“Behind the Scenes Obama Continues Pushing UN Gun Control Treaty,” the Gun Owners of America’s press release thunders in bolded text. “Voters can stop this global tyranny by electing an Obama-proof Congress,” it subheads with italicized urgency. I find the GOA’s broadside both odd and reassuring.
It’s odd that the gun rights group ignores the old [non machine gun related] maxim that “all politics are local.” It’s reassuring that the GOA’s focus on the United Nations this close to mid-terms means that there’s no obvious target for anti-gun control campaigning. Other than that, it’s worth repeating our analysis of the “U.N. as gun grabbers” conspiracy theory : bullshit.
The United Nations Small Arms Treaty seeks to impose controls (e.g. end user certificates) on the worldwide transfer of military weapons across international borders; regs that the United States already observes. In any case, both houses of Congress would have to approve the Treaty, which would then head to the President’s desk for his (or her) signature.
So, if the public doesn’t like the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, they’ll get plenty of chances to shoot it down. But before that happens, if it happens, the mere whiff of U.N.-based gun control gives the GOA a chance to raise a stink that raises money for their organizational needs. But where’s the GOA’s beef? Beantown.
In late September, several dozen UN representatives met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to further discuss their plans for global gun control. The final report for the Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is posted online and states that:
“In the end, we seek to achieve an ATT that will establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, in order to contribute effectively towards peace and stability. This Symposium has brought us one step closer to achieving that goal.”
So, they are one step closer to their goal. What are there [sic] goals for our firearms?
We interrupt this important message to bring you a piercing glimpse into the obvious. They just stated their goals. Ah, but those aren’t their real goals. Apparently.
Apart from using generic phrases like “highest possible common international standards” (aka, gun controls), the gun banners are very careful not to publicly post specific anti-gun proposals that would excite the American public against them.
True: the complete lack of any mention of American gun-grabbing had me completely fooled. Click here to read the Symposium report. If you can’t be bothered, I draw your attention an excerpt illustrating the ad hoc group’s fascist, one-world plot to get your guns. Or not.
First, we strive to achieve a uniform standard but an ATT must be flexible enough to adapt to the various needs of States and to achieve universality. This meeting has reinforced that States do not come to discussions on the ATT from the same background ␣ that they thus look at it from very different perspectives ␣ be that their role in the international arms trade, their capacity, or their existing export control systems. Clearly, we must be flexible in our approach to an ATT and strive to establish a Treaty that takes these different situations into account.
Again: this treaty covers military arm sales between countries. Now back to the GOA’s “case” against the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
But Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, who have attended these UN meetings, spell out what the proposed ATT will really entail.
Writing together with another noted firearms author of the Independence Institute, Dave Kopel, they say that an Arms Trade Treaty would impose:
- Microstamping on firearms, thus increasing the cost of each gun by about $200;
- Registration of all firearms, which is often a prelude to gun confiscation;
- Restrictions on gun sales, especially private transfers (thus, no more gun shows as we know them);
- Embargoes on firearms and materials (such as nickel and tungsten) that would limit access to many of the firearms which are sold in this country.
This analysis is pure, highly adulterated conjecture without any basis in fact (as you’d expect from conjecture). I doubt that Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen attended any of the Boston meetings, specifically. And in case you’re wondering, Mr. Gallant is an optometrist and Ms. Eisen is a dentist. (And I used to be a hypnotist. Go figure.)
The Independence Institute is a self-professed “Think Tank” employing Dave Kopel as its Research Director. Speaking of sins of omission, the Institute’s funding is left undeclared (despite taking the government to task for its lack of transparency).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled polemic.
Do you still think that a UN treaty won’t affect you? The “master minds” at the UN plan to register every firearms sale that passes through a gun dealer and to cut off (make illegal) any private sale that you might attempt as a means of circumventing their controls.
But we can beat this travesty by electing an Obama-proof Senate this November!
Even if the President signs the Arms Trade Treaty – and he most certainly will when it’s completed – we can strangle this hideous creature in its cradle if he can’t get two-thirds of all the Senators to support him.
Help GOA stop UN gun control
That’s why GOA is here, fighting to make sure he can’t impose a UN gun ban on every American citizen.
I’ve taken the NRA to task for fear-mongering. Ditto the GOA. If you want to be more effective with mainstream American voters—-and why not?—tell the truth about guns. There are U.N. plots to disarm the world. But this ain’t one of them. And you know it. And if you don’t, that’s even worse.