And that, it seems, is just the beginning.

Slow Motion Weapons of Mass Destruction

Yes, those massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment. Global arms control advocates have 被称为 such small arms and light weaponry — rifles, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and handguns — “slow motion weapons of mass destruction” because they’re the weapons of choice in the majority of the 40 armed conflicts now underway around the world. They and they alone have been responsible for 将近一半 of the roughly 200,000 violent deaths by weapon that have been occurring annually both in and outside of official war zones.

And the Trump administration is now moving to make it far easier for U.S. gun makers to push such wares around the world. Consider it an irony, if you will, but in doing so, the president who has staked his reputation on rejecting everything that seems to him 污点 by Barack Obama is elaborating on a 普罗波萨 l originally developed in the Obama years.

The crucial element in the new plan: to move key decisions on whether or not to export guns and ammunition abroad from the State Department’s jurisdiction, where they would be vetted on both human rights and national security grounds, to the Commerce Department, whose primary mission is promoting national exports.

新的 暴力政策中心, a research and advocacy organization that seeks to limit gun deaths, has indicated that such a move would ease the way for more exports of a 长名单 of firearms. Those would include sniper rifles and AR-15s, the now-classic weapon in U.S. mass killings like the school shootings in Parkland, Florida, and Newtown, Connecticut. Under the new plan, the careful tracking of whose hands such gun exports could end up in will be yesterday’s news and, as a result, U.S. weapons are likely to become far more accessible to armed gangs, drug cartels, and terrorist operatives.

President Trump’s plan would even eliminate the requirement that Congress be notified in advance of major firearms deals, which would undoubtedly prove to be the arms loophole of all time. According to statistics gathered by the Security Assistance Monitor, which gathers comprehensive information on U.S. military and police aid programs, the State Department 批准 \662 万美元 worth of firearms exports to 15 countries in 2017. The elimination of Congressional notifications and the other proposed changes will mean that countries like Mexico, the Philippines, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various Central American nations, will have far easier access to a far wider range of U.S. firearms with far less Congressional oversight. And that, in turn, means that U.S.-supplied weapons will play even more crucial roles in vicious civil wars like the one in Yemen and are far more likely to make their way into the hands of local thugs, death squads, and drug cartels.

And mind you, it isn’t as if U.S. gun export policies were enlightened before the Trump era. They were already wreaking havoc in neighboring countries. According to a 报告 from the Center for American Progress, an astonishing 50,000 U.S. guns were recovered in criminal investigations in 15 Western Hemisphere nations between 2014 and 2016. That report goes on to note that 70% of the guns recovered from crimes in Mexico are of U.S. origin. The comparable 数字 for Central America are 49% for El Salvador, 46% for Honduras, and 29% for Guatemala.

While Donald Trump rails — — against a flood of criminals washing across the U.S.-Mexico border, he conveniently ignores this country’s export of violence in the other direction thanks to both legal and illegal transfers of guns to Mexico and Central America. The U.S. has, in short, already effectively weaponized both criminal networks and repressive security forces in those countries. In other words, it’s played a key role in the killing of significant numbers of innocent civilians there, ratcheting up the pressure on individuals, families, and 数万 of unaccompanied minors who have then headed for the United States looking for a safer, better life. Trump’s new proposal would potentially make this situation far worse and his “大,胖,美丽的墙” would have to grow larger still.

In the past, congressional awareness of foreign firearm deals has made a difference. In September 2017, under 压力 from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the Trump administration reversed itself and blocked a sale of 1,600 semiautomatic pistols to Turkey because of abuses by the personal security forces of that country’s president, Recep Erdogan. (Those included what the “纽约时报” 描述 as “brutal attacks” on U.S. citizens during Erdogan’s May 2017 trip to Washington, D.C.) Similarly, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) persuaded the Obama administration to halt a deal that would have sent 26,000 assault rifles to the Philippines, where security forces and private death squads, egged on by President Rodrigo Duterte, were 开枪 thousands of people suspected of (but not charged with or convicted of) drug trafficking. As “华盛顿邮报” columnist Josh Rogin has 注意到, under the new Trump rules, it will be nearly impossible for members of Congress to intervene in such a fashion to stop similar deals in the future.

