It has been a tough month for those who value the Second Amendment. Those who are vocal about their gun rights are often labeled as “gun nuts” or some other pejorative. This phenomenon is unique to the protectors of the Second Amendment. It seems ridiculous to label protectors of other amendments similarly. Imagine the confused, furrowed brows that would occur should someone label the ACLU “free-speech nuts”. Someone who does not grant police entry to their home without a warrant cannot rightfully be called “privacy nuts”. But, yet, those that aim to protect the Second Amendment are painted by the left as backwards hill-folk, “clinging to religion and guns”.
The Second Amendment is under attack. Instead of coming at the rights of Americans head-on, as they have done in the past, our government is looking to get the United Nations to do their dirty work. The U.N. is considering the Arms Trade Treaty which would regulate the international trade of weapons. As most other countries prefer their peasantry unarmed, America is truly unique in it’s steadfastness to safeguard private ownership of firearms, much to the displeasure of globalist self-loathing American liberals. However, caving to international pressure, the Obama administration has cooperated with the U.N. and is participating in the drafting of a treaty that would regulate the import and export of firearms.
What really gets the hair on my neck standing on end is the ever-present claim by our government and the United Nations that “there’s nothing to worry about” and the constant assertion from globalists that this treaty “does not affect domestic gun ownership.” As a general rule, when Hillary Clinton tells you that she’s not involved in anything sneaky or underhanded, that is precisely the time one should be most vigilant.
While trade agreements are nothing new for the U.N., this globalist legislation is aimed with the intent of gun regulation. The treaty is designed to regulate civilian-owned firearms, thus usurping Second Amendment protections in America. Naturally, the anti-gun treaty proponents continue to placate the public with a soothing message of, “This will not affect gun rights in America.” But then again, this is the same government that told us that Obamacare was going to be “cost-neutral” and that there would be “no rationing of care”, and we knew that was a crock, too.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has, naturally, been leading the charge against the legislation. In a strongly worded statement, the NRA wrote,
“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 import/export 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.
And even if the U.S. never ratifies–or even signs–the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.
That’s not all. This week, the delegates focused on an endless series of drafts that would either ban exportation or require states to consider the risk of exporting, if the arms could be used to commit crime, or could ‘be diverted to unauthorized end users’ or ‘the illicit market.’ Exports could also be blocked if they would ‘support’ or ‘encourage’ terrorist acts or ‘provoke, prolong or aggravate acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,’ or could be used in ‘gender-based violence’ or to inflict ‘human suffering.’ Anti-gun activists here and abroad have long claimed that gun ownership in general does all of these things, so any of these provisions could be abused by foreign governments to shut off exports to law-abiding Americans.”
Redefinition has become the new prohibition. No longer does government aim to outright prohibit firearm ownership, it simply redefines what is allowable by law. For instance, in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago, Chicago passed a de facto ban on handguns. While the new law states that citizens of the windy city may own a handgun, they must register their guns, they are only allowed one registration per person per month, the registration fee is recurring, all gun shops are banned in Chicago and, most outrageously of all, handgun owners are prohibited from leaving their homes with their handgun, even if it is on their own property such as a porch or a garage. But hey, it’s not like they banned handguns, right?
Of course, Chicago, the largest city in the one state of the union that does not issue concealed carry permits, has become a wasteland of gun violence. Unwilling to admit that their quarter-century fatwa on gun ownership isn’t working, Chicago continues to suffer skyrocketing crime rates.
While Chicago is a unique case, it illustrates the exact problem with allowing ambiguity in legislation. As the NRA points out, there are enumerable ways in which this legislation can (and most likely, will) infringe upon the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.
I may be just some “gun nut”, but I know a power grab when I see one. And the Arms Trade Treaty is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.
To get involved and have your voice heard, please sign the petition at TheTeaParty.net. Doing so sends a letter to your representative as well as your senators and the president, demanding that your voice be heard.
To see NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s speech to the U.N., click here.