The United Nations have an upcoming conference in July and they are attempting to finalize the terms of their Arms Trade Treaty. Just what exactly are they proposing with this treaty, you might ask?
According to their website,
The ATT will not:
- Interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession
- Ban, or prohibit the export of, any type of weapons
- Impair States' legitimate right to self-defence
An Arms Trade Treaty will aim to create a level playing field for international arms transfers by requiring all States to abide by a set of standards for transfer controls, which will ultimately benefit the safety and security of people everywhere in the world.
So what exactly is the level playing field they are asking for? What is the transparency they are looking for? And why should any of that matter to a sovereign nation? The fact is, it shouldn't. But I'm sure Barack Obama is in support of it. After all he likes level playing fields and transparency as long as it doesn't involve him.
So what is the target of this particular treaty? Well it seems that in addition to the Second Amendment, it goes after anything from tanks to to aircraft to small handguns. The specific wording applied by Mexico and other Central and South American countries was to cover "All types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology, and related materials." Anyone can see how a tyrannical government would construe this to mean anything that had a gun attached to it in anyway.
In fact, last year United States Senators took issue with the treaty.
The UN's Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) issued a report titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN” claims that the recent events in Libya, Syria and the Sudan justify that "heavier conventional weapons" should be included in the treaty.
Ted R. Bromund, over at Heritage, writes concerning the report,
But the paper makes it clear that the job of the U.N.—as the U.N. itself sees it—is to make the case for a very broad treaty. As CASA puts it, “Advocacy efforts should be developed…through relevant reports and op-eds, messages, and statements at relevant meetings and to the press.” So watch out for U.S. taxpayer-funded funded U.N. propaganda in a newspaper near you.
But in spite of its desperate efforts to rebut Second Amendment concerns, the U.N. can’t stop stepping on its own shoelaces. After proclaiming that the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” the CASA paper goes on to say that “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”
How, exactly, would the ATT do that if it doesn’t “impede” or “interfere” with lawful ownership? The U.N. would have a lot more credibility on the ATT if it didn’t imply so regularly that the problem is as much lawful ownership as it is the international arms trade.
I agree with Bromund's assessment. There is no way they can say that ATT "does not interfere with lawful ownership and use of weapons" and on the flip side argue that they have "found weapons that have been misused by lawful owners."
The U. N. Arms Trade Treaty is a bad treaty, a really bad treaty.
As others who have gone before me have said, we should have pulled out of the United Nations years ago, pulled our money from funding it, removed any opportunity for them to convene their meetings here in the U.S. and let it self destruct.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.