© Getty Images via @daylife
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it 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.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association's worst "F"-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans' rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama's record on citizen gun rights doesn't reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called "assault rifles" (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That's a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don't ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.'s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic - right? Let's hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly "pro-gun", many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president's international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
Also, don't forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.
Now, more than ever, it's imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
Reader Comments
I was not raised around guns. I grew up in the city, but in a nice part where there was no visible crime. I never learned to fire a gun, hunt with a gun, maintain a gun, or face a gun. I've never been shot by a gun (this lifetime) nor ever been threatened with one. I did once witness a robbery of a Post Office in which one robber used a real pistol, but loaded with blanks (I could tell because he shot into the ceiling before he left and nothing happened). A lot of the people there were VERY scared. He waved the gun at some of them, and they were VERY scared.
So, I only know the gun as a tool of crime and terrorism. And I am sure there are many, if not a majority, of Americans who have a similar limited knowledge of guns. Actually, I suppose the "right to bear arms" could include any sort of weapon. But we don't hear about anyone trying to ban bows and arrows, though they can be just as devastating at close range. We only hear about guns.
I think the guns rights guys are basically right: I think the government wants to have no rival armed force. The anti-crime thing is a total hoax. Really. After all we've been through, having any Western government try to tell us that they actually fight crime? It's a joke. If they ever fight real criminals, its only so they can muscle in on the operation.
Any move towards making lists of individuals for ANY purpose at an international level would make things ten times worse than they already are. This is not a recipe for freedom; it is a recipe for tyranny. That should be very obvious. ANY LIST for ANY PURPOSE would fall under this category. Something like an international income tax would be even worse than an international list of gun owners, because it would include even more people.
Control of the population could be achieved without the need for these "treaties." What they want to do is get the liberals to go along with it. They could fall back on the use of brute force. And it is still possible they will do this. In many parts of the world, that is basically what is going on now. In that sense, we are lucky.
To argue that this is simply a gun rights issue almost misses the point. This is ONE aspect of a multifaceted power grab. If the gun rights guys could expand their viewpoint a little and communicate the bigger picture, they might get more support. There are a lot of people out there who, like me, aren't friendly with guns. But I'm not friendly with slavery, either.
If we have to defend our freedom by using our guns against their soldiers, I think they will have won. Until then, we still have a chance to make our point and be heard.