Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, July 9, 2012

Its time to defuse the uproar over the UN Arms Trade Treaty ATT

NRA's head gun lunatic, Wayne LaPierre
As it does with anything remotely connected to gun control, the gun rights lobby, led by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), has reacted with overstated alarm to the UN’s attempt to place some kind of control over the international trade of weaponry.  In effect, what the gun nuts are saying is that we should do nothing about keeping firearms away from terrorists or the Mexican cartels, or in general regulating the transfer of guns internationally.

This persistent 2nd Amendment misnomer of ‘You’re trying to take away our guns’ has become very tiresome, and should be viewed in the same absurd light as the equally wearisome arguments used to back up this prattle.  No one is trying to take away your precious guns for rightful purposes domestically, meaning based on U.S. law and the 2nd Amendment in this case.  The UN General Assembly resolution 61/89 even specifies hands off all domestic laws.

But we know gun worshippers won’t give it up so we have to keep explaining it to these double-digit IQs.  Put simply, it is a UN sanctioned resolution establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.  You do understand that international, while not exactly the opposite of domestic, does’n mean domestic control, or do you?  61/89 is proposed for people affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers.

George W. Bush, of course, said no to this during his administration, but in 2009 the Obama administration through Sec. of State Hillary Clinton overturned GWB’s decision.  And this immediately got the attention of the international community because the U.S is the world’s largest arms exporter with a $55 billion annual trade in conventional firearms.  Without the participation of the U.S., based on the latter, any treaty would have limited relevance.

A 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate is required for passage and gun rights groups such as the NRA claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.  However, the resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”


Pass Arms Trade Treaty

The Huffington Post reported that the propaganda that 61/89 provided a legal way around the 2nd Amendment and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens was “virtually impossible.”  If you follow them, Snopes.com called it “scarelore” and false.  The Los Angeles times reported that only the fringe element believed this foolishness.  If you want to read more go to Wikipedia.org for a comprehensive understanding of the Arms Trade Treaty.

So recently a guy by the name of Joe Wolverton II, a militant Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, enters the fray through an article in The New American.  He wrote that George Soros, a billionaire and very progressive, is financing the fight “to give the United Nations control of your guns.”  Now that will get the attention of every gun freak in the U.S. and send them screaming to the NRA, who will reply they are right, but send more money so we can fight the battle.

For the most part Wolverton’s article is the kind of disinformation you would expect, except for a statement that the UN  won’t meddle in the gun affairs of individual countries, but with some reservations.  Wolverton cites a couple of red flags that deal in the semantics of quotation marks around a phrase on freedom, and infers the U.S. needs permission from the UN for the right to own a gun.  In each case, he is thrashing around in the ridiculous.

But I have always said that it is good to know your enemy, and a reading of this article proves just how persistent the gun rights fanatics have become.  Wolverton makes the accusation that President Obama and Secretary Clinton will engage all the governments of the world involved in the ATT to gang up on the U.S. and take away Americans’ guns.  He even goes so far to say Obama, Clinton and Soros “have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.”

Now that almost sounds threatening.

1 comment:

  1. I think the reason most people that support the second amendment and are opposed to ANY possibility of damage to it is the favorite comment of the Brady Center or gun control supporters. Every time a law or a rule limiting firearm or ammunition purchases goes into effect someone on the gun control side of the equation says something that always contains the phrase "It's a good start" or something similar. The UN treaty may mean very little on it's face but with all the other things the UN is trying to get accomplished it may well be "a good start" for gun grabbers. By itself it may in fact not be much of a threat but add all the other crap the UN is trying to do like making the developed nations pay for third world countrys because they will never be able to develop like the developed nations did, or the global warming 'cap and trade' taxes they want to impose, or the governmental body the UN wants to put in place and you have a boat load of crap. It isn't just the guns for me, if the UN is for it then I'm against it because they have proven to be just as corrupt as our government. For my money I'd just love to quit funding the UN and kick them out of the US, they have done this country NO good and a global agenda will never be good for the United States.

    ReplyDelete

Nasty Jack will accept NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS