Forbes: "U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms"

Matt Drudge just reposted an old commentary from Forbe's on the UN's proposed "Small Arms Treaty."  The treaty that I thought was more of a boy that cried wolf story than anything else (in fact if you google you can find references to the Small Arms Treaty going a while) may be more of a threat that we previously thought.

Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. 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).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. 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. READ MORE>>>

Apparently, if passed by the UN, it will go to the Senate to be ratified.  Since the Senate has a Democratic Anti-Gun majority, we can be assured that this would pass.  The anti-gunners can't pass gun control laws now because of the pro-gun majority in the House, courts have ruled that individuals have a right to own and carry firearms, so now, they're only hope to restrict our rights is through backdoor treaty's like this one. (I'd wager that even if the UN passes this treaty many Senators wouldn't vote for it because it would amount to political suicide.)

Worse yet, George Soros has thrown his support behind the proposed UN treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to lean on Congress to consent to the ATT.

Clinton has pushed the treaty as an “opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.” READ MORE>>>>

 This stuff just pisses me off.

First of all, who are we to tell other nations which policies; laws; and "standards" they should enact in their own country.  We would be rioting in the street if, lets say, Saudi Arabia told us that we should have our women adopt Muslim dress standards or that we should ban alcohol because they thought it best for us.  In fact, this is exactly what this whole controversy is about.  Yes, it's about gun ownership and freedom, but its more importantly about our nation's sovereignty.  After all, why couldn't the UN pass a treaty that gets adopted by 51 airhead (and completely anti-freedom) Senators that says that the public practice of evangelizing or proselytizing should be illegal or even just regulated.


You have to love the double standard we hold regarding this notion. 

Few people understand and appreciate the truly American notion of non-interventionism.

What are the illegal guns being obtained by Mexican drug gangs?

John Lott always has good material, but this post is extremely insightful especially in light of AG Eric Holder's statement.

"...there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

You should've known that the media wasn't telling you the WHOLE truth when you read stuff like "the Mexican army also seized 23 assault rifles, 20 handguns, 23 grenades, two grenade launchers, a rocket launcher..." (LA Herald Tribune).

Somebody please show me a gun store in the U.S. that sells grenades and grenade and rocket launchers.

It just doesn't make sense.

This isn't some piddly NYC gang, this is the Mexican Cartels--they're the Mexican Mafia.

Their power and influence is only dwarfed (slightly) by their government. Why bring a few guns (that would have to be illegally converted and cleaned of any identifying marks) across the U.S. border at great risk and cost when you could bring shipping containers of them into the ports from overseas at a much lesser risk and cost?

Don't believe the media when they say that the availability of American guns are fueling the Mexican arms trade and the cartel wars.

For the real story read John Lott's post.