On the implications of the deregulation of firearms exports, Cardin has 说出来 strongly. “The United States,” he said, “should never make it easier for foreign despots to slaughter their civilians or for American-made assault weapons to be readily available to paramilitary or terrorist groups… The administration’s proposal makes those scenarios even more possible. The United States is, and should be, better than this.”

The Trump plan is, however, good news for hire-a-gun successors to Blackwater, the defunct private contractor whose personnel 杀害 17 civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in a notorious 2007 incident. Such firms would be able to 培养 foreign military forces in the use of firearms without seeking licenses from the State Department, allowing them to operate in places like Libya that might otherwise have been off-limits.

Embracing the Gun Lobby

Not surprisingly, Trump’s proposal to make it easier for global gunrunners to operate from U.S. soil has been greeted with jubilation by the National Rifle Association and U.S.-based firearms manufacturers. The NRA has been a 坚定的对手 of efforts to place any kind of controls on the global trade in guns since at least the mid-1990s. That was when the United Nations first addressed the impact of the global trade in small arms and light weapons, which ultimately led to the passage of an international 武器贸易条约 in 2014. Though the Obama administration signed it, the Senate refused to ratify it, in large part thanks to an NRA lobbying campaign.

Now, the NRA has an enthusiastic ally in the president. And that organization, which vigorously backed him in the 2016 election campaign, 花费 over \$30 million on ads praising him or trashing Hillary Clinton, is backing his efforts to deregulate gun exports to the hilt. In a June 2018 邮件 from its Institute for Legislative Affairs, the NRA urged its supporters to weigh in favorably during the public-comment period on the new rules, describing them as “among the most important pro-gun initiatives by the Trump administration to date.” That’s no small claim, given the president’s enthusiastic 拥抱 of virtually every element of the NRA’s anti-gun-control agenda.

The National Sports Shooting Federation (NSSF), the misleadingly named trade association for U.S. gun manufacturers, is also backing Trump’s efforts to boost firearms exports. The federation’s president, Lawrence Keane, has 断言 that the administration proposal will be “a significant positive development for the industry that will allow members to reduce costs and compete in the global marketplace more effectively, all while not in any way hindering national security.”

Among the biggest threats posed by Trump’s approach to guns is his administration’s 决定 to settle a case with Defense Distributed, a Texas-based firm run by gun advocate Cody Wilson, and so 迎来 “the age of the downloadable gun.” Though a Seattle-based judge intervened to stop him for the time being, the government had green-lighted Wilson’s posting of designs on the Internet that could be used to produce plastic guns on 3-D printers. If it does happen, it will undoubtedly prove to be a global bonanza for anyone in need of a weapon and capable of purchasing such a printer anywhere in the world.

Arms control and human rights groups have joined domestic gun control organizations like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in trying to 阻止 the change, which will dramatically undermine efforts to limit the proliferation of guns at home and abroad. If they fail, it will suddenly become much easier to 生产 untraceable plastic firearms — from handguns to AR-15. The administration even agreed to pay Cody Wilson’s legal fees in the dispute, a move former congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) has 描述 as “a particularly galling example of Mr. Trump’s obsequiousness to the most extreme fringe of the gun lobby.”

Congress could seek to blunt the most egregious aspects of the Trump administration’s deregulation of firearms exports by, for instance, ensuring that oversight of the most dangerous guns — like sniper rifles and AR-15 semiautomatic weapons — not be shifted away from the State Department. It could also continue to force the administration to notify Congress of any major firearms deals before they happen and pass legislation making it illegal to post instructions for producing untraceable guns via 3-D printing technology.

