If you think the Obama administration doesn't need help in dreaming up new schemes to reinterpret the Constitution and add new restrictions on our freedom, think again.
President Bush, for all his mistakes and miscalculations, never allowed his U.N. representatives to participate in such negotiations. But Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed course and agreed to join the negotiations.
Secretary of State Clinton announced in October that the U.S. would join the negotiations “if they are based on consensus,” implying that the U.S. could exercise a veto if negotiations went off course. That implies that the U.S. would reject any treaty that violates our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The problem is she can't make that promise or guarantee that outcome.
The truth is it is very dangerous for the U.S. to go down this road no matter how many assurances are given by Obama and his minions. Once committed to the “process of negotiations,” it is hard to reject a product based on “international consensus.”
There are good reasons why the U.S. ought to stay out of such negotiations, and many good reasons to be wary of any international treaty on the subject.
|
To put this whole matter in perspective, ask yourself how well existing arms-control agreements are working and how well international agencies are enforcing those agreements.
There is an existing conventional arms-control treaty among nations in Latin America. How well is that working? Does it prevent the Mexican drug cartels from buying advanced weapons on the black market in Asia and Europe? Hardly. Does it prevent Hugo Chavez from buying arms from Iran, North Korea and Russia and providing them to rebel groups in Colombia and Central America? No.
Has the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency stopped Iran from developing a nuclear-weapons program? Shouldn't we expect some semblance of success from such existing agreements before launching new ones?
What conventional arms treaties do is constrain the actions of law-abiding nations and law-abiding citizens while allowing outlaw nations and leftist guerrilla groups to build their arsenals.
If you think such international treaties apply only to sales and exchanges among nations and not to individuals, you have not been paying attention to the Obama administration's agenda and to what activist judges have been doing in American courts.
What is especially galling is to hear gun-control advocates use the Mexican drug cartel violence as an excuse to further restrict gun sales among private citizens inside the United States. This is exactly what the Obama Justice Department and its sister agencies have been doing lately. Read more
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
Why You Can Trust Gun Digest
Since 1944, Gun Digest has been a trusted authority on firearms, shooting and shooting gear, delivering expert firearms reviews backed by nearly a century of experience. We go beyond standard reviews, combining hands-on independent gun testing, in-depth research, and expert insights from industry professionals and manufacturers.
Our reviewers are the bedrock of our testing and come from a comprehensive cross section of the shooting world. Their diverse backgrounds include law enforcement professionals, military veterans, competitive shooters, seasoned hunters and life-long firearms enthusiasts. In addition to being firearm experts, we are also thorough journalists adhering to the strictest standards of the profession.
For our readers, this means objective, unbiased reviews, free from outside influence. Our priority is to provide the information you need to make informed decisions—whether a firearm or piece of gear is a must-have investment or one to pass on.
Find out more about our Editorial Standards and Evaluation Process
