The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 7, 2010, 05:25 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2000
Location: Boston
Posts: 200
The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners

The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners
by John Lott

Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Last week the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

The UN’s solution isn’t too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these “reforms.” But not all insurgencies are “bad.” To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war.

In hindsight, during World War II, should the French or Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely this would have minimized causalities. But that is hardly a one-time event. What about Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet Union or Nicaraguan rebels fighting communist dictators during the 1980s? Was it wrong to help out? What about totalitarian governments that massacre their citizens? Don’t they have a right to protect themselves?

Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last decade-and-a-half, were their citizens better off without guns?

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century -– that is 2.6 million per year. This includes genocide, the murder of people for political reasons, and mass murder. Even if all 300,000 deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small arms trade, an obviously false claim, people have much more to worry about from their governments. Adding the U.N.’s estimated deaths from gun suicides, homicides, and accidents still provides a number that is only a ninth as large.

Second, the treaty is a backdoor way to get more gun control laws adopted in the US. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

In addition, to keep track of guns, licensing and registration will be pushed, despite their complete failure to trace crime guns in the places in the US that have tried it or Canada. One also just needs to look no further than how Mexican President Felipe Calderon has blamed his country’s crime problems on the sun setting of the US “assault weapons” ban. Somehow semi-automatic guns, essentially deer hunting rifles that have a cosmetic outside that look like AK-47s or other similar weapons, are being painted as military weapons. The same claims now being made for Mexico will be made even more forcefully under the UN treaty.

Third, gun bans also produce another problem: increased murder rates. UN gun control advocates don’t want to acknowledge that everyplace in the world that we have crime data for has seen that gun bans result in higher murder rates. Americans have seen the increase in murder rates in DC and Chicago after their bans, and the sudden 25 percent drop in DC’s murder rates last year after their ban was removed. But as recent research shows, gun bans have consistently lead to higher murder rates around the world. Even island nations, who can’t blame some neighbors for their supply of guns, have seen increases in violent crime rates.

The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice. The threats to gun ownership are as real as ever.
Get and stay informed with "America's First Freedom" NRA monthly magazine.

Subscribe free NRA-ILA Legislative and RKBA E-mail Alerts:
Acujeff is offline  
Old June 7, 2010, 06:07 PM   #2
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,847
A couple of points:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The United States and Britain already have some of the strictest arms export/import regulations in the world. The chance that the small arms treaty survives a process where Russia and China are forced to adopt U.S. style import/export regulations is about zero. The "reversal" of U.S. policy is mostly just theater for the base as long as we continue to insist the talks operate by consensus.

Second, if you check the sticky at the top of this forum, there is the CIFTA Treaty - which we already have signed and is extremely restrictive and President Obama has asked the Senate to ratify. If you are concerned about treaty issues, that might be a better place to look.

Third, no treaty affecting our Second Amendment rights is likely to pass before November and the ability of the Senate to ratify one after November depends on the elections; but the UN treaty is a ways off (this summer is just another round of talking) and ratification of the CIFTA treaty has little visible support currently.

Fourth, this is pretty much the definition of a drive-by post and on an often-posted and overhyped subject, so don't be surprised if it gets locked.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 7, 2010, 06:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Posts: 195
He is trying to make it look like he and his administration have nothing to do with it, which is bogus as all get out.
rshanneck2002 is offline  
Old June 7, 2010, 06:37 PM   #4
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,537
As Bart said, this is a drive-by post.

Some of you need to read the sticky in this area about the posting rules for L&CR. That post also has links that explain some of the terms... Like Drive-by cut-n-paste posts.

Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12868 seconds with 7 queries