Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.
Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."
Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.
'Shooting Back' tells of lives saved from attackers. Learn the Bible's defense of bearing arms from a man who defended his church from terrorists
Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."
It's a trade agreement on international weapon sales. No one's taking our guns away.
I've heard all this crap before - we were all going to have our guns taken away during the Carter and Clinton administration too. Yawn. I suppose the NRA has to rationalize it's continued existence somehow.
Christians warn us about the anti-christ for 2,000 years, and when he shows up, they buy a bible from him.
FlyingPenguin wrote:It's a trade agreement on international weapon sales. No one's taking our guns away.
I've heard all this crap before - we were all going to have our guns taken away during the Carter and Clinton administration too. Yawn. I suppose the NRA has to rationalize it's continued existence somehow.
i actually hate the NRA, they are actually for gun control.
i actually hate the NRA, they are actually for gun control
You'll have to explain that. I can't think of a more anti-gun control lobby - to the point of inciting paranoia and making up outright lies.
I used to be a member many years ago but dropped them out of disgust. They're just using your money to secure their own continued existence as a lobbyist group.
Christians warn us about the anti-christ for 2,000 years, and when he shows up, they buy a bible from him.
I do so love these paranoid fantasies. If I was a gun dealer I would be laughing my ass off every time I thought of the outrageous gouging I was able to give to my clientele since Obama got elected.
It's been a year now and guns haven't been outlawed yet. Of course, participating in any U.N. project is the first step toward one world government and the eventual destruction of all our freedoms.
