The UN wants your guns

Six months ago, I posted a blog here called, “Gunfight at the Credo Corral.” In it, I described our Second Amendment right to bear arms as both fundamental and inalienable, meaning that the government is powerless to take that right away from us, and we can’t even give it away.

Of course, this has never stood in the way of a determined government. After all, a right possessed by the individual is a power denied to the state. Therefore, we must jealously guard our rights from attack by the very people we hire to protect them — our politicians.

For example, some U.S. senators view gun control as an excuse to combat terrorism. It’s even been suggested that Operation Fast and Furious, which was engineered by our own government, will itself provide an excuse for gun control. Four months ago, the National Rifle Association warned its members that the Obama administration is planning to propose new gun control legislation.

But while our attention has been focused on our own lawmakers, a gang outside our borders is preparing to do battle with our Second Amendment rights. The name of that gang is the United Nations, and its weapon of choice is the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

This, in and of itself, is nothing new. The United Nations has never considered firearms possession to be a fundamental right. To this organization, it’s an aberration that it’s duty-bound to eradicate. To that end, the U.N. has been trying to get us to ratify its Small Arms Treaty for years. President George W. Bush took a pass on the idea, saying that firearm legislation was best left to individual nations. The current administration sees things differently.

In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the United States would be open to the idea of a small arms treaty. President Obama followed up on this last year when he announced his support for the treaty, and targeted 2012 to get it ratified.

In response, both Faith Whittlesey and John Bolton have raised the alarm. As former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, both possess intimate knowledge of the U.N.’s inner workings, and have warned us of the dangers and ramifications such a treaty would have on our safety, freedom and way of life.

Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr is another treaty detractor who deserves our attention. He was a delegate to the U.N. Small Arms Conference. According to Barr, “Even though [treaty advocates] all say, ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, …’ that’s nonsense…There’s no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by the president’s position on firearms. His adherence to constitutional restrictions is questionable, and his campaign platform in 2008 included a gun control plank, specifically banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons (most modern handguns are semi-automatic) and increasing restrictions on the purchase of firearms altogether. Clinton is a bit more difficult to figure out. As secretary of state, she represents our interests against those of all other nations. Apparently, she sees nothing wrong with the U.N. infringing upon our rights and sovereignty.

Any such agreement would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. As of this last summer, senators didn’t come close, but Americans should nonetheless remain vigilant. This administration has a real talent for finding back doors when it wants something that it legally shouldn’t have.

Comments

Latest Articles