“Obama Administration Partners With the UN to Attack the Second Amendment”
I tweeted this out yesterday, and we discussed it a bit in the comments, but as not everyone who reads this site reads all the comments or follows me on Twitter, it’s probably best to give it a front page exposure. Katie Pavlich, Townhall:
The alleged purpose of the treaty is to prevent crime, terrorism and even war by regulating the sale of guns, but it is a rarely noted irony that some of the biggest supporters of the treaty are also the world’s most brazen supporters of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria and Cuba. Its proposed regulations extend to the level of firearms accessories, including scopes and magazines. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her support for the treaty in October 2009, saying, “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations…. The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation.”
The final draft of the treaty is scheduled to be completed by summer 2012. The State Department, Department of Justice, and ATF have taken a leadership role in pushing the treaty. The Bush administration refused to participate ion the negotiations, but the Obama administration has been a willing participant in drafting the treaty, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the helm. Obama has said he would like to see the treaty ratified as a way of demonstrating American’s respect for “international norms.”
Because the UN’s definition of “criminal activity” in the treaty is so broad, American gun owners could find themselves prosecuted if UN officials deemed owning some firearms a crime. If the treaty were to be effective, it would imply the necessity for strict regulation of individual firearms ownership. Mexico wants the treaty to regulate hunting rifles, because it claims hunting rifles are used by drug cartels. But of course any weapon that can be used for sport of self-defense could also be used in ways that the treaty might regulate.
The treaty calls for international reporting measures that would require countries to trace and keep track of weapons sold and transferred. Not only would this consume a massive amount of government resources, it would also be intrusive. Many Second Amendment advocates regard the creation of a nationwide database of lawful gun owners and a catalog of every firearm they own as an ominous expansion of government power. The most vocal supporters of the treaty in the United States are gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation (the anti-gun organization that once counted Obama as a member).
In a country where “tolerance” and “fairness” and “equality” have all been linguistically deconstructed and re-imagined as their opposites by progressives seeking to move us toward liberal fascism, it is disturbing beyond words to think what will come to count as “criminality” when the definition of that term is left up to the corrupt criminal class of politicians who seek to shore up their own power by taking away ours.
I don’t know that the Senate will have the votes to pass this even if Obama signs it — but failure to do so may be one of those moments where Obama decides to take it upon himself to issue some executive order that institutes some sort of registry, or else DHS will do the job for him through some sort of edict.
At which point, I think we’ll see a new tipping point — and quite potentially, “criminal” resistance. It’s one thing to sit out an election; it’s quite another to learn that as a result, you’re going to have your redneck rights revoked.