U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Still Not A U.S. Gun Grab


Once again, I’ve checked with our contacts at the United Nations. You might not want to hear this, but the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is not a threat to U.S. citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. It remains—and will most likely remain—an attempt to bring the rest of the world’s military arms exporters up to America’s legal standards. The Obama Administration has the same policy towards the Treaty as the Bush administration: restrict it to military sales. (Norway is the only country that’s come out in favor of including domestic arms sales in the agreement.) What’s more, the Treaty hasn’t made it to draft stage and will not do so until well after the American presidential election. When it comes to governments and guns, vigilance is always the default option. But there are plenty of U.S. firearms manufacturers and registered NGO’s keeping close tabs on the Treaty to make sure it doesn’t impinge on our gun rights. Stand down people.


  1. avatar MrCrispy says:

    And what if you’re wrong?

    Frankly, I’d err on the side of caution. If we work to stop a treaty that doesn’t exist then we’ve stopped a treaty that never existed. If this thing goes through like the doomsdayers are saying because we shrugged it off, we have only ourselves to blame….and you, of course.

    I’m going to assume it’s going to happen and hope I’m wrong. Believe me, though, no one hopes you’re right more than me.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      You don’t think it would help the credibility of gun rights advocates to hold off until the actual provisions are known?

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Not particularly. Where the UN is concerned, “it’s a gold-plated turd” is the safe bet.

      2. avatar CAV44 says:

        No, like Obamacare, you’ll have no idea what it’s all about until it’s too late.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    i see no usefull purpose for the un myself. good to hear that the treaty doesn’t really exist at this time. more to come later, i bet.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Nah, the UN serves at least two useful purposes.

      1) it gives governments a way to generate drama that doesn’t involve moving armies around. This is a good thing, when one country moves an army, other countries feel compelled to do the same thing. This can get out of hand quite rapidly.

      2) having them all in one place makes it really easy to keep an eye on them. The NSA/CIA’s job would be far more difficult if UNHQ wasn’t in NYC.

      On the whole, I think the UN is a net positive…. but not by much.

  3. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Not about to call an all out war on the UN, but I am sure the gun manufacturers are more interested in this than us lowly citizens. It certainly would affect how they do business. Also if the US would sign such a treaty, unless our congress applied it directly to us, which would probably need to be a 2/3 majority since it would essentially change 2A then it probably won’t pass. So I am not worried about it personally, heck Ca has done enough on it’s own. With SB 249 somewhere in the system, finding an AR lower is like finding a four leaf clover!
    We are in a precarious position so keeping an eye on important legislation that could affect us is critical.
    Just because you are not paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

  4. avatar J. Nelson says:

    Yeah… and politicians and bureaucrats ever LIE to get their agendas forced upon us. It’s not at all like we had an elected member of the Legislature lie on the floor of the floor so that he can keep the people from having access to military rifles.

    Maybe it makes me kind of a jerk, but I for one never trust anything that comes out of the mouths of these people.

    1. avatar JLR says:

      Sure, politicians lie. No one is suggesting that politicians should be taken at their words.

      So why don’t we wait to see the actual text of this thing, and see what it actually says? As it stands now we don’t even know what we’re getting all worked up over.

      It’s especially ironic given how much we complain about politicians that don’t even read the bills they vote on, and here we are complaining about something that isn’t even written yet and claiming we don’t care what actually ends up in it.

      1. avatar jason says:

        you actually still believe that our political reps are chosen by an electoral process? seriously the bush-gore bs should have really brought to light the illusion for its truth. this corp. called U.S.A. is not and has never operated on an true electoral system. not as far as the true power seats are concerned. By the way research the NDAA and you shall quickly learn that congress nor the senate need be involved to make laws now. Obama has the power to make laws with no contestable avenues to challenge his authority. Cant be impeached either. And to bring everyone up to speed there will not ever be another election for this Corp. the U.S.A. if there were dont u think that all the campaigning etc. would be in full swing by now? wake up. time to act is now because i guarantee that this action will in very short order become the confiscation of all [email protected]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! these few weeks are really our last opportunity to make a stand for individuality. we will be turned into mono-social slave race on a global scale. UN is Baaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddd

      2. avatar Totenglocke says:

        The only thing that matters is that the point of the treaty is to restrict access of to guns by law abiding people. That’s enough to despise it, regardless of how bad it is.

      3. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        It’s especially ironic given how much we complain about politicians that don’t even read the bills they vote on, and here we are complaining about something that isn’t even written yet and claiming we don’t care what actually ends up in it.

