Gun Rights

UN Gun Control Treaty Entering Final Round of Negotiations

Unlikely to produce anything

|

cultural supremacists
Dan Nguyen/Foter.com

Last summer's round of negotiations on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty ended with the United States asking for more time, giving anti-gun advocates hope that a post-election round of negotiations would go better. The "final conference" for the treaty began at the United Nations today.

On Friday Secretary of State John Kerry released a statement that the U.S. was committed to a "strong and effective" treaty to "help stem the illicit flow of conventional arms across international borders, and have important humanitarian benefits." It could "only" be part of the treaty, Kerry noted, if it didn't "impose any new requirements on the U.S. domestic trade in firearms or on U.S. exporters" and that the U.S. "will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment."

So what, then, is the point of American participation in the negotiations? George W. Bush's refusal to join negotiations prevented them from getting off the ground. The United States is the largest arms exporter in the world, estimated to account for 30 percent of global volume, followed by Russia (26 percent), Germany (7 percent), France (6 percent) and China (5 percent).

A "defense cooperation exemption" introduced by India would allow any arms transfers (like, say, Russia's to Syria, or the West's to Syrian rebels) to be exempt from the treaty if its identified as part of a "defense cooperation agreement" by the government in question.

The NRA, of course, opposes the treaty as an infringement on the Bill of Rights. The purported purpose of the treaty is to prevent arms from worsening humanitarian crises. But the governments involved can't be expected to sign anything that would curtail their own powers and abilities as arms merchants. Much more likely that any framework devised would be used to introduce more domestic regulations and restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in the name of complying with the treaty.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

28 responses to “UN Gun Control Treaty Entering Final Round of Negotiations

  1. Just something else from the UN I plan on ignoring!

    1. Seriously, were they ever relevant?

    2. When I was in law school I took an international law class and we spent a great deal of time talking about the UN. Every time my professor proposed some treaty my response was always “good luck with that, if the U.S., Russia and China don’t care then it’s even more useless than usual.”

  2. …will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

    WINK WINK.

  3. When is the U.S. going to evict these assholes?

    1. Doing that will immediately kill NYC’s upscale expense-account-lunch restaurants, quick liquor delivery services, and out-call hookers.

      You want that on you head? Sober, hungry, horny international diplomats?

      1. Doing that will immediately kill NYC’s upscale expense-account-lunch restaurants, quick liquor delivery services, and out-call hookers.

        Oh please. No it won’t.

      2. LMAO…

        Beautiful.

  4. treaty to “help stem the illicit flow of conventional arms across international borders, and have important humanitarian benefits.”

    Scenario:

    You live in a country where the government collapses, and civil unrest explodes into violent conflict. Your neighborhood and your neighbors suffer random attacks and violent gangs set up checkpoints, stealing food and goods from your people. As a defensive action, you’re able to acquire and take up arms. Through negotiations and partnerships with people in the neighborhoods, you start defensive patrols and escort people in and around your neighborhood, protecting them from the violent gangs from other neighborhoods. Over time, you build a fairly effective volunteer militia and you cultivate a high-profile presence within your neighborhood as a deterrent to violent actions by unscrupulous gangs.

    At some point, a group of U.N. envoys escorted by U.N. soldiers start coming around, demanding that the gangs disarm, and you (the leader of your neighborhood) are branded a “Warlord” by the international media, and lumped into a general category of violent groups.

    The U.N. initially asks for voluntary disarmament, but indicates that barring a voluntary disarmament, the mitlitary action will be taken against your group if they’re spotted carrying arms.

    1. The very presence of blue helmets on U.S. soil is an act of war against U.S. sovereignty.

    2. So, you’re saying you had no choice but to shoot them.

      1. Actually, I’m saying that if you ever take up arms to protect your family from armed thugs, a foreign nation intervening will bomb you from 30,000 feet because you’re ‘escalating the violence’.

  5. One of the silver linings of the coming financial implosion of the United States Government is the fact that bullshit like this will probably cease to matter.

  6. will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment

    How are they going to enforce the terms of the treaty without infringing on americans’ rights?

    Does buying a Glock put one on a registry in Austria?

    1. Do you know what other Austrian put people on registries?

      1. Exactly.

      2. Arnold?

      3. German-speaking wedding planners?

      4. Hedy Lamarr?

  7. We have to keep Eric Holder safe from the clutches of international human rights tribunals, so this is D O A.

  8. the U.S. “will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

    The secretary, unsurprisingly, doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. The Secondment Amendment is not a grant of rights to citizen, but a restriction on the action the government can take against citizens with respect to their weapons.

    The United States is the largest arms exporter in the world, estimated to account for 30 percent of global volume

    Won’t someone please think of the children? The poor sweet babes who died at Sandy Hook Elementary, cut down by killy-death-assaulty-die weapon?

  9. I hate that fucking statue.

    1. ^^THIS^^

    2. I love it. It’s the perfect representaton of the UN’s military interventions.

      And it’s a sculpture, not a statue.

      *sips cosmo coctail*

  10. Sometimes dude you just gotta smack it down man.

    http://www.WebAnon.da.bz

  11. “Much more likely that any framework devised would be used to introduce more domestic regulations and restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in the name of complying with the treaty.”

    …and the anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment folks call this “gun-nut paranoia”….???????????

  12. Problem is lying Kerry wants to sign it and his lying boss BHO wants him to sign it, so no matter what is told the public now may have little if anything to do with what is done, i.e., strong possibility the US government will sign on.

    Here’s a way to end such attempted assaults on US sovereignty, now and into the future: http://wh.gov/7BU8 [lots more info on the site with the associated reading, but no ads, no emails].

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.