Senate Ratification of the U.N. ATT would result in a ‘kiss of death’ for our Second Amendment

July 9, 2012

By Nancy Thorner & Edward Ingold –

Just as The Law of the Sea Treaty, also know as LOST, is being urged upon the U.S. by the United

Nations and fans of world government as a treaty which works against the interests of the U.S., as does another treaty that the U.N. is presently deliberating over — the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)– which seeks to establish common international standards for the import export and transfer of conventional arms.

The administration of George W. Bush opposed the treaty when first proposed in 2006, casting a the lone negative vote when 153 nations passed a U.N. General Assembly resolution to begin the treaty-drafing process; the Obama administration is giving ATT high-level support in its push for global arms control.

This month (July 2 – 27) the Obama administration is participating in month-long negotiations at U.N. headquarters aimed at finalizing a conventional arms trade treaty.  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has given the treaty negotiations her support and has signaled that the U.S. would seek to ratify the treaty in the Senate after the final details of the treaty were crafted. <

According to an article posted on July 6, by Jim Kouri, Obama/Clinton hope to sign the Arms Trade Treaty on July 27th.

In a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 2nd, taking pre-emptive action, “130 Republican lawmakers outlined their concerns that the negotiated treaty could negatively affect U.S. security, foreign policy and economic interests, as well as constitutional rights of the American people.

Legislators are naturally concerned that an international arms treaty will infringe on fundamental, individual rights to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense upon which Second Amendment is based.

Recently I discussed the implications of the U.N. ATT treaty should it be ratified by the U.S., with fellow conservative and musician, Ed Ingold of Mundelein, a chemist by education and an engineer by trade.

The same question was instantly entertained by the both of us.  How do international organizations and foreign government have the right to restrict the fundamental freedoms handed down to us by our Founding Fathers?  It is even more upsetting that the Obama administration seems eager to fritter away rights bestowed upon the American people by our Creator.

There was complete agreement between us that the ATT treaty is yet another end run around the Constitution that would surrender the sovereignty of the United States to an organization that takes our money but whose member nations show us little respect, akin to the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty.

We were not at all surprised to find that George Soros is promoting U.N. control over gun ownership. Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the on-going New York United Nations ATT conference.

Timothy Johnson of Media Matters, in a post of July 3, described the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as “laughable.” 

Not so fast says Peter Brookes in his Opinion piece on Tuesday, July 3, U.N. treaty would disarm U.S. foreign policy.  Brookes’ two opening paragraphs of his article are noted below:

“The United States is set to foolishly join in a full-clurt press at the United Nations this week for a new treaty on the global conventional-arms trade.

The drive is to hash out a text by month’s end, but readouts of a U.N. ‘draft paper on the accord’s goals suggest the Arms Trade Treaty is something to avoid like the plague.” 

One premise of ATT (actually a stated goal) is that the final text results in “a robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty which denies countries veto power.

Making it a theoretical impossibility that the final treaty product will benefit our nation is that the British, French, German and Swedish governments believe arms trade treaty should cover all type of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (guns Americans use for protection and hunting), all types of munitions, and related technologies.

Most obnoxious about the New York ATT conference is the scandalous election by members of the U.N. on Sunday July 8 of Iran to the top post! 

It is not a stretch of the imagination to put two and two together to conclude that Fast and Furious was set in motion by the Obama administration to stir up the American people against gun sales and to further cause the American people to be afraid of those owning guns legally.  Done under the guise of doing away with drugs, in reality it was to confiscate guns and to destroy the Second Amendment.

Given that President George W. Bush was against the treaty when presented the last time around, the Obama administration, certain that the UN would once again bring up ATT, wanted public anger over Fast and Furious to breed acquiescence.  Certainly Hillary has not been gun shy in her determination to push for the Senate’s ratification of the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty!

To the chagrin of the Obama administration, Fast and Furious went “south” which prompted an investigation as to who knew when and what, which so far has resulted in a contempt vote on June 28 against Obama’s Attorney General,  Eric Holder.

The intent of the administration behind Fast and Furious was quickly betrayed.  In their frustration after their exposure in the press, an edict was issued through the AFT that the purchase of two or more semiautomatic rifles within a 5-day period, in Southwestern states, must be reported to the AFT.

Those who support UNATT still feel justified in their support, in part, through linking it to the arms traffic that crossed the border from the U. S. to Mexico during Fast and Furious, even though only about 10% of the arms confiscated by the Mexican government can be traced to the U.S. (Note: Only those strongly suspected are even submitted to the BATF).

According to Mexican sources approximately 83,000 small arms were confiscated in 2010.  Of the 14,400 guns submitted to the BATF for tracing, about 6,700 came from the U.S., the rest coming from revolutionary states, and tragically, from Mexican government forces, including the police.

The statement widely publicized by the White House in 2010 that the U.S. supplied 90% of the weapons used by the Mexican cartels was pure fabrication and propaganda.  ,

In clarifying the previously stated gun estimates, it is difficult to obtain factual and consistent date regarding the number of guns seized by the Mexican government and those guns traced to the U.S.  The percentage traced to the U.S. varies from 1% to 17% depending on the source and phase of the moon.

Recently the 90% bogus claim in 2010 by the Obama administration has been downgraded to 68%, but even that number is not supported by fact.

The Annenberg Foundation is probably as reliable as they come, as the Sedena report supposedly comes from the Mexican government.  The ATF Deathwatch report might sound like a fringe group, but the numbers they cite on page 4 are reasonably consistent with the data from other sources on the web. 

Wayne LaPierre, National Rife Association vice-president, had this to say this past February when addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), at which time he accused Obama of working behind the scenes with the U.N. on a treaty that could effectively ban or restrict civilian ownership of firearms worldwide. 

“I’ve been around long enough to know that the U.N. has little regard for our Constitution and none at all for the Second Amendment, but I never thought I’d see the day when an American White House would tolerate a proposal that would literally gut one of our most fundamental freedoms in this country.” 

Most certainly the final U.N. ATT document will purport to further human rights, but with this glaring and outrageous and obvious hitch.  The rights that ATT seeks to sanction, even though supported by Hillary and the Obama administration, are not those espoused in our nation’s Constitution. 

The ATT treaty would invite restrictions on private ownership, manufacture and transfer of arms, ammunition and related items, all  guaranteed by our Constitution. These restrictions would at least consist of licensing and registration, and would be described, no doubt as “reasonable, common sense regulations.”

Among the provisions of the treaty is a requirement for the licensing of all small arms, arms manufacturing and most insidiously, the manufacturing of ammunition and components. The last would profoundly affect the large number of gun enthusiasts who reload their own ammunition for economy and accuracy. 

Since self-defense is the basis of the Second Amendment, not hunting, a citizen’s right to own a gun legally would be infringed upon. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, however, would not affect the transfer of small arms by governments, which are by far the most serious transactions.

Should the U.S. ratify ATT, our Second Amendment right would be given the kiss of death and would definitely be a misfire for America.

It is therefore imperative that Illinois citizens urge Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk to reject the UN Arms Trade Treaty in its entirety when and if the ATT treaty reaches the Senate floor for ratification.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s