Is the UN Coming for your Guns?
By Mr. Twisted
Is the UN coming for your guns?
There are two major gun-related stories currently in the news. Unfortunately, you’ve probably heard a ton about one of them, and very little about the other.
By now, most of the details regarding the shooting in my home state of Colorado at a midnight premier showing of Batman have come fully to light in the massive blitz that is our 24-hour a day media cycle. We’ll get to the relevance of this event shortly.
The other story is that of the proposed “Small Arms Treaty” (also referred to as the ATT – Arms Trade Treaty) by the United Nations, whereby representatives from multiple countries discuss how best to regulate weaponry around the world.
Now, before you jump up and say “but Snopes said this was fake!!!” I need to clarify a few things.
One, no – it isn’t fake. It’s very real. There really are several country representatives meeting to discuss the control of small arms around the world, and they really, really are doing it in on our own soil, in buildings that your really real tax dollars fund. For real.
Two, Snopes is, in fact, a man and his wife sitting in their living room punching stuff into Google. There is nothing they can do that you can’t. There are some credible sources that have been discussing this treaty for a long time (see: John Bolton, David Kopel, et al), so don’t place all your hopes and dreams on a site like Snopes.
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, let me give you the quick and dirty.
The United Nations – that bastion of efficiency and wisely-invested dollars – has for years been attempting to put talks together regarding the international traffic of small arms. They have finally done so, and it is happening at their headquarters, located right here on America’s turf. Several UN members that do…whatever UN people do…are currently sitting in talks to hammer out the details of a treaty that would bind numerous countries together to do…whatever it is the UN does when it gets involved in world affairs.
And this is why it actually has potential to be something bad for you and me.
The biggest hole that people like Snopes and Snopes-quoters try to bring in is that any treaty could not “subvert the Second Amendment” because it’s only a treaty and treaties don’t take precedence over Constitutional law. Well, if this was 1798 and I had a farm in Virginia, I would say yes, that is true. However, it’s 2012, and your Second Amendment rights under the Constitution have long since been “subverted” by any number of authorities, all the way from your local sheriff up to and including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (and Explosives!) – the organization most recently noted for…trafficking small arms south of our border to drug cartels.
The point is this: your rights as an individual gun owner have been chipped away at for several generations. This is not a Democrat v Republican thing – this is a “control” thing that members of all political parties have taken part in. And the American public has helped them right along. The rights of gun owners are nowhere near what the Second Amendment intended, so saying that the UN “Small Arms Treaty” wouldn’t subvert the Second Amendment is kind of a moot point – it’s already been subverted, and this would just be another step in the process. But a step on an international stage, as it were, which makes this somewhat unique.
Think about it in these terms: has the UN done anything worth wile…ever? Do they make things better when they show up? Are they a good use of our taxpayer dollars? If your answers are like mine, then ask yourself, do you want your country involved with them in anything to do with something that is a right of every citizen, even if it has only a small effect on that right?
Keep in mind what the UN is, and the ridiculousness that has poured out from it in the last several decades. And remember, among such notable countries to be having a voice at these hearings is that ever-so-popular enclave of love and freedom – Iran.
Now also consider that the above-mentioned BATFE already uses international influence in making up its own rules regarding firearms (in addition to the Operation: Fast & Furious debacle, they have banned certain firearms for no other reason than the fact that they can because they come from outside our borders). Something like a UN-sanctioned treaty could give the ATF complete authority to ban anything and everything that is manufactured outside of our borders (that cheap ammo you shoot all the time? It’s cheap because it’s not made here).
In addition, if the President signs the treaty, it would give him significant backing for implementing rules via Executive Order. (For those of you who don’t think this is possible, do some research on executive initiatives as they relate to the off-shore drilling moratorium and how judges have enforced those initiatives.) These actions could potentially place a significant amount of pressure on our own House and Senate to act, in addition to giving the Department of Justice a lot of weight in how they handle “rules” regarding small arms.
On that note, however, let’s do a quick reality check. Will the Senate ratify this treaty? Most likely the answer is not just a “no” but a “hell, no,” especially with elections looming right around the corner. But this is where the story of the Aurora theater shooting comes into play. Elected officials have been known to sign into law utterly ridiculous and ludicrous proposals in the wake of public tragedies. I was living here in Colorado during the Columbine shooting, as well; I remember the outcry for “tougher laws” and I remember how politicians reacted – it wasn’t in the favor of those who consider personal freedom a good thing.
So, in summary, is the UN coming to take your guns away? Probably not in the immediate future, no, and the Senate will most likely realize how important this issue is in the coming election cycle, so my prediction is that they will refrain from ratifying the treaty. But, is there potential for real harm to your freedom and the entire intent behind the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Absolutely, and even if it is a small amount of harm, that is still a step in the wrong direction for you and for me.
If you are going to err on this one, err on the side of freedom and not trusting politicians. Counting on the opposite has never proven to be fruitful in the past, so don’t think that it will be in this case.