In a political climate dominated by an erratic president in the pocket of the NRA and a Congress with large numbers of members under the sway of the gun lobby, however, only a strong, persistent public outcry might make a difference.

In the meantime, welcome to the world of American gunrunning and start thinking of Donald Trump as our very own gunrunner-in-chief.

William D. Hartung,a TomDispatch定期,是作者 战争的先知:洛克希德马丁和军事 - 工业联合体的建立.

(从重新发布 TomDispatch 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 唐纳德·特朗普, 枪支管制 
隐藏4条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Joe Stalin 说:

    Isn’t it hilarious how those who proclaim “Power to the People!” in the end don’t want them to have them to have that power at all.

    All power grows out the barrel of a gun:

    “Communists do not fight for personal military power (they must in no circumstances do that, and let no one ever again follow the example of Chang Kuo-tao), but they must fight for military power for the Party, for military power for the people. As a national war of resistance is going on, we must also fight for military power for the nation. Where there is naivety on the question of military power, nothing whatsoever can be achieved. It is very difficult for the labouring people, who have been deceived and intimidated by the reactionary ruling classes for thousands of years, to awaken to the importance of having guns in their own hands. Now that Japanese imperialist oppression and the nation-wide resistance to it have pushed our labouring people into the arena of war, Communists should prove themselves the most politically conscious leaders in this war. Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.

    — Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II, pp. 224-225

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_the_barrel_of_a_gun

    The British government of 1920 believed the same as Mao as they passed “The Firearms Act of 1920” even though gun ownership was considered a “right.”

    “If the Firearms Act of 1920 had included all firearms, it might be argued that it
    以过于宽泛的方式起草,试图解除犯罪分子的武装。
    但是在此许可措施中包含步枪(但不包括霰弹枪)
    表明在两年多的内阁中表达的恐惧
    discussions and reports drove this bill: Bolshevik revolution. In a
    对士兵的革命斗争,霰弹枪的价值是有限的,因为
    its range is limited. Soldiers armed with rifles can engage a insurgent force
    在 100 到 150 码的距离装备霰弹枪,无所畏惧
    伤害,即使叛乱者的人数远远超过士兵。
    然而,用步枪对抗革命者的士兵会很严肃
    受伤或死亡的风险,取决于人数或枪法
    revolutionaries.”

    “The evidence is clear: the proximate cause of the Firearms Act of 1920
    是对革命的恐惧,内阁认为这可能会充分享受
    popular support to actually overthrow the lawful government.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clayton_Cramer/publication/237314455_Fear_and_Loathing_in_Whitehall_Bolshevism_and_the_Firearms_Act_of_1920/links/594b38ebaca2723195de921c/Fear-and-Loathing-in-Whitehall-Bolshevism-and-the-Firearms-Act-of-1920.pdf

  2. Joe Stalin 说:

    Look at P. Luty’s experience with the UK :

    A Brief History of British Gun Control
    (or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth)
    by P.A. Luty
    http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

    Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

    In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England”. However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever “gun control” law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

    [更多]

    In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show “a good reason” for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil’s remarks of “a rifle in every cottage in England” being a laudable goal.

    In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had “no legitimate reason” for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.

    The English Bill of Rights states “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law” Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, “The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. I wonder what happened to “the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation” (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the “sanctions of society and laws” been shown “insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”?

    In 1936 the government added a “safe storage” requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to “prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands” Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?

    As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have “a rifle in every cottage” but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government’s gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.

    In 1946 “self defence” was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.

    In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great “crime control” soundbites to the police and press.

    In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic… handgun used… shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?

    In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure “safe storage” of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman’s home at any time of day or night without a warrant.

    In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.

    In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show “good reason” for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.

    In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.

    In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all “realistic” toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. “Violent crime reduction” was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller. Is the bigger picture now getting clearer?

    In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament. If and when the Scottish parliament is given the power over airgun legislation the Parliament has vowed to ban the sale of all airguns in Scotland. In the coming years, England will follow the Scottish example and airgun registration and an eventual licensing system will follow. The slippery slope is now in a vertical freefall.

    Am I suggesting that there has been some nefarious plan all along to disarm and subjugate the British people? Yes, partly. I am also suggesting that this is a cycle of government behaviour long recognised, one we should be paying attention to, and breaking. We KNOW what governments do; they acquire power at the expense of the governed. They do it slowly, almost imperceptibly, and usually for nefarious reasons and political expediency.

    You can always rely on your Expedient Homemade Firearms book though, can’t you? They would not dare to ban books, would they? Oh yes, it’s already started.

    不要说我没有警告过你。

    “All that is required for evil
    to prosper is for good men to do nothing”

    For the “terrible crime” of constructing a machine-gun and writing his book Expedient Homemade Firearms—The 9mm Machine Gun Mr. Luty was sentenced to four years imprisonment—plus one year for possession of six cartridges! Although the judge said he accepted there was no criminal intent in constructing the weapon, he would make an example of Mr. Luty as a warning to others.

    In prison his original low security classification was upgraded two levels (to high security) in the space of a few weeks, and throughout his incarceration he was vilified by the authorities, who of course, “new better” than professionally qualified people. They regarded him as a potential psychopath because of his refusal to toe the line and agree with the official views on gun ownership.

    Two prison psychiatrists interviewed Mr. Luty and issued reports saying he was not mentally ill, and was a person of high morals and had never shown himself to be a threat to the public.

    He is currently banned from accessing the Internet and awaiting trial on new charges of contributing to terrorism by writing his books.

    Visit his currently modest website (the old one has been expediently taken down for a while) at http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

    (P. Luty is now deceased, but his website still exists as a written record.)

  3. Joe Stalin 说:

    “If they fail, it will suddenly become much easier to produce untraceable plastic firearms — from handguns to AR-15s.”

    Wow, imagine that, people being able to make their own untraceable firearms. Did you know that before the US Gun Control Act of 1968, there was NO requirement that a gun have a serial number?

    Serial numbers are the Cosmopolitan’s tool for tracking down and confiscate privately owned weapons. That’s why there is such a concerted effort by the Billionaire gun controllers like Bloomberg to try to get ALL firearms transactions on the Federal government radar. They call it the “Gun Show Loophole” and then their anti-gun media pushes it as “common sense” gun control.

    Serial numbers and gun registration make it easy to confiscate guns. That’s why Cosmopolitans want gun licensing. Look at the UK, Australia even Chicago. AR-15s legally registered in Chicago were DEREGISTERED in order to make them illegal.

    Foreign movie makers have also picked this up in their movies; in the 2007 Polish movie “Katyn” there is mention of “pistol licenses” being possessed by Poles by their Sovet soon-to-be killers.

    Oh, and look at what’s on Youtube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHAO8oxwioU

  4. Joe Stalin 说:

    “pass legislation making it illegal to post instructions for producing untraceable guns via 3-D printing technology.”

    It’s nice to hear about how Americans NEED to have their First Amendment abridged “to save the children!”

    Does Tom Hartung think that the ability to program a 3-D printer exists in the USA exclusively? Of course not, a gun controller is always trying to think of new ways to shaft the USA citizen.

    Violence Policy Center was founded by Josh Sugerman. JS used to be affiliated with the old National Coalition to Ban Handguns. And unlike the NRA, an organization with SIX million members, the VPC is your typical leftist Ruling Class Money org:

    “The VPC has no official membership fee, relying on donations from the public and foundation support. The primary foundation donor to the VPC is the Joyce Foundation.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center

    So, like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” an organization that represents it’s Billionaire founder Bloomberg, it represents the Ruling Class.

    And note the new intelligence agency gun control advocates:

    “Former CIA, NSA directors, retired generals, launch gun control group”

    https://intelnews.org/2016/06/14/01-1918/

    Gun Control – All Ruling Class.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有William Hartung评论