Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned does a good job of shining a light on the confusing machinations of the UN Gun-Ban weenies.
Despite the fact that the treaty is being pushed by notable anti-gun NGO’s, “everyone” says it won’t affect domestic firearm policy (yeh right, tell us another), and so then why is the NRA against it?
And if it were such a great treaty, banning guns as Chicago and New York do, (and see how well that’s working out….) how would that stop
Cesar(oops he’s dead) Hugo (we hope he’s dead soon) Chavez from arming FARC rebels in Columbia, or drug-cartels in Mexico? Bueller? Holder? *crickets*
Key Quote: This whole endeavor is a fools errand, and all we’re creating here is a vehicle for NGO’s to drive gun control at the international level.
Ted Bromund at Heritage is doing excellent reporting of what’s going on with the Arms Trade Treaty, which includes useful information like Australia paying to bring delegations from poor countries. Australia is a major backer of the Arms Trade Treaty. He speaks of the real division on the conference:
There are (1) nations (mostly in Europe) that do not for a moment intend to stop selling arms or are trying to beat the Americans out of contracts but also want an ATT at least in part because they naively hope to curb a few state-led human rights abuses; (2) nations (mostly totalitarian or autocratic) that don’t want an ATT at all unless it disarms their opponents, enshrines their right to buy, and does not limit their access to technology; (3) nations (mostly African) that want capacity-building assistance and whose motto might as well be “show me the money”; and (4) Russia and China, which don’t really want an ATT but don’t really want to stop it openly either. The U.S. doesn’t fall into any of these camps, which is why it spoke for the Permanent Members.
Meanwhile from Investor’s Business Daily:
We are assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically backs the treaty, that it only deals with international trade and trafficking and does not affect our Second Amendment rights.
How the treaty would have dealt with Operation Fast and Furious, the administration program that walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, she does not say.
We don’t believe such assurances, given by an administration that has shown no respect for the U.S. Constitution and has a robust gun-control agenda of which Fast and Furious may have been a part.
The UN is a fundamentally un-democratic institution that provides a world-stage for dictators and many NGO’s to posture and prance, and receive money – a lot like this Administration…