« | »

US May Sign Arms UN Treaty Curtailing Gun Rights

From a column by Dick Morris, via The Hill:

D-Day for gun control

By Dick Morris | 07/10/12

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Besides, we know from ‘Fast & Furious’ that Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration have no problems with selling or even giving arms to “violent groups.” As long as that too will help them curtail Americans’ right to own guns.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

Isn’t irony ironic? Under this treaty the United Nations would be able to prosecute Eric Holder and the DOJ for ‘Fast & Furious.’

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.” This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”

Bolton explains that “the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.”

It’s another Congressional bypass operation.

The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty) are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty’s regulations.

If Obama and Hillary and the UN wanted to stop the sale of weapons to violent groups, they would have prevented the Russians from building two Kalashnikov factories in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, which will make AK-47s. (See below.)

Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.

And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the United States.

If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment

From the Associated Press just last month:

Chavez: Venezuela making drones, assembling rifles

Thu, Jun 14, 2012

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday that Venezuela has begun to assemble Kalashnikov assault rifles with assistance from Russia and started producing surveillance drones.

Venezuela has spent billions of dollars for Russian arms and military aircraft since 2005, including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles

Army Gen. Julio Cesar Morales Prieto, president of Venezuela’s state-run arms producer, said 3,000 AK-103 assault rifles have been assembled since Venezuela and Russia signed the 2005 agreement for the construction of a Kalashnikov assembly factory

The factory eventually will have the capacity to produce 25,000 rifles annually

For the record, this is the only Kalashnikov factory outside of Russia.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 11th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “US May Sign Arms UN Treaty Curtailing Gun Rights”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Hey Hitlery,

    Remember that old saw, “If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns”?

    Well, you seemed to have helped Eric and Obama live up to this in a big way. What makes you think that outlawing guns in the US will get rid of them for everyone?

    And…how does it curtail violence? Every European nation that doesn’t allow gun ownership seems to still have a violence problem, especially with muslims. Go figure.

    Or is it that you, the anointed saviors of our political existence think that the PEOPLE who wish to protect themselves should relegate that duty to the GOVERNMENT? Is that a little closer to the mark?

    Statists. And they’re everywhere and there’s no place left to go to get the hell away from them.

  2. Petronius says:

    I can’t wait for Kofi Annan and a team of UN inspectors to descend on America.

    Nerobama has cast aside almost every aspect of our sovereignty and liberty.

    And still the American idiocracy remains dormant and unquestioning.

  3. AcornsRNutz says:

    My guns aren’t going anywhere. Take that to the bank.

    • Enthalpy says:

      Ditto! These despicable traitors may find more resistance than they counted on.

    • Helena says:

      ArtPa, you make an interesting point. Snopes investigated the question and came up with this:

      Small Arms Treaty
      Claim: A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a “legal way around the 2nd Amendment.” FALSE

      “…The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

      There is no “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, OR A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT RADICALLY REINTERPRETS HOW THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS TO BE APPLIED.”

      snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

      So you see, we have nothing to worry about.

  4. artpa says:

    i just checked my constitution, way i read it, senate had to approve a treaty (advise and consent) by 2/3rds first…. right? Art 2 section 2…. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      Well, I’d be careful bringing that up with the current Senate. If it were brought to them they probably could manage to obamacare up the 2/3rds and give us no constitutional recourse in the future to fight this treaty.

    • artpa says:

      What they could manage with obamacare was 60 votes, with bribes that I think would violate the equal protection clause easily if some state would please challenge it that way.

  5. ilzito guacamolito says:

    I believe prudence dictated that Obama have a backup plan for F&F.

  6. GetBackJack says:

    Our Response To The Treasonous Obama Administration

  7. Anonymoose says:

    This isn’t surprising, after all the only reason the Obama camp put up a facade of “leaving guns alone” was they remembered the drubbing Clinton got in the mid-terms after passing the useless assault weapons ban. That they have something in the pipe and it’s coming at the end of what we all hope will be Obama’s only term also is expected,

    The dream these people have is control like what was enacted in Yugoslavia before the civil war in the early 90’s–the only firearms in private hands were shotguns used for game control. People could “own” target pistols, hunting rifles, and the like, but only by belonging to a hunting lodge, passing not only legal background checks but also medical/psychological ones, and leaving them safely locked up at the lodge. England is like that now, Australia is very close, and Japan has never had any widespread civilian firearms ownership.

    When the civil war started and Yuogslavia turned into the Serb/Croat states and every other bad guy had an AK-47 shows how well it really worked, or in places like Mexico which don’t allow civilian firearm ownership–and look at the crime they have.

    The run of the mill liberal agrees with this, sees no problem with it, and feels all the crazy right wingers are the cause of all the gun crime. Yet they don’t realize all these backhanded tricks could be used on something they value.

    The extreme leftists are the cause and the worry. Think about the Second World War, it happened at a time when leftism was at it’s very peak, when communism and fascism (more properly called militant socialism) when to war.

    Even our own country was run by a leftist leader, who had dragged out the Great Depression with endless spending and social programs, and only grudgingly made an alliance with right wing industrialists to fight the war once it came to us.

    FDR hated the right wing rich, or more properly the wealthy who would be competition to him and government for power and control–that’s where all this “tax the rich and make them pay their share” BS comes from–but they saved him. If not we would have dragged on in an economic crisis to become a broke and powerless country.

    The left has resurged many times, especially in the 60’s. In the US they played the trick after LBJ of putting in power “small government centrists” from nominally right wing southern states like Carter and Clinton, who would pull off the mask right after election day and begin enacting the leftist agenda.

    Obama is the first one they’ve gotten into office who didn’t pretend to be moderate and was “one of them” to the core. Left wing politics always lead to wars, social unrest, and economic stagnation–and they spin the PR wheel until it smokes that all the world’s ills are due to right wingers. The left is at it’s most powerful since the 60’s and maybe even the heyday of the 30’s, so of course a roundabout way by an international treaty is imperative to go after US civilian gun owners rather than lift a finger about all the arms the leftist governments produce.

    • Right of the People says:

      That has always been in the dictator’s playbook from Stalin to Hitler going back to medieval times to disarm the populous first. Even in feudal Japan they banned the peasants from owning edged implements (knives and swords) with blades over around 8 inches. That gave rise to what are now known as martial arts when a farming implement like the nunchaku which was designed to flail grain became a weapon.

      Although this could be real trouble, I don’t think the schmucks at the UN have an inkling of what kind of trouble they’d start if they tried to disarm America. Just because they banned booze with a Constitutional amendment that didn’t stop us from drinking. In fact more people started to drink in the 1920s because of it. I think we’d see the same thing happen with guns. People who never even considered owning one would want one and find a way to get them.

      Of all the millions of guns out there, I think they’d be shocked to know how many of them have never been registered. I know mine aren’t.

  8. Astravogel says:

    Man the Hildabeast can move! NYC one day,
    and Indonesia the next. Of course, If I’d signed
    that treaty, getting out of town would be my idea too.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »