The UN’s Arms Trade Treaty Headed for the US Senate

As we knew it would, it came back with a vengeance. Recently, the final text was approved by the UN and it is now headed to Obama’s desk for signing, which he has stated he will do. For those who may not understand what this is or why you should care, here’s the English text. It’s recommended that you read it, it’s not that long. Using a search engine, you can find both opposition and support from pretty much who you’d expect. What I’ve found is that most of the support addresses none of the specific concerns of the opposition, of which I am a part of and will briefly elaborate on here.

There are no provisions in the ATT protecting a person’s individual right to self-defense and the voluntarily-accepted duty of every able-bodied adult of sound mind to uphold liberty and counter tyranny on domestic soil (as an individual or organization) as a legitimate use of a firearm. It has those provisions for State entities (entire nations) but NOT the individual person. Likewise, even then it states that only “certain” conventional arms would be considered legitimate. Take one of the most damning sections on page 2 of the English text of the treaty.

“Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership, and use are permitted or protected by law,” [emphasis added]

Yes, “mindful”, by the same drafters who believe that completely excluding the aforementioned rights is akin to not touching the US Constitution. Do I sound unconvinced?

and this one here from the very first page:

“Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts,” [emphasis added]

As an “end user” myself, do I need to be authorized by someone? And then, authorized by someone who has none of my best interests in mind and may even be prejudiced against me and completely ignorant of my needs? I don’t need permission to express my rights.

For the record, here’s the reaffirmation of sovereignty:

“Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,”

We can ignore the fact that it only speaks of allowances to regulate and control and doesn’t mention deregulation and non-infringement of the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The UN has no intentions to truly respect the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and only minor protections for the sovereignty of any of its state parties. Reading through the rest of the text, you’ll find the UN’s focus on “conventional arms” this time around (almost as if the rest of the stuff – tanks, artillery, etc. – were simply a bonus to include) and sweeping exceptions for governments and State actors. It seems like no thought was given to how this would work nor any evidence provided that it would work for the reduction of violence globally. It seems quite clear that maximum disarmament of non-State entities has been pursued and voted on rather single-mindedly.

Drafted by prominent politicians among prominent politicians, away from the people and hailing from the vast majority of nations that have already forsaken their people’s rights, you can see why I’m not a fan of the UN anyhow. You can also see why I don’t buy this whole “it won’t touch the 2nd amendment” thing since the people who support it the most are also staunch supporters of gun control, period. They have used the exact same rhetoric countless times in the past (and recent past, for that matter) to claim that gun control wasn’t gun control. It was, and it still is. For who’s benefit really was this treaty drafted?

Overall, it seems to me that the UN got tired of the US Government promising to “do something about guns” and went ahead with a global resolution. They have become rather impatient as of late. It seems that this treaty puts the blame of massacres on arms manufacturers. In fact, in some places in the text and summaries thereof, that accusation is quite clear. Basically, it’s the same nonsense arguments used in US anti-gun propaganda but on a global scale. They refuse to address the fact that all of these nations where the massacres have occurred and are occurring have extremely strict gun control, and that none of those measures have stopped a single massacre or prevented any bad guys from getting guns/tanks/bombs/whathaveyou in order to commit crimes of any scale, and that their law-abiding citizens have nothing to effectively defend themselves with, and that it is the governments themselves that are sometimes the criminal entity.

Gun control doesn’t work to stop bad guys from getting guns and doing harm, not here at home and not abroad in the rest of the world. Furthermore, not a single law or regulation within one nation’s borders ought to be decided upon by any outside entity. If you are in the US and you agree with me on this, and even if you don’t, you still have time to contact your Senators via phone, e-mail, letters or in person, and let your voice be heard. Thank and support those who support you, voice your disagreement with those who do not.

An elitist organization out of our control has deigned to make decisions for us. It is still in our hands, however, whether we adopt those decisions or instead kick them to the curb (where they belong).

Stay tuned, and stay safe out there.


~ by demonhide on June 2, 2013.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: