Previous Post
Next Post

“Although the moral and security arguments for a robust Arms Trade Treaty are clear, critics claim that it would interfere with the right of Americans to own guns. This fear, if genuine, is misplaced. The rules created to govern the negotiations explicitly prevent the treaty from having an impact on domestic gun laws or sales within countries. Furthermore, the U.S. delegation involved in negotiating the treaty has forcefully echoed the sentiments of a number of senators, stating that it will not agree to a treaty that infringes upon our Second Amendment rights.”- Suart F. Platt (Rear Admiral, USN, ret.) and Galen Carey (VP Govt. Relations, National Association of Evangelicals)

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. One of the goals of the ATT is to combat illicit international firearms transfers, and I wonder how it will be used against American Citizens in the border states.

  2. I tend to agree… There a lot of misplaced fear and anger over this UN treaty, and people don’t stop to read it. Not only have the US delegates come out and talked about it not infringing on our 2nd amendment rights, it would need to be adopted by congress as well. Want to get angry about something? let’s fire Holder for fast and furious…

    • people don’t stop to read it

      Kinda heard to read it since “it” hasn’t been published.

    • I have heard it said both ways: the ATT will not affect the civilian gun rights, and the ATT will affect civilian gun rights. So which way is it? Which statement is more likely?

    • I don’t have to read it.

      All I have to do is a) have a memory span longer than that of a goldfish (check) and b) remember the prior actions and words of the proponents of this treaty (check).

      From that, I can logically infer that they’re not telling the truth, nor is there intent to regulate or control only international small arms transfers.

    • Not only have the US delegates come out and talked about it not infringing on our 2nd amendment rights, it would need to be adopted by congress as well.

      You’re forgetting that, regardless of what the US does, they could essentially ban any non-American made gun, ammunition, or accessory from entering the country.

  3. Misplaced fear….na, I think Id rather be fearful and when its proven that it cant harm my 2A rights….then I’ll relax a bit. Until then, count me in on the fear thingy.

    Seriously… Just because an Obama optioned political mouth piece says they are against the ATT impacting on the 2A here in the USA…doesnt mean lot. I mean, its nice to hear..but i’d rather read the language of the ATT and decide then.

  4. Those black bags have to be hot, but the brains of those protestors are cooked already.

    This treaty, whatever its language, will be exactly what most gun control legislation is: a nuisance for those who abide by the law and of no consequence to criminals. That applies to individuals as well as to nations.

  5. Never, ever relax your vigilance. Of course they’ll say it won’t infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, but watch the fine print. 100% firearms registration doesn’t infringe – does it? What about recording and keeping records on all civilian firearm transfers in the United States? Why, those are necessary to trace illicit firearms! Without those records, it would be impossible to trace firearms. What about the “International Tracing Instrument”? Look it up. Why are the negotiations now being conducted in secret? Hmmmmm.

    It’s simply not possible to control international trade in firearms without infringing on internal U.S. firearms policies. Will they demand you turn in your guns? No. Not today. But wait until they know where all the guns are…..

    Never, ever relax your vigilance.

  6. I believe Obama’s support of this treaty has one objective, to shrink the supply and availability of imported firearms to the US market. It may not have immediate 2nd admendment issues, but in the long run, if you shrink the supply, prices rise, causing a reduction in sales. Arms control via market manipulation!

  7. The problem lies in their interpretation of this phrase “that infringes upon our Second Amendment rights”. There is almost no restriction on our rights to own and bear arms that they think would “infringe… upon our Second Amendment rights”, because they don’t think the second amendment applies to an individual.

    The authors of that quote spoke truthfully (in their way of understanding what they said), but they didn’t say what you think they said.

  8. Oh, well if a government-controlled military officer tells me it’s ok, then it must be ok.

    • Military officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and history reflects that they take that oath much more seriously than politicians.

      • Right, except that you’re forgetting that above all else, a military officers job is to do whatever the fuck he’s told to do by his superior, no questions asked.

        Oh, as for them taking it more seriously, what about the multiple times over the last century where they’ve gladly murdered US citizens (with more than one of those massacres being unarmed citizens)?

Comments are closed.