        Well how can we possibly read it until we vote for it? Haven’t you learned ANYTHING from Obamacare?

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The best politicians are the best liars. You wouldn’t want them telling the truth to our enemies, would you? Unfortunately, it trickles down to their communications with their own constituency.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Canada originally objected to including civilian arms in the treaty (without ever defining what exactly a civilian firearm might be — single shot .22s, maybe?). Imagine that — Canada defending gun rights.

    Well, under international pressure, Canada has dropped its objection, and now insists only that “ATT should recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting and collecting. ”

    I don’t see anything in there about self-defense. So I’m not standing down. I’m standing up.

  6. avatar traye says:

    Especially anything from an admin where every single thing they say is a demonstrable lie.

    Hate to say it but bye TTAG, it has become obvious that you and I have vastly differing opinions on who is a 2A danger.

  7. avatar Ben says:

    Thanks for a dose of sanity. People get hyped up and raise the alarm about things they don’t yet understand. The interwebs are going nuts about this. If things are as you say, and it makes sense that they are – nothing gets drafted and put into motion that quickly, especially when multiple nations are involved – a lot of people have wasted a lot of bandwidth being paranoid without checking the facts. I have no doubt that if things were about to get hairy this site would be among the first to sound a genuine alarm, complete with actual sources to back it up.

    1. avatar crosswiredmind says:


      Thank you for writing what I would have written.

    2. avatar JLR says:


      I’d like to add my thanks and support to TTAG for taking a sober and rational stance on the subject. If the fears turned out to be founded, I have no doubt that TTAG will be among the first to sound the alarm.

  8. avatar Paul McCain says:

    Well, so much for the NRA’s big fund raising opportunity.

    : )

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      You really think they’re going to let this pass? Check your mailbox… 😉

  9. avatar jwm says:

    differing opinions is one of the reasons i like this sight. we can talk and argue the issues and even maybe learn a little in the process. i just wish i could type a little better,sometimes my fingers can’t keep up.

  10. avatar Kirk says:

    I believe it will, in fact, be signed on July 27 by President Obama at an event in New York attended by Secretary Clinton. Once signed, it has authority under the Versailles Treaty even if never ratified — basically, the U.S. is agreeing to not undermine it even if it is not ratified by Congress. It would need to be repudiated by a sitting President before ratification to exterminate it completely.

    IMO, it is a continuing and very real threat.

    1. avatar John Locke says:

      The United States never ratified the Versailles Treaty and could cause all kinds of havoc if the US wanted to. But as usual we play nice.
      Anything the UN does is a threat to the United States. Why does the United States need the UN again?

      1. avatar matt says:

        So let me get this right, you know enough about history to invoke the Treaty of Versailles but say something like “Why does the United States need the UN again?” You do know the US was largely responsible for the UN existing?

        1. avatar John Locke says:

          I didn’t invoke nor brought up the Versailles Treaty, another poster did. I was merely pointing out, a misconception that a signature by the president would indicate the US would abide by the arms treaty regardless if it was ratified. For the rest of the member states of the UN to think an indication of acceptance to the arms treaty is the same as it being ratified by the US is folly.
          Just because the United States was one of the member states in the creation of the UN, does not mean the US has to be a part of the UN any longer.

        2. avatar matt says:

          Could you please specify what kind of havoc the Versailles Treaty would reap upon the US?

        3. avatar bloodyspartan says:

          Parents have borne sons who became Murderers , your logical point is.

          HOW does this enhance the Security and Well Being of the Republic,
          If it does not we do not need it or need to be bothered with It.
          The un now is not what it was.

          The above is logic based in what is in the best interests of the U.S.

        4. avatar Danger Will Robinson Danger! says:


          The UN is becoming what those behind it always really strove it to be, not the facade it was.

      2. avatar matt says:

        And just wondering but what arms limits does the treaty impose, besides those on Germany?

    2. avatar jason says:

      right but wrong. not a real threat it is reality and the population is victim to extreme methods of behaveral manipulation through external means. EG the media. only broadcast the msgs that assist in the progress of the goal to rule the entire world under one govt body of the rich and powerful and we r going to lose the chance to stand against it. ask urselves when it has been since there was a proposed bill that got passed that actually ended up truly benefitting peoples as a whole other than already rich, powerful, decietful celebs, and religious higharchy. in other words when is the bill actually helped the working class or poor?

    3. avatar Doug says:

      Ah, Kirk…I see you got the chain email, and actually believed it. This is a problem in America these days. People read things on the Internet, and then just accept those things at face value without bothering to do even the slightest bit of fact checking. Sorry Kirk, but this makes you look like a fool.

      Here is the only fact people need to know: a treaty like this could only be passed with the approval of two thirds of the Senate. That ain’t gonna happen. I doubt even one third would vote for it, since it is tantamount to political suicide.

      Take the tinfoil hats off, guys. Being vigilant is fine, but don’t divorce logic and reason in the process. Doing so only feeds right into the stereotype of gun owners being something less than entirely intelligent.

  11. avatar Skyler says:

    I’m hardly reassured. I’ll take Bolten’s word over yours.

    And even if it were only to apply to foreign sales, why should the UN control that either? Didn’t we learn from the Spanish Civil War that international arms embargoes only kept the legitimate government from arming itself to defend against fascist rebellion? It happens again and again. The same arguments for personal gun control apply to nations writ large. If free people are prevented from buying arms, then only oppressive governments will have them.

  12. avatar Phil Pistol says:

    I say kick the UN out of NYC. We are in fiscal trouble so cancel the $$, then the UN will die. I don’t like the fact that everyone is in a defensive mode on this. I think we need to attack!! Force the Senate to vote on a reprocity bill to match the House bill. I want to see everyones true colors NOW! ATTACK full speed ahead.

    1. avatar matt says:

      “We are in fiscal trouble so cancel the $$, then the UN will die”

      You do realize the US only contributes 22% of the budget of 5.1 billion USD. The <$1 billion the US contributed is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars of debt we have, most of which went to fund the US military.

      1. avatar bloodyspartan says:

        And the UN is 110% based on it’s own best interests ,not The Republic!

      2. avatar jason says:


  13. avatar Parthenon says:

    Once again they are assuring us about the contents of a bill that has not yet been written.

  14. If this is anything like the last time I heard about this the entire thing will boil down to “Gun Running is illegal.” where gun running is defined as arms smuggling. It’s the normal non enforceable bullshit the UN does. Though if something like this was in place that means Eric Holder would be in international court for running guns to Mexico without coordinating a sting with the Mex govt.

  15. avatar Ike says:

    One of the more likely features of this treaty will be enhanced tracing capability. This has already been discussed extensively at the UN, and may result in some form of registration disguised as mere tracing. The ATF and the UN have been talking about more rigorous recording of all individual sales transactions – which is de facto registration. This fits in nicely with the new multiple long gun reporting in the Southwest.

    I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but the UN has been working on it together with the ATF for at least 10 years. Judge for yourself…..

    Here’s an interesting link: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

    Another: http://www.poa-iss.org/InternationalTracing/InternationalTracing.aspx

    1. avatar Ike says:

      Want proof that ATF has been working with the UN? The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research: http://unidir.org/pdf/ouvrages/pdf-1-92-9045-147-5-en.pdf

  16. avatar gabba says:

    Careful RF. level headedness is a slippery slope, and isn’t tolerated in gunville.

    1. avatar Doug says:

      Yes, as too many of these responses demonstrate, gun owners sometimes LOVE to abandon logic and reason, when a nice knee-jerk reaction feels so much better.

      Why do so many gun owners insist on feeding right into the liberal stereotype of us???

      1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

        It drives me to distraction. Participation in partisan politics should not be required to support the 2nd Amendment. Gun owners are a diverse group, yet our image in the eyes of the general public is fairly narrow. The NRA should stop spending money to oust President Obama and focus on building a new image for gun owners.

  17. avatar Bruce says:

    I understand the aliens from Mars are behind this UN treaty. They (the aliens) are trying to get guns away from true Americans so when they (the aliens) invade we can’t defend ourselves. And the President is working with them.

    Time for NRA to start preparing us to defend ourselves.

  18. avatar Roadrunner says:

    I hope you’re right, Roberto. Two concerns: 1) Media Matters says the UN Treaty isn’t directed at American gun ownership; and, 2) George Soros is apparently funding gun control propoganda through Media Matters to coincide with the Treaty. First, if Media Matters says something, it is usually false, or at least for a purpose other than its stated one; and second, if George Soros is for something, it must be bad for freedom.

    Vigilance is still the order of the day. It likely wouldn’t take much to add a few clauses to mess with imported firearms to the civilian markets (think Glocks, FNs, HK, and so forth), or worse.

    I’d love to be wrong, but I do not expect these people to do things above board.

  19. avatar Joseph says:

    Sorry RF, I don’t buy “our contacts at the United Nations.” And whom might that be? This is really one time you should be specific and reference your information. Otherwise I’m calling BS.

    Wishful thinking is dangerous with this administration. They fly “under the radar” in every way they can.

  20. avatar matt says:

    The ignorance in this thread is overwhelming. People here don’t understand how geo-politics work.

    1. avatar Roadrunner says:

      A good example of geo-politics at work was the Bosnian Arms Embargo of the early 1990s, which essentially enabled a genocide against Bosnian minorities. Courtesy of the United Nations. And then there were the UN Peacekeepers raping girls in the Congo. You’ll please pardon me if the workings of geo-politics don’t impress me much.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I understand quite well. A bunch of wealthy tyrants with armed thugs to do their bidding get together and say “The peasants of the world have too much freedom – something must be done on a global level to help knock them back in line!” Then they pass yet another treaty that removes freedoms and harms law abiding people.

  21. avatar Tom W. says:

    Please fwd. to Forbes op/ed, infowars, and WND , and the NRA that are hyping this as something out of the Book of Revelations.

  22. avatar Derek says:

    We weren’t vigilant enough in 1986, and look what got inserted into the FOPA.

    The Hughes Amendment. A huge thanks to the voters of NJ for electing that scumbag.

    I personally think Title 18, Section 922 USC should be removed in its entirety.

    1. avatar JLR says:

      No one is calling for anything less than vigilance.

      Vigilance != Unfounded Paranoia.

      1. avatar Derek says:

        So vigilance is unfounded paranoia?

        A crappy select-fire MAC now costs around what, $4,000?

        What are M-16s up to, about $16,000?

        The ATF is now running a firearms registry (for non-NFA items) in my state in direct contravention to FOPA ’86 and no one is stopping them.

        1. avatar JLR says:

          The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 are all terrible laws. With any luck the legal challenges against the illegal gun registration scheme implemented by the BATFE will be successful.

          What does that have to do with anything? We still have people virulently opposing a treaty that isn’t even yet written, and stating flat out that they’ll continue to oppose it no matter what it actually says or does. How is that rational?

          Chances are that the treaty will be mostly boring legalize concerning only international defense contractors. However if it turns out to be something more nefarious that will endanger our rights, then by all means we’ll stand up to oppose it.

          What’s so complicated about this?

        2. avatar Derek says:

          Because the Rights we enjoy should apply to the rest of the world also and anything that stands in the way of other nations’ right to keep and bear arms is totally unacceptable. The US should not only not sign it, but do everything in our power to block it.

    2. avatar napoleon says:

      Aye. And don’t trust domestic manufacturers to look out for your interests since they pushed for the import ban in 1968.

      As for bringing the world up to US standard-does that mean more countries will be arming drug cartels across the globe to make the world ‘safe’ for democracy.

      Since we just saw last week the minimal amount of technology necessary to manufacture small arms in Pakistan, awe know how easy it is to build AKs in a garage, and we’ve seen Isrealies making ammunition from lipstick case decoys, I’m not sure what army this treaty would be depriving.

  23. avatar GunNut says:

    With all due respect, Mr. Farago, it’s probably a good idea to keep a close eye on this thing.

    For example, some of the draft treaty suggestions include things like licensing requirements for gun manufacturers. All well and good, you might say, to prevent illicit manufacture and trade of arms.


    Some of the terms involved in the licensing criteria for what constitutes “maufacture” could be interpreted as attaching/removing accessories and optics, reloading firearms equipped with detachable box magazines, and so on. And it’s doubtless a manufacturer would have to keep a record of all the guns taken in and put out, and then share that info with international monitoring authorities. For the children, you know.

    I would also note that outfits like the Ploughshares Institute are making noise about using the ATT as a vehicle to, at minimum, impose a GLOBAL BAN on semi-automatic “assault weapons.” And it seems the ideology of the UN is a little more skewed towards the viewpoint of Ploughshares than the NRA.

    You can never let your guard down with these people.

    1. avatar JLR says:

      > With all due respect, Mr. Farago, it’s probably a good idea to keep a close eye on this thing.

      Yes, we should keep a close eye on this thing. No one is suggesting otherwise.

      > You can never let your guard down with these people.

      Indeed. So don’t let your guard down.

      I would however suggest identifying your target before taking aim and pressing the trigger.

