No Draft of U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Yet

Meanwhile, conservative vitriol continues to mount. Check this from NRA Board Member Ted “Motor City Madman” Nugent [via]. “The United Nations is a flea-infested, hygiene challenged hellhole of soulless despots, tyrants, anti-freedom, human-rights violating global gangbangers who wish to shore up their power by having the United Nations put forth a treaty that would restrict the access to guns by their people, thereby ensuring the tyrants can continue to kill, control, rape and plunder innocents with impunity.” The Obama State Department hasn’t addressed those concerns, but they have this to say about the U.N Arms Trade Treaty . . .

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law. There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.



  1. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Nope. Why would you trust anything the Obama administration says? When you consider everything else they have lied about (cough cough Fast-and-Furious cough cough), why would you believe what they say about their deep and abiding respect for the 2nd Amendment? Or any other part of the constitution? “Hey, we don’t like those laws that Congress passed, so we don’t have to enforce them.”

  2. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

    This from the administration that promised a new era of transparency in government, then gave tacit assent to Pelosi’s assertion “You have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it”? You’ll forgive my skepticism, I’m sure.

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s nice to see Uncle Ted toning down the rhetoric a bit from his usual self.
    I’d like to sneak up on that statue and turn it into a proper carry gun, a short barrel 38.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Excellent idea. I don’t have the power tools to do it in reality nor the means to keep law enforcement at bay during the process but have Photoshopped the “after” version with the severed knot resting on the base of a properly restored snubby.

    2. avatar Greg Camp says:

      It’s a .357, no?

  4. avatar Greg says:

    Am I the only one who thinks Colt should sue the sculptor of the Colt with the twisted barrel? Kind of stole that image, just sayin’.
    How can anyone, at all, ever think the UN is not anti-gun/self defense after viewing that sculpture?

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Well, that’s ’cause guns are evil. But if you want to kill 500,000+ people with machetes, that’s just peachy keen and the boys in baby blue won’t do a thing to stop you. And the commander on the ground who utterly failed will become a hero for getting PTSD and trying to kill himself.

    2. avatar BeninMA says:

      No kidding. It’s hard to believe anyone actually sees a revolver as symbolic of genocidal war.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        In all fairness, they probably commissioned the sculpture from an anti-gun artist, and told him they wanted “an assault weapon with a barrel shroud.”

  5. avatar Bill F says:

    “The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing………”

    In other words: “Relax you gun nuts, you’ll hardly feel this. We’re only going to slip the head in…for now”.

    1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

      Too true tho’!!!!

  6. avatar JSIII says:

    To quote Chris Rock “You don’t need gun control, you need bullet control”. I am more worried about this treaty causing a rise in the cost of inexpensive imported ammo like Tul, S&B, Wolf etc. Also if you were planning on getting a cheap AK import I would do so now; they may not be so cheap next year.

    1. avatar GoodToGo says:

      I am glad my years ahead are limited. If TSHTF, IMHO the sooner the better.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        This. I’d rather just get it over with instead of having to continually wait and wonder when the thugs will try to smash my door down and shoot me and my dogs.

  7. avatar OHgunner says:

    They don’t mention the import or export of arms and ammunition to Americans for legal purposes. As another commenter mentioned (I forget who and in what post, my apologies) this would have devastating impact on the price of owning and shooting firearms. Tulammo, Wolf, and other cheap bulk/milsurp ammo off the market. AKs, SKSs, and inexpensive Chinese knock off guns? Sorry, can’t import. It would be like the imbargo against Cuba. Decent products become contraband and way more expensive to attain, and also illegal.
    I am also not in favor of anything that they hide from public eyes until after there is nothing you can do about it *obamacare*

  8. avatar Patch says:

    So, we have no draft yet, but the State Department guarantees, [T]here will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. How can they so clearly refute a claim against a treaty that doesn’t exist yet. Color me skeptical (of both sides), but I’ll believe the text of the treaty whenever it does come out.

    Доверяй, но проверяй. Or, to paraphrase LeVar Burton, “You don’t have to take Robert Farago’s word for it.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because this was a precondition for our participation in the drafting process, and the other parties agreed to it.

      1. avatar Patch says:

        So, if the conversation changes and civilians’ rights go out the window, we have the same degree of a guarantee from our own government that we will be out of the deal? I remain skeptical. Says who that the conditions will not change? This is the UN, and this is a Democrat administration at risk of not getting a second term and losing the Senate majority. I wouldn’t put it past them to take whatever avenue they can to push a long-standing agenda.

        Don’t get me wrong, though: The claim that citizens’ rights will be upheld is important so long as it is maintained through the process. So long as this treaty makes it very clear that every little thing is gonna be alright as it regards the right to keep and bear arms, I have no qualms about it. Tread into the realm of arms control, and … shall we say, not so much.

  9. avatar Aharon says:

    No I am not reassured. Why should I be reassured by government promises since they are not held accountable to written or oral promises?

  10. avatar soccerchainsaw says:

    Couple the anti-gun sentiment in the UN with the fact that they’re now Jones’in for the power to tax individuals and you might understand why many want to get out of the UN. (Just search “UN wants to tax billionaires”, the story will pop up. Today billionaires, tomorrow millionaires, then “thousandaires” and “hundredaires”, when will it stop?)

