Study – Grow – Know

UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN Gun Ban)

November 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM Leave a comment

I’m sure someone will offer some correction if they think I’m wrong, but I had nothing better to do so I decided to read through the entire text of the Arms Trade Treaty.  This is the treaty that is often referred to as the UN Gun Ban Treaty.  It’s the same one that Mr. Obama announced just one day after re-election that he wanted Hillary Clinton to pursue with the UN.

Arms Trade Treaty (UN Gun Ban):
I was reading through the UN Arms Trade Treaty (Gun Ban Treaty) and all I can say is What a JOKE!  It is essentially the UN’s versions of “gun control” as if illicit arms dealers are going to pay attention!  The more I read it, the more laughing out loud I want to do.

Mainly International with Dubious Language:
While the emphasis is on things international, there is some dubious language included that leaves you wondering what they really mean (since certain things can be taken more than one way – you know, like every time a politician opens his/her mouth).

Small Arms & Light Weapons?
The only real part of it that might apply to civilian weapons is Article 2, Section H, referring to Small Arms and Light Weapons.  It’s not defined that I could determine from the text.

All of the weaponry mentioned in the treaty is referred to as Conventional Arms. All of it essentially references international trade and shipments of  conventional arms.

Preamble to the Treaty
There are a number of points – 16 points exactly – introducing the document and getting the basic general verbiage out of the way.  One point in particular – point number 14 – states this:

“Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” [1]

So in the above text, we see that the UN recognizes legitimate reasons for owning guns by individuals (private ownership) of the member States.  Of course, the term “States” refers to specific and individual nations who sign the treaty.

Nearly everything within the treaty seems to reference international situations and the export of arms or ammunition, though some of it covers imports as well.  The gist of the treaty is an attempt by the UN to have individual member States come together to agree to do what they can to avoid shipping their arms to rogue nations where terrorists and other insurgents could get hold of the arms and use them for nefarious purposes.

Now, I’m sure that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other anarchist group is going to obey this treaty, right?  I have no doubt that Russia would never even consider selling arms illicitly to Iran, or that the U.S. would ever ship arms to Hamas or the Taliban under this type of treaty, correct?  Uh…right.  Okay, whatever.  Moving right along.

Article 8 – Import
Under this section, concerns shift to conventional arms and ammo imported into an individual State (nation).  Under this section, there are three paragraphs and the second one is of interest to me more than the other two.

“State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty.  State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.” [2]

So basically, when it comes to importing anything that is listed within the confines of this treaty, it would fall to the United States to ensure that things are monitored, recorded, and controlled properly when those items reach our shores through importation.  It also means that parts of our government will make sure that nothing falls into the hands of criminals or other unauthorized users so that things end up on the Black Market.  Oooh, I bet those illicit weapons traffickers are shaking in their boots, don’t you think?

Are you laughing yet?  You should be because this whole treaty is asinine from the start.  We cannot even keep drugs from being smuggled into this country illegally and the DARE program in schools doesn’t work.  Beyond this, we are completely unable to keep all manner of weaponry out of the hands of the criminal in the United States (while making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase them), yet we are potentially going to agree that we will follow the guidelines of this treaty and be responsible for ensuring that any convention weapons or ammo shipped into this country under the treaty never falls into the hands of unauthorized people?

Here’s what I see so far:  if this passes and is ratified by the Senate with the appropriate two-thirds vote, our government will be creating one or more huge departments or programs to oversee the treaty, spending millions of taxpayer dollars each year to try to do something that our government has proven repeatedly they are just not good at!  This will be another place where money will simply be tossed down the drain and we’ll have 18-year-olds in spiffy uniforms and metal badges “in charge” and given the authority to run amok over our rights and to generally make something much more difficult than it has to be.

If you don’t believe me, then take a gander at Article 11 – Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency.  There are no less than five sections dealing with how to record, the type of record keeping each state should keep, what type of report to produce and when it needs to be turned into the powers that be over at the UN.  Another boondoggle for the Federal government at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Enforcement of said treaty is left up to each of the individual member States to determine as they will.  However it best suits them.

As I stated previously in another article related to this, there is nothing in the treaty that I could find that will directly limit individual rights of citizens here in the U.S. or abrogate our 2nd Amendment rights.  The issue that the NRA and other groups are concerned about is what it could lead to and I think they are right to stay ahead of it.

Heck, if our government had its way, private citizens would not have guns in the first place.  Illinois is the state with the most archaic of anti-gun laws, yet is number one in gun crime.  If we want to see that replicated throughout all the states, then all the government needs to do is outlaw all guns from society.  Let’s say that happened and everyone gave their guns up without resistance (okay, wink, wink, snicker, snicker).  Would we see crime go up or down?  The anti-gunners tell us that it would go down, but statistics tell us the opposite and we have plenty of statistics from Illinois and Chicago to back us up.

So in the end, what do we learn from taking a look at the Arms Trade Treaty?  We learn a number of things:

• the terms of the treaty seem to apply only to states shipping or importing arms and ammunition who have signed onto the treaty
• the treaty seems not to be dealing with the rights of individual citizens (except for the aforementioned item 14 under Preamble)
• the implementation of the treaty will cost the United States millions.  Why?  Because the government is in charge of overseeing it
• we are not really sure what is meant by “small arms and light weapons“
• the treaty will work as well as all of the other anti-gun laws that currently exist in the United States as an example – for keeping conventional weaponry out of the hands of “criminals”
• it essentially seems to be a complete wasted effort, but tries to sound important
• in the end, it will cost tons of money and opens the door for other things to be added to this treaty later on once in effect

If the United States signs off on this treaty, it does not appear that they will be coming for our personal, legally owned weapons any time soon.  However, a very important question to ask is whether amendments be added to this treaty that might begin attacking our 2nd Amendment rights?  Absolutely, and the elements for adding amendments are found within the four bulleted points of Article 20.  So, conceivably, at some future point, the United States could seek to add amendments to this treaty that could start chipping away at our individual rights as provided under the U.S. Constitution.

So as it stands now, the Arms Trade Treaty is a document that can be signed by representatives of the United States.  Once it is signed, it would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  If that happens, then the treaty is a go and the United States becomes part of the process with the UN as overseer in all things related to this treaty and the import/export of weaponry.

As I pointed out previously, there appear to be plenty of people who – without equivocation – believe there is no chance that this treaty would be ratified by the Senate, therefore its validity for the U.S. is a moot issue.  I fully disagree.

As it is, I can see the Senate possibly getting two-thirds of its members to ratify such a treaty.  Why?  Because in its present state, it’s absolutely harmless.  It doesn’t mean anything for individual citizens in the United States.  It does not abrogate our 2nd Amendment rights at all.  Why not ratify it?  No worries.  Yeah, go along with the Obama administration and maybe he’ll give us something later when we need him to see things our way.

However, if the Senate does ratify this treaty, I have already pointed out that the United States at some future date could introduce a new amendment or a set of amendments.  Because the treaty would already be in effect, the Senate would not need to ratify anything related to any of these new amendments. Any amendments introduced would then only need to be voted on by the individual member States that have already signed off on and are part of the treaty.  Read Article 20, sections A, B, C, and D.

So, is the NRA cracked?  Are they worried over nothing?  Are they simply trying to gain new members using scare tactics?  Not to my way of thinking.  The reality seems to be that if our government signs off on the treaty and the Senate ratifies it, it’s a go.  As I mentioned, in its current state, there is nothing in there that causes concern except what I have already mentioned.  Many senators reading through the text would not see a problem with the treaty as it is and would have no real reason to not ratify it unless they simply did not want to give the UN anymore sovereignty or support the UN in such a way.

Once the treaty goes into effect – and that could happen – then future amendments could easily be added (voted on only by representatives of member states) and would then become legally binding as part of the treaty that was originally ratified by our Senate.

In spite of this, we have organizations that accuse the NRA of using scare tactics.  It seems to me that the NRA is right to be concerned.  Even though this version of the treaty does not abrogate our rights, who knows what future versions (with new amendments added) would do to our rights.  These other organizations that castigate the NRA make no mention of the process that adds amendments to the treaty.  In my mind, they are being surreptitious.

Beyond all of this, what I’ve been quoting of the treaty may not even be the final version and that won’t be decided on until March of 2013.  A good deal could change between now and then.  I tend to believe that it will be purposefully kept as disarming and harmless as possible so that no one could really have a problem with it, but I could be wrong.

If you stop and consider it, there have been many anti-gun laws enacted in the United States that began with a very logical appeal to them, but many states and even the Federal government have done what they can to make those laws tougher and more constricting.  This has all been done in the name of trying to keep guns out of criminal hands, used for illicit purposes.  In the United States, it simply has not worked, yet anti-gunners continue to go down that path because many of them got into Congress on that one issue and they have nothing else anyway.  They stupidly believe that outlawing guns will make a difference.  They obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a gun.

The Arms Trade Treaty purports to try to do the same thing internationally – between the nations – that the anti-gun laws of the U.S. have attempted to do nationally.  It will fail because terrorists, like all criminals, do not play by society’s rules.  They play by their own rules.  They do not care about laws.  I don’t understand why this is so difficult for some people to see.  Maybe they see it, but ignore it because of their own agendas.

In the end, the Arms Trade Treaty is a bad idea simply because of all the money it will take to implement and oversee it.  Moreover, it will not stop conventional arms from getting into the hands of known terrorists, terrorist organizations, or generally not nice people.  It simply won’t work.

The United States does not need to be involved in such a spurious, toothless treaty.  However, I’m sure the Obama administration will sign off on it and even if it doesn’t get ratified by our Senate, I cannot imagine that Mr. Obama will simply give up.  He’s not known for doing that, is he?

[1] http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/full-text-draft-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/

[2] Ibid

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: 2nd amendment, arms trade treaty, does the arms trade treaty ban all guns?, small arms and light weapons, un gun ban.