The beginning of the end of our 2nd Amendment
By this time next week the United Nations is expected to be putting the final touches on their much anticipated and mostly reviled (at least by freedom loving patriots) Small Arms Reduction Treaty which is supposed to ensure global peace through arms reduction, registration and compliance.
If the UN is successful in ramming this treaty down the throats of member nations, there will be tremendous pressure on the United States to impose tighter civilian controls in our own country. Given that Russia and China are behind closed doors with Britain and the U.S. writing the treaty, you can guess what will come out of that room.
While proponents claim that the treaty only regulates firearms in commercial trade, there are no safeguards for civilian ownership of firearms. Maybe the major press outlets like ABC and NBC et al missed the fact that the UN has an Office of Disarmament. That’s right, and office of Disarmament. And they will by virtue of this treaty be able to impose regulations that effectively disarm you and me.
According to the U.N. and taken from their web site, this is their “problem” statement for the treaty:
“A problem for the UN
The United Nations, in its work to assist people all over the world, is confronted with many of the negative impacts of lax controls on the arms trade. Think of peacekeeping, delivering food aid, improving public health, building safer cities, protecting refugees, eradicating poverty or fighting crime and terrorism. In all those activities we witness the consequences of armed violence and conflict, and that often lead to violations of international law, abuses of the rights of children, civilian casualties, humanitarian crises and missed social and economic opportunities necessary for development – often fueled by irresponsible arms deals.”
So the U.N. believes that it is their charter to ensure “safer cities” or in “improving public health”. That of course means member counties to the treaty inherently must give up their own sovereignty to the U.N. and acquiesce to their regulations as allowed for in the treaty.
They (the UN) also believes that they have to monitor and issue regulations for INTERNAL/DOMESTIC transfers of small arms (i.e. private ownership).
“Small arms and the UN
Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.
To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. “
And the treaty looks at gun registration as a possible solution to the illicit gun trade.
“Marking and tracing
If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy. “
And they want privately owned ammunition regulated as well.
Information on global ammunition flows is difficult to obtain. More than 80 per cent of ammunition trade seems to remain outside of reliable export data. However, ammunition forms a key component of tackling the small arms topic in all its aspects. In contexts of sustained use, ammunition stockpiles are rapidly depleted. Preventing their resupply in unlawful situations should be a matter of prime concern. Furthermore, these stockpiles present a two-fold problem of security and safety - research shows that much of the non-State actors' ammunition are illicitly diverted from State security forces, and ammunition warehouses located in densely populated areas have exploded in a number of countries, causing thousands of casualties. Therefore, security as well as safety measures with regard to ammunition stockpiles need to be urgently addressed. “
They even address how to manage (eradicate) stockpiles of ammunition and as can be seen in the statement above, it is not just military ammo stockpiles. Civilian stockpiles are included as well. They point to thousands of casualties when “ammunition warehouses in densely populated areas have exploded…. causing thousands of casualties.” Really? Stored ammunition suddenly just all on its own blowing up? I’ve never seen that and I’ve been around ammunition (stored or stockpiled ammunition) all my life. Perhaps they meant a munitions plant?
Additionally, the treaty gives the U.N. power to nix an arms sale to a US ally such as Israel. And guess who heads that committee? Iran.
This is a blatant grab at our sovereignty and the U.N. makes no bones about it. The U.N. treaty is bad and that is why we should not be at the table.
What can you do? Call or write your Senators and Congressmen today and tell them to oppose the U.N. Treaty. You can do it from this link.
Watch this for more info on the treaty.