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Reassured? Sure, about as much as I am when my proctologist uses extra lube.

    1. avatar Texas Colt carry says:

      OH CRAP!! (literally)

  12. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    everytime I see that dumb ass gun statue I think of the road runner cartoons…..

  13. avatar Mike in NC says:

    Did anyone else notice that list of things for which “[t]here will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over” made no mention of MANUFACTURING?

  14. avatar BeninMA says:

    As with the NDAA, perhaps Obama will sign the treaty and then say “don’t worry, I won’t actually enforce it”? No one expected Obama to violate our Constitutional freedoms to the extent that he did when signing the NDAA — even his supporters are really mad about it — so why would anyone believe that he won’t violate second amendment freedoms, something that he actually promised to do in his 2008 campaign?

    Obama has a terrible record on personal freedom, including freedoms he claims to support (just ask the ACLU) — is it really paranoid to expect him to undermine freedoms he doesn’t support?

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      I expect another “we can’t wait for ratification! Lives are at stake” justification. I don’t trust that guy with any of my rights. He thinks that our rights, like our currency, belongs to the central government to be rationed out like health care will be under Disastercare. He will go down in history as the nations worst mistake since slavery . I just hope he isn’t our last mistake.

    2. avatar din says:

      are you trotting out that many-times-over disproved “under the radar” chestnut? or do you have some other proof of a campaign promise for gun control by obama which can be cited?

      1. avatar BeninMA says:

        din — Obama campaigned on the permanent reinstatement of the AWB. There are many many sources for this, but here’s just one for you to look at:

  15. avatar Sammy says:

    What about parts importation? And what about The American chief executive banning the re importation of over 300,000 M1 Garands a few weeks ago. That would have brought down the cost dramatically for one of if not the best battle rifle ever made, which is currently over 1,500.00. The sooner he’s given the boot the better.

    1. avatar Air Force TSgt says:

      Great M1’s can be had for about $800, but yes that would have brought them down even more…

      1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

        According to this the purchase of the Korean Garands went through and will be processed by the CMP.

  16. avatar Totenglocke says:


    Nope. Given Obama’s track record, anyone who believes a word out of his mouth must have been asleep for the last four years. What’s rather disturbing is that you’re so eager to believe all of this. Must come from living in a die-hard blue state.

  17. avatar crosswiredmind says:

    The current outline states:

    12. Recognizing the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.

  18. avatar crosswiredmind says:

    I simply do not understand the perception that the Obama Administration has lied or deceived. I don’t see it at all. He has used Executive Privilege once when each of the previous two Administrations used it fourteen times each.

    Just because some yahoo Congressman decided to show immense disrespect to the Office of the President by shouting “liar” at the State of the Union speech, does not constitute evidence that any lies were ever spoken.

    I never understood the hate for the Bush Administration, and I do not understand the hate for the current one either.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      and I do not understand the hate for the current one either.

      Apparently you haven’t seen the news from the last 3 1/2 years. Must be nice to be you.

      1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

        I read/listen to the news every day. I simply avoid Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. In fact I get zero news from TV. Turns out that TV news is entertainment and hype, not facts and analysis.

        If I listened to Fox I would be led to believe that the country is being flushed down the toilet.

        If I listened to MSNBC I would be led to believe that we are in the Golden Age of the Republic, and that there are Unicorns wandering the streets giving out lollipops.

        Instead of that I read the BBC, the Economist,, snopes, a few other US and international sources.

        Nothing beats facts and reason mixed with some objectivity.

    2. avatar din says:

      apparently you haven’t seen the news from 2001-2009.
      must be nice to be you.

  19. avatar Greg Camp says:

    I have to note that “permitted” and “protected” leaves a lot of room for restrictions. After all, can I buy a full-auto Thompson in a hardware store next state over? I’ll take no treaty, thank you. Barring that, I’ll take no ratification by the U.S. Senate.

  20. avatar Air Force TSgt says:

    It’s time to get more AK’s and Tula…

  21. avatar din says:

    we can trust ted. after all, if there’s anyone who’s an expert on poor hygiene, it’d be that draft-dodging sack of crap.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      after all, if there’s anyone who’s an expert on poor hygiene, it’d be that draft-dodging sack of crap.

      I love how people consider dodging the Vietnam draft is a bad thing, when in fact it’s quite American. The only reason why we had a draft is because we were losing a war of aggression – badly. Hence getting drafted pretty much meant you were going to die or be badly injured. Being told that you must die / be injured in a pointless war to push a politicians personal views onto another country just because you were born a male in the US is pretty un-American.

  22. avatar Nelson says:

    Bob, talk on UN Arms Treaty, once you’ve actually read it.

    Then, perhaps you’ll know why those who have actually read it, are up in arms.

    Begs the question, did you read oBUSHmaScare, too, or you just regurgitating your favorite bloggers.

    Like oBUSHmaScare, these moron scums can pass any law saying anything they do is ‘legal.’ But just because they say so, don’t make it so.

    Read it Bob. Read it, ya lazy bum:o)

    Oh yeah, it’s EVIL.

    1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

      Read it … ok … what am I supposed to be reading, because I can’t seem to find it anywhere. All I can find are old outlines and internet rumors.

  23. avatar It says:

    No one can read It, there is no drafted treaty, no outline, nothing to sign, nada. But don’t feed the trolls

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email