Yesterday, the U.N. released its press kit for the July conference that will finalize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The most interesting item in the kit is a lengthy paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN.”
This paper perpetuates the belief, on which much of the ATT is based, that the big problem the world faces is a lack of agreed standards on arms transfers. That’s wrong: The big problem the world faces in this regard is that many U.N. member states are dictatorships, supporters of terrorists, or simply incapable of controlling their own borders.
But the paper makes it clear that the job of the U.N.—as the U.N. itself sees it—is to make the case for a very broad treaty. As CASA puts it, “Advocacy efforts should be developed…through relevant reports and op-eds, messages, and statements at relevant meetings and to the press.” So watch out for U.S. taxpayer-funded funded U.N. propaganda in a newspaper near you.
But in spite of its desperate efforts to rebut Second Amendment concerns, the U.N. can’t stop stepping on its own shoelaces. After proclaiming that the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” the CASA paper goes on to say that “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”
How, exactly, would the ATT do that if it doesn’t “impede” or “interfere” with lawful ownership? The U.N. would have a lot more credibility on the ATT if it didn’t imply so regularly that the problem is as much lawful ownership as it is the international arms trade.
Of course, CASA isn’t just concerned with lawful ownership; it’s also campaigning against “community attitudes” that “contribute to the powerful cultural conditioning that equates masculinity with owning and using a gun, and regards gun misuse by men as acceptable.”
All this just goes to show that the U.N. regards gun ownership—even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities—as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.
And that is exactly why the concerns that Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) expressed at Heritage on Tuesday are so important—and why his criteria to ensure that the ATT does not infringe on Second Amendment rights are so valuable.
A government that fears its citizenry is good. A government feared by its citizenry is seriously bad. Seems the useless nations is still out to eventually establish itself as the one world government.
well said
What is the first thing a Dictatorship and or a Totalirtarian state does! Makes it "Illegal for the Individual to have a firearm. It's not the large weapons such as tanks or cannons or planes,But the ability for the Individual to be able to effectively resist state authority.
Because of our founders own experience in the Revolution is the primary reason they included it in the Constitution
The UN a wasteful organisation if I’ve ever seen one. Millions of dollars spent on “rebuilding East Timor” yet every weekend the UN paid/pays for its staff to be flown to and from Australia to relax – this cost of these flights are include in ther millions of rebuilding dollars.
This organisation imposes its will on nations and these people are not elected representatives but appointed puppets.
"That’s wrong: The big problem the world faces in this regard is that many U.N. member states are dictatorships, supporters of terrorists, or simply incapable of controlling their own borders."
Sadly, we, in the US, seem to have fallen into the last category, not through lack of ability but through lack of will.
Iam in agreement with you but think that last word shout be stated "lack of American Leadership"
the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – As with most progressive global policies it surely aims to "get the foot in the door" and then try to "kick it down" later. (aka Nancy Pelosi). Which is why I don't trust anything from the UN or our government to actually be in the "best intrest" of it's people. The UN and this administration have said too many times that the constitution is "outdated" and needs to be replaced with a "Global" constitution of positive rights not negative rights. So until the UN butts out I would question any "treaty" that is purposed affecting our rights as American's.
Paper work from UN is good toilet paper in my eyes,any one making a agreement with them are traitors , we are in America, we have a right to bare arms, no way they are going to impose a law to restriction's here and now !! hello
When your head is in the sand your ass is fully exposed,this should scare everyone.
Can we stop Obama and Clinton’s move to take away our guns? Why are we in the U.N. anyway? We need to remove ourselves from it.
We have the greatest document ever composed by man, Our Constitution. It was written by far sighted individuals who rightfully dist rusted centralized government, hence our Right To Bear Arms. We should get the UN out of the United States, and get the Unit ed States out of the UN. They have been a fifth column operating in out nation since it's establishment. It is a amalgumation of spies, dictatos, terrorists, any free spending money wasters. It is past time to unburden ourselves of them.
Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., Perhaps you meant, "…Treaty Will EFFECT 'Legally Owned Weapons'"…?
I do agree with the thrust of the article.
"Effect" is a noun, "affect" is a verb. :-)
The UN and Obama administration are both anti-American and should never be trusted to protect this country. They are both committed to destroying our freedoms and everything we hold dear. We must vote Obama and ALL of his allies out of power this November 2012 and send his wife Michelle my bell packing
as well.
I dare some non-American to just try and tell me what to do with my personal weapons. In fact, I double dare anyone to trespass on my property for the purpose of taking control of my guns. That’s exactly how armed conflicts begin so butt out UN and Hilary and Obozo!!!!!! Leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the only way ANYONE will take the right to keep and bare arms is when im DEAD i can and WILL go to war to defend that right
Our nation's Constitution is on the basis that the "right" to keep and bear arms is to be eternally protected by our government. As we watch China and Russia favoring Iran, that scummy UN is checked when it comes to fighting for liberty and justice. Where the good people are made powerless to resist crime and tyranny, you cannot expect to keep anything, you will be a slave of a wicked government.