Just like the United Nations itself, the “historic” Arms Trade Treaty [ATT] is a joke and mainstream corporate media is not only not focusing upon it, but ignoring it as the consensus vote occurs involving 193 countries. On April 2nd, 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the ATT. North Korea, Iran, and Syria opposed it. China and Russia, leading weapon exporters abstained as well as 23 other nations, Cuba, India, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Armenia, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Vietnam did not vote.
According to the UN, committee [Disarmament Affairs] the treaty will not interfere with domestic arms commerce, the rights to bear arms in member states, bans the export of any type of weapon, or harms any state’s rights to self-defense, or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.
The largest amount of objections came from organizations like the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights [IAPCAR], the National Rifle Association [NRA], the National Shooting Sports Foundation [NSSF], and the Heritage Foundation.
The NRA has been fighting the UN proposal/concept since 2001 and calls this treaty and other endeavors as the U.N.’s never-ending mission to disarm the American people, which dates back to when William Clinton was in office. Sources stated that the NRA and others have make-believe fears over the treaty, stating:
The NRA provide impervious to the reality that there was never, at any point, anything in the scope of the treaty that was inconsistent with U.S. law or practice.
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, reassured Americans that the treaty will have no impact on the US domestic arms market. That is left to the gun-grabbing politicians in Washington.
In real world reality, the treaty is a joke. The Obama administration is providing arms as well as cash to states like Egypt and Syria, the latter recently using WMDs that came from Iraq that the political left claimed did not exist during the GW Bush administration.
The lobbying arm of the NRA, ILA, wrote in July of 2012:
Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.
How can the United States sign an agreement of such a treaty?
For one, it infringes upon and disagrees with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is the policy, especially of this administration that the US supply arms to other nations as Obama has done for Egypt, and if the Benghazi incident is ever laid open upon the table, it will show that secret arms deals are being conducted without the knowledge of the American public to the very enemies our troops have been up against since after September 11th, 2001.
Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, stated in July of 2012:
Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms,” said LaPierre. “Let there be no confusion. Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA’s greatest force of opposition.
Mr. Kimball is not thinking outside the box or in terms of “fairness” that his ilk constantly promotes in politics.
How can the United States when the Constitution upholds the right of the people to keep and bear arms that will not afford citizens of other nations the same rights?
Will the US government comply by not providing arms to other nations after Obama signs the treaty and if the Senate approves it?
Why should they?
Despite national debt woes and bad economy, fed by taxing the productive portion of the US population more and more heavily, the Obama administration as well as others have supplied arms under the table for one political reason or another. Would this stop? Not likely.
The treaty will open for signature beginning in June, and, when 50 countries ratify it the treaty will become international law.
John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations stated:
I think it has almost no chance of passing. We have already seen resolutions in the Senate where a majority of senators have disapproved of the treaty, even before they had the language. And of course under the U.S. Constitution, treaty ratification requires two-thirds of the senators present and voting to approve. So if advocates of the treaty don’t even have a majority, obviously there is simply no chance, I think, that this treaty will be ratified.
The United Nations has passed the treaty that didn’t pass in 2012 by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstention. The world body organization has passed what Obama and company tried to pass here in the United States, banning firearms in the name of stopping violence and human rights violations. They are ignoring that human rights violations have been committed by the very governments that either voted for such a treaty or recorded abstention. The United Nations record is poor when it comes to enforcing anything they pass as resolutions or international agreement and this would be no different.
Senator John Cornyn of Texas stated that 35% of firearms in the US market are imported, and this would have an impact upon US citizens and the firearm industry. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma attached an amendment to the Senate budget bill passed last month that would prohibit the United States from signing on to the treaty.
Go to Christian Science Monitor and see how well you know the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Citizens who believe that US Senators, as other elected officials, must abide by their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States should contact their senators and tell them so.
- UN Arms Trade Treaty: National Lists of Gun Owners; Ammunition Regulation
- UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus is Transfer, Registry of Firearms
- UN Arms Trade Conference Begins, Sec. General Calls for “Robust” Treaty
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:”Bookman Old Style”,”serif”;}
List of Senators that need to be voted out of office:
Baldwin (WI), Baucus (MT), Bennet (CO), Blumenthal (CT), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Coons (DE), Cowan (MA), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Franken (MN), Gellibrand (NY), Harkin (IA), Hirono (HI), Johnson (SD), Kaine (VA), King (ME), Klobuchar (MN), Landrieu (LA), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), McCaskill (MO), Menendez (NJ), Merkley (OR), Mikulski (MD), Murphy (CT), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (VT), Schatz (HI), Schumer (NY), Shaheen (NH), Stabenow (MI), Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Warren (MA), Whitehouse (RI), and Wyden (OR).