U.N. delegates and gun-control activists had complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as openly supporting the pact. But once the election was over, the Obama administration had more flexibility to pull the trigger on supporting the pact.
The Obama administration, which reversed long-standing U.S. opposition to the treaty in 2009, says the treaty does not threaten our Second Amendment rights and applies only to international arms trade. But its record of opposition to private gun ownership and its deference to international bodies and their authority give us pause.
So does a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms. It notes that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and demands that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would ... minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."
Is an American defending his home against intruders just such a "