Is The United Nations Really Trying To Curtail Our Gun Rights?
The answer, sadly, seems to be yes. Now before you leftists who read this blog (which I think there may be a grand total of three of you) throw a flag on me to complain I am just falling for the the stereotypical Matt Drudge/Andrew Breitbart/World Net Daily/Rush Limbaugh conspiratorial allegations, I will tell you I did do some background on this.
From FactCheck.org:
Since President Obama took office, though, the U.S. has been more receptive to the notion. In mid-October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying: "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons." And on Oct. 28, the General Assembly voted 153-1 to move forward in preparation for a United Nations conference on the arms trade treaty in 2012 that could yield a formal document. This time, Zimbabwe was the lone naysayer (19 nations abstained).
From our friends at Media Matters:
Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone's "freedom to own" a gun. Indeed, the U.N. General Assembly's resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will "exclusively" maintain the right within their borders to "regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships."
The chair of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, has stated that the definitive goal of the small arms treaty "is to try to have common standards to be applied by all countries when they export or import weapons."
So it seems clear to me that the Obama administration wants to restrict the ability of nations to engage in commerce pertaining to rifles, handguns, ammunition, parts and accessories. My question is rather simple: Why?
During the 2008 campaign, then Senator Obama alleged that many of America's woes abroad were brought on herself in large part because of the United States allegedly putting its own interest ahead of other countries, often dictating to other countries what the U.S. thought best. Is this effort not the same thing? By supporting such a measure, are we not dictating to other countries what the should and should not sell to each other?
Bear in mind neither then-Senators Obama nor Clinton were champions of gun rights before assuming their current roles. What makes us think they have different beliefs now that they have been promoted?
Their claim, of course, is that such restrictions are necessary so that weapons don't flow into third world countries whereby oppressive regimes can use them to commit human right violations. I think it goes without saying we're all opposed to human rights violations. But it naively assumes that such a ban would curtail such violations. It also fails to consider that those trying to defend themselves from such oppressors may very well need the guns the UN, in its paternalistic wisdom, are trying to ban.
The freedom to own and possess firearms has nothing to do with hunting, as former Texas State Representative Susanna Hupp once famously told a Congressional committee several years ago. She said it's about protecting the citizens from an overreaching government. I realize that may seem silly to some on the left, and that's fine if it does. But the writings of our founders make it clear, at least to me, that citizens - not just Americans, but citizens of every country on the planet - ought to have the ability to protect themselves from criminals, from violent regimes, from angry mobs, and foreign invaders.
The UN fails to be on the correct side of the issue. Again.
Looking For Zombie Proof Real Estate?
Cousin Aimee shared this link. Start saving your money up...these cribs are rather pricey.
No comments:
Post a Comment