The U.N.’s Gun Grab
July 26, 2012 by Bob Livingston
In October 2009, while the Barack Obama Justice Department was watching guns purchased from U.S. border gun stores “walk” into Mexico straight into the hands of narcoterrorists, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.
The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.
On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.
You may recall that before the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious broke, Attorney General Eric Holder was advocating for tougher gun laws, blaming Americans for the flow of weapons to Mexico. Now, the Obama Administration and Clinton are “committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty” — I suppose to save them from themselves.
Their commitment, however, doesn’t extend to stopping any sales that advance the Adminstration’s agenda — like arming terrorists in Syria trying to overthrow the Syrian regime.
Make no mistake: The Obama Administration is lying to you about its intentions regarding guns. And the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty being negotiated in New York this week is not about making the world a less violent place. It’s about disarming law-abiding citizens — Americans in particular — to grease the skids for the elite’s agenda. That’s why the treaty contains provisions that require countries to register all firearms and have in place a means to trace, confiscate, control and destroy them.
The Founding Fathers understood the importance of an armed citizenry. In debating the 2nd Amendment, no one questioned its intent was to maintain an armed populace to defend against a standing army, which Elbridge Gerry called “the bane of liberty.”
Pennsylvania’s proposed amendment read, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them…” [i]
The Obama Administration is taking part in the U.N. negotiations and Obama has indicated he’d sign a treaty that did not interfere with the United States’ ability to import, export or transfer arms in support of national security or foreign policy interests or that covered ammunition and explosives or established an international enforcement body. But he’s getting a lot of pressure from his gun-grabbing constituency to sign the treaty.
If signed, the treaty would have to go to the U.S. Senate, where 58 Senators have signed letters raising concerns with any treaty that covers civilian weapons; the draft treaty says it would apply to “small arms and light weapons.”
Keep a close eye on what comes out of the U.N. this weekend.
[i] The Founding Father’s Guide to the Constitution, Brion McClanahan