Previous Post
Next Post

The gun rights industry and the gun control industry both rely on fear to push their agenda—and raise money. One side shouts “The Gun Grabbers are coming! The Gun Grabbers are coming!” The other side shouts “We need to pass common sense gun laws to prevent needless gun violence!” At the moment, the anti-anti-gun side of the debate is winning. Especially, it must be said, with the National Rifle Association on the case. Although TTAG has taken the NRA to task for fear mongering and OFWG myopia, the org is there, fighting the good fight. In fact, they’re one of the two main reasons the United Nations Small Arms Treaty poses no threat to U.S. gun owners . . .

1. The U.S. firearms industry will have none of it

It’s difficult to appreciate the size and power of the international defence industry. For example, weapons are the UK’s number one export. Without them, the Nanny State would collapse. In 2010, America exported some $8.6b worth of kill people—I mean defend freedom stuff. Firearms accounts for a small but still significant amount of that total (if I told you I’d have to kill me).

When the United Nations looks at regulating the arms trade, it’s not just a bunch of duplicitous, sanctimonious, hypocritical, power-mad, dangerously deluded gun grabbers trying to figure out a way to disarm the world’s people, rendering them powerless in an effort to create world peace. Although God knows there’s plenty of those involved. You’ve also got NGOs on the scene. To wit:

NRA has been a recognized Non-Governmental Organization at the United Nations since 1996.  Our status as an NGO allows us to closely monitor the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members.  Our NGO status also allowed NRA to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

Notice that the NRA doesn’t mention the document in play: The Small Arms Treaty. That’s because it doesn’t have anything to do with restricting small arms sales within the United States. As far as we know, it’s strictly an end-user certification deal, wherein the rest of the world agrees (or not) to follow the same sales monitoring protocol that We The People use.

Which doesn’t do much of anything, I might add, given that we’ve been supplying Mexican drug cartels with weapons through official military and law enforcement sales for well over a decade. Anyway, your friends at The Freedom Group, Colt Industries, ArmaLite, etc. are also in the NGO biz, quietly enough, looking at the Small Arms Treaty to look out for their interests. Which are your interests as well.

Truth be told, there’s no way on God’s green earth these well-funded, powerful lobbyists are going to let the U.N. stop American civilians from buying and owning guns, or force them to register their weapons with the “world” government. For one thing, the U.S. firearms industry NGOs are, believe it or not, patriots. For another, that would be very, very bad for business.

2. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty has to be Ratified by the United States Senate

And then signed by the President of the United States. On what planet must you live to believe that the Senate would pass a gun-grabbing U.N. treaty, or that the President would sign it? Planet paranoia.

If some Senator submitted a Small Arms Treaty mandating firearms registration leading (theoretically) to confiscation there would be a political shit storm of epic proportions. While the result would fill the NRA’s coffers, it would terminate the careers of any pol stupid enough to sign on who has five or more gun owners in his patch.

And if that bogus Treaty was passed, it would be cold dead hands time for American gun owners. Chicago recently passed a law requiring gun owners to register their gats, under penalty of law. Guess how that turned out.

In short, chill. If you want to see what the Small Arms Treaty could do to mess you up, click here for Senator Moran’s letter to Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama. If you can’t be bothered, renew your NRA membership. They’re hardly perfect, but they are good at what they do. Which they do for you.




Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Number one reason they can’t take your guns is because they’re a bunch of useless PUS@@@S, and they will run away if you laugh at their silly blue helmets.

  2. My concern is that liberal Supreme Court jurists look to foreign and international law as persuasive precedent. Sandra Day O’Connor was notoriously outspoken that we should be ruled by the New World Order’s laws, and that is the current mantra being taught at liberal law schools.

    Assuming Heller survives, we are now in an era of defining Heller’s “reasonable restrictions.” Liberal jurists are going to look to international standards as persuasive authority.

  3. Claiming that Lock-Mark and Boeing is just like Kimber and Mossberg is a pretty dumb basis for an argument. What is made by Boeing or Lock-Mart that would be impacted by a treaty on small arms?

  4. “On what planet must you live to believe that the Senate would pass a gun-grabbing U.N. treaty, or that the President would sign it? Planet paranoia.”
    Unfortunately I’ve seen senators voting for things today, that I never thought they would vote for 30 years ago. Who knows what they will give away in 10 or 20 years from now. Besides you’re only paranoid if you look and nobody’s there.

