As a defender and proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I have watched the debate over the proposed United Nations Small Arms Treaty with some interest. Because I have seen the advocates of gun regulations in this country get an inch and take a mile, with no real effect except to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens, I am more than a little skeptical of the intentions of the United Nations.
This is not a new proposal, having been brought up several years ago. Until President Obama took office, there was no chance that the Small Arms Treaty would pass in the United Nations. The Bush administration openly opposed it and would have vetoed it, had it came up for a vote. Not so with Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. They have reversed the policy of President Bush and are in negotiations with the United Nations to see if a deal for their support can be worked out.
Let us put aside for a moment, that the United Nations has no business asserting any kind of authority in the United States of America. At the risk of sound crass, we have what should be a supreme authority in our country. It’s called the Constitution and there is no need for any other authority, especially not from a group like the United Nations. Instead, let us look at what the Small Arms Treaty would likely do in America, if the Senate were foolish enough to ratify it. There is no doubt, President Obama would sign the treaty, if it comes to that. This is quoted from Forbes.
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
- Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
- Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
- Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
- In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Do we really need or want regulations and restrictions like these placed on the citizens of the United States? Especially those imposed upon us by the United Nations? I think not. We have more than enough gun laws to take care of the perceived problem of gun control. We do not need the diplomats from the United Nations telling us we need to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
Make no mistake, the liberals in this country would dearly love to see the Small Arms Treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by President Obama. It would be a dream come true for them. A manner in which they could exert more gun control over the citizens of America. Our current President is a strong advocate of gun control, even though he tries to hide it, for political reasons. Lest you forget that, here are a few reminders.
President Obama appointed former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles to be an alternate representative to the United Nations. He is a strong advocate of gun control.
President Obama appointed Andrew Traver to head the ATF. Traver has worked to remove the rights of American citizens to own “assault rifles”. No, we are not talking about automatic machine guns. In the perverted definition of gun control advocates, “assault rifle” includes rifles who have a magazine capacity larger than what they think necessary. It doesn’t matter that these rifles are semi-automatic and that the trigger has to be pulled each time to fire them.
I suppose it is to that purpose that the Obama administration banned the importation and sale of nearly 1 million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea. These rifles were used by American soldiers in the Korean War and are valuable to collectors, but that is of no regard to the liberals who hate guns.
At this writing, it is not clear if the Small Arms Treaty will make it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. I am hopeful it will not make it that far, but if it does, it is not guaranteed passage. Thanks to gun rights advocates, such as the National Rifle Association, the treaty is a political hot potato. Any such vote would be closely watched and recorded against anyone who votes in favor of passage. While some may think that is undue influence by the NRA, I think not. When it comes to idiocy like the Small Arms Treaty, we need a group like them to help watch our backs and bring enough clout to bear to influence the vote in a positive way.
You see where I am going with this? We have enough trouble in this country with liberals who believe no one should be allowed to own a gun. If they had their way, we would be like Great Britain and gun ownership would be restricted to gun clubs. We certainly do not need the liberals in the United Nations adding their voice to the clamor of advocating more and more gun control. They can take their Small Arms Treaty and leave our country. I’m sure they can find another country to occupy.