  24. avatar Bob says:

    This may be true, but it would very easily be expanded in the future to restrict citizens. Drop the treaty. Since when are Democrats interested in protecting gun rights? Never…

  25. avatar Aharon says:

    Back in 1915 the federal income tax act was passed. At the time, most Americans did not have an issue with it since it ‘only’ targeted the very wealthy. Then it evolved to include more and more categories that to tax. I’m not implying that the same will happen with the proposed UN arms treaty yet it is always possible. Few recognized how the Suffragette Movement would eventually evolve over many decades into the immoral and unjust monstrosity known as modern feminism.

  26. avatar joe says:

    Nothing good ever comes out of the UN.We should withdraw and kick them physically out.The UN is the single worst national security risk after the porous southern border.

  27. avatar freeport56 says:

    The UN has only one goal, a single World Government. This highly corrupt political body has attempted every scam in the book to subdue free peoples. Their IPCC Global Climate Report had a high school seniors term paper, false data collected in England, and a falsified report from an Indian scientist. This body politic has Libya on the Human Rights Council with a pending vote to add Syria as well.

    During the Bosnia Ethnic Cleansing war in the 1990s more UN peace keeping positions were over run and the people they were protecting turned up in mass graves later. Finally, they are still debating what to do about Darfur(Muslims Slaughtering Christians).

    The UN does nothing but scheme for total control over civilization. Trust no one in that organization !

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I have a bachelors in Economics and a masters in Applied Economics, and during my bachelors I took a course on economic development. One of the textbooks was written by a variety of employees from the UN and every single chapter boiled down to “the would would be perfect if the UN just took control of everything”.

  28. avatar JMDove says:

    Stand down? B_ll Cr_p! This treaty is a proven
    Trojan Horse! Your risking a full insurrection here
    when Americans understand what it will do!

  29. avatar Doug says:

    It seems almost none of the respondents here understand what it takes for the US to be locked into an international treaty. It takes a two thirds vote from the Senate. Once again, that ain’t gonna happen! Heck, the Senate can’t hardly get a 50/50 vote on anything. Yet some of you think 2/3’s will agree on a very controversial treaty??? Come on guys. Take the tinfoil hats off!

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Finally, someone who has done the math…


  30. avatar USMCVeteran says:

    If Hitlery Klinton and Barry Soetoro are for it than it must not bode well for the American gun owner.

  31. avatar Joseph says:

    Doug, let me get this straight: Dick Morris and John Bolton don’t know what they are talking about. Robert Farago and his “contacts” have the real answers. Ok thanks, I feel better now.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      We shall see.

      1. avatar LeftShooter says:

        Stick to your guns, Robert!

  32. avatar cz82mak says:

    “It remains—and will most likely remain—an attempt to bring the rest of the world’s military arms exporters up to America’s legal standards. ”

    America’s legal standards for militarty arms export? Like Fast & Furious et al. Sorry if I’m not a big fan.

    How ’bout let’s not give the UN any power to regulate anything else? It will all end up as tools for despots and international grifters to suck money from productive countries in some way or another.

    1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

      The UN does not regulate anything at all. If the member States agree to abide by a common agreement it is not the UN, but the individual Nations that do the regulating.

      In this case, our laws will not change at all. In fact the US controls on the export of small arms is seen as the model that other countries need to follow.

  33. avatar Keith says:

    This is a hot-button issue, no doubt about it. Like Climate Change and 16 oz Coke bans, it gives some groups fundraising opportunities if they can sufficiently rile their constituencies. So yeah, let’s not blow our wad completely until we see actual verbiage.

    BUT, as staunch 2A advocates, it can’t hurt to make some noise and apply substantial pressure DURING the drafting process. Better to keep dangerous verbiage out of the draft altogether than to find the final draft is indeed a problem. Let’s face it the fact that it is a ‘final’ draft will give it some legitimacy. Better to give trouble no air at all.

    By the way, who here is naive enough to believe that contra-2A language may not even now be waiting in the wings to be quietly slipped in in the 11th hour. That’s how I’d do it if I were a UN political tactician.

  34. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

    Just for those who still believe that the U.N. has a shred of credibility left:


  35. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “The Obama Administration has the same policy towards the Treaty as the Bush administration: restrict it to military sales.”

    If you seriously believe the Obama administration would work very hard to prevent the treaty being expanded – at the last minute – to include all “non-governmental” possession of small arms, I have a very attractive and profitable bridge I would like to sell you.

    Come on, Robert – why would you judge the UN ‘crats and the Obama administration by their words, instead of their past actions?

  36. avatar Scott says:

    Don’t worry; be happy. George Soros and President Obama say everything is Okay!

    By the way, you didn’t really want any more Mosin-Nagant 1891/30s, right? Or Tokarev pistols, straight pull Swiss bolt actions, S&W .38 revolvers, or ‘re-imported Korean’ Garands, right? Because those are all military small arms, and will be banned from international trade.

    Say bye-bye to Wolf and ‘Bear’ ammo, PPU, Aguila, Igman, DAG, Pakistani surplus, Korean .30-06, Centurion (Italian) 12 gauge, and even Eley .22LR target ammunition. All military, so sorry.

    Those AK magazines from Eastern Europe, and Korean Glock, FAL and M-1 Carbine mags? Yep, military small arms.

    When George Soros says he wants to end non-governmental possession of guns, I believe him. When President Obama says he is working on implementing gun control by means other than Congress, I believe him. When they have told you for years what they want, why don’t you believe them?

    You don’t quite understand how their brains work. The temporary lie that this won’t affect any private ownership of guns may be true, for this exact instant. What you own today is legal, today, where you are. But if this passes they will control transport of almost every firearm worldwide, and spare parts, magazines, ammunition, and eventually accessories. And by control, I mean prohibit, and criminalize.

    You say we should trust them until it is written, and then read it.

    I say don’t trust them until it is written and everyone reads it. And even then you have to understand how they will interpret it, and twist it, and enforce it. But just like the Health Care bill, it will have to be voted on and passed before we can read it. Then we can trust them to ‘fix’ it afterwards. Uh huh…

  37. avatar Leah Christie says:

    Why not be proactive before legislation has been drafted? Why not lobby for our selves and err on the side of caution? Have we not learned how hard it is to undo something of such significance, such as Obamacare? Fail to plan…plan to fail.
    For any of what may be deemed a reasonable & wise regarding parts of the treaty, if it does turn out to include language that we regret, the analogy of the crap sandwich comes to mind.

  38. avatar Leah Christie says:

    Remember the last time we were told to pass something and then we will learn what it is all about?

    There is nothing paranoid about directing our elected.

    Be smart, be proactive, be your own lobbyist by contacting your Senator about your concerns to uphold the 2nd amendment AND our US sovereignty instead of waiting to see if the UN & Hilary Clinton can be trusted to not infringe on our rights as US citizens.

  39. avatar Cav Martin says:

    Paranoia and ignorance are two of the most powerful influences known to mankind. Throw in a little hatred and vile opposition and a true monster of irrationality is created. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and George Soros are just convenient boogeymen to scare the misinformed. Add the UN to the mix and the chattering class completely lose their mind!

    1. avatar USMCVeteran says:

      “Chattering class”? Yes, Chuck Schemer.

  40. avatar bloodyspartan says:

    Who gives a rats ass Rob, how does this treaty enhance the Republic, I do not care what you or anyone says.

    Why is it necessary, it is not so we do not need it period,, Do as I say not as I do.

    Wake up Kid, Government grows and people suffer.

  41. avatar Average_Casey says:

    I will hold off on an opinion on the treaty until I can read the draft up for a vote. Until then, it really doesn’t matter because it can change.

  42. avatar Peter Franks says:

    Who is your “UN contact”? Media Matters?

    If the facts are as you suggest, and they are not, that is the UN dictators club just wants to stop small arms proliferation in third world countries then there is no reason for the US to sign on to that treaty. The US already has laws that restrict the import / export of arms into and out of this country. To sign on to a treaty that allows countries like Iran to look down their nose at US law and have input into our legal system is the height of stupidity.

    Islamic countries, remember them, that’s where the terrorists come from, are awash in weapons. The US military has been in Afghanistan for 11 years and has been able to eliminate all the weapons that toilet.

    Our rogue government, run by criminals like Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton have violated international law and committed an act of war against Mexico by running guns to the drug cartels who have murdered tens of thousands in that country and they want to subjugate US citizens to this treaty? That is how rulers who intend to take total control behave, there is no other explanation for their actions..

    There is no up side to this treaty for the American people, if you truly believe your UN contacts, you are a fool.

  43. avatar CAV44 says:

    I have an idea, how about if you “stand down” pal. I want nothing what so ever to do with anything, that the United Nation’s have their stinky fingers in.

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