Global Gun Control

[TheMercenary]

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/20...rs-up-in-arms/

[Fair&Balanced]

So this nonsense resurfaced again?

Without having seen even a draft of the treaty, this guy claims a UN treaty to control the ILLEGAL transfer of small arms:

.. will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Talk about jumping the gun.

Not to mention the fact that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution.

[piercehawkeye45]

Bwahaha. How the hell would they ever regulate that?

[TheMercenary]

Only if the Obama Administration agrees to participate!!!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh for Christ's sake Merc, you know better than that. You really don't expect any rational person to believe this bullshit fear mongering, do you? If anyone buys this crap, you're just preaching to the choir.

I know you hate the guy for threatening to shake up your golden goose, but this is so far afield it's ludicrous.

[footfootfoot]

They can take my globe when they pry it from ah... um, hmm.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

They can take my globe when they pry it from ah... um, hmm.

your stand?

[TheMercenary]

Any treaty or agreements with the UN are bogus and a waste of taxpayer money.

This alone is a cause for concern:

In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Any treaty or agreements with the UN are bogus and a waste of taxpayer money.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty seems worthwile to me, as does the treaty on land mines.

Given that the US is probably the greatest source of illegal tracking in small arms, we might want to work with others to see how we can keep these weapons from drug trafficers, terrorist wannabees and from being forced into the hands of child mercenaries in Africa.

This alone is a cause for concern:

So that makes all the bullshit and fear mongering in the column justifiable?

[sexobon]

I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a global gun. One itchy trigger finger and BANG, there goes the whole world.

[glatt]

Wait. Is the world the target or is the world the bullet?

[infinite monkey]

You better back off dude or he'll pop a cap in your asteroid.

[classicman]

hahaha

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty seems worthwile to me, as does the treaty on land mines.

Sounds like bull shit pandering to the UN to me.

The UN is an inept and worthless organization that lost it's luster long ago. It does give a platform for the poorer nations of the world to whine and cry about how the richer nations don't give them enough money, I will give them that much.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sounds like bull shit pandering to the UN to me.

The UN is an inept and worthless organization that lost it's luster long ago. It does give a platform for the poorer nations of the world to whine and cry about how the richer nations don't give them enough money, I will give them that much.

You dont think the UN treaty banning anti-personnel mines, which btw, the US did not sign, made a difference?

According to the 2009 Landmine Monitor Report, signatory nations have destroyed more than 44 million mines since the entry into force in 1999. Eighty-six countries have completed the destruction of their stockpiles....

Through 2008, eleven states had cleared all known mined areas from their territory...

On 2 December 2009, Rwanda was declared free of landmines. The announcement was made at the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World in Colombia. It follows a three year campaign by 180 Rwandan soldiers, supervised by the Mine Awareness Trust and trained in Kenya, to remove over 9,000 mines laid in the country between 1990 and 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty

A more standardized way for nations to work together to prevent or respond to illegal trafficking of small arms makes sense to me.

So why should the US not lead the discussion or at least be at the table rather than conspicuous by our absence. It doesn’t commit the US to signing any final document, but it still can make a difference in arms trafficking.

In fact, the likelihood that the US will be part of a UN Small Arms Treaty in 2012 or anytime soon is zero to none. Even if Obama were to sign it, it would still require ratification by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

And, again, in any case, the US Constitution will always have pre-eminence over any treaty. The US Supreme Court has made that clear in several landmark cases.

The column in Forbes was nothing more than fear-mongering.