  5. Re Point #2 — Not only does the Senate have to ratify the treaty, but must do so not by simple majority, but by a 2/3rds majority. Which is why I watch and observe any movement on the treaty, but do not worry or fret about it.

  6. “1. The U.S. firearms industry will have none of it”

    And when Soros buys Cerberus, what then?

    Hell, based on the declining quality, he might have already bought Cerberus through intermediaries.

  7. Can I take credit for inspiring this post? Just a little?

    Or was it simply a coincidence?

    Also I’d just like to say that I don’t get all this hate for the UN. We live in a big world; 6.775 billion, according to 2009 data. In the same year, the US population accounted for 307 million, or about 22%, of that total. A large percentage, compared to some countries, but that’s all the more reason for us to work with everyone else and try to make the world a better place. The UN is the best tool we have for that job.

      • Heh, ok.

        Also, before anybody comments on it, I had a brain fart when typing that post up. US population is about 4% of the world population.

      • Thinking that the entire planet Earth should be fair for every person is the craziest idea I have ever heard of! Why should I give up freedoms so that other people arent forced into having more freedoms throughout the world? The USA has increased the quality of life for more people on this planet than any other nation since the industrial revolution.

    • I don’t HATE the UN. I just wish they’d go away. NOW.

      The UN was a bad idea to begin with. And we’ve been shouldering the burden, financially, for that bad idea since it’s inception. Think about it – we created and funded a group that meets on our soil, so the rest of the world could come here and tell us what jerks we are on the one hand, while asking for a handout on the other. Then let’s look at the list of achievements that the UN has made in the area of solving political conflicts (in no particular order):

      Solved       Name of
      by UN        Conflict 
      ☐               Arab-Israeli conflict
      ☐               Northern Ireland conflict
      ☐               Somalia war-lord thing
      ☐               Bosnia genocide
      ☐               Darfur
      ☐               Ivory Coast pirates
      ☐               Saddam Hussein/Iraq
      ☐               Iran’s Nuclear buildup
      ☐               Pakistan/India conflict
      ☐               North Korea nuclear buildup

      Wow. A perfect score. If by “perfect” you mean “abject failure.” So why do we keep these clowns around? And why are we paying for the privilege of being insulted by them on a regular basis? I dunno. You tell me. I’d like to evict every last one of them, and turn the UN building into low-income housing, or something else that’s at least marginally useful.

      The UN is, at best, a thorn in our side. At worst, it represents a constant attack on our sovereignty. I see NO upside in having them around. If they are going to continue to exist (i.e.: without our support), My preferred housing solution for them would be a floating platform that could drive, rudderless, across the oceans, going whichever way the wind blows them. Which is a pretty damn accurate analogy for the UN in general.

    • The UN is the best tool we have for that job.

      The majority of the states in the UN are tyrannies. Why should free people subject themselves to the whims of tyrants?

  8. I like to think that I’m a realist as opposed to being paranoid. I used to be a sheep. Now I work on being a good sheepdog. And I’m a member of the NRA, even when they don’t represent my best interests (like supporting domestic enemies).

    The darkness is coming.

  9. i must concur with the abv post!

    for wide-spread gun-control/gun confiscation to occur, the US situation would have to resemble either the 1996 situation in the UK immediately after the Dunblane massacre and/or the situation in Australia immediately after the false-flag Port Arthur massacre!;

    that would entail, basically, a totally controlled media overwhelmingly hostile to gun owners, a massive anti-gun campaign lasting several months being “spruiked” by that same media, a very large n° of anti-gun politicians and a scared, weak and, basically, neutered “gun lobby”!

    none of these conditions exist in the US @ present….and the first two are, now, in all probability, no longer possible because of the wide-spread pervasiveness of the internet….

    yr Prez Obama is, apparently, opposed to the private owner-ship of fire-arms….but……it’s becoming increasingly obvious that he is “a lame duck” and will not last longer than one term….if that!…..he has no real power or “moral authority” and, barring some totally unforeseen circumstance(s), would be incapable of “mobilising” national opinion on this issue like Prime Minister John Howard did in Australia in 1996/1997!

  10. Your logic is very naive at best … what senate and administration would pass such a bill is your defense of why this is nothing to worry about?

    Do you really not see the craziness in that statement when talking about the left wing and their agenda???

    Has the last 4 years taught you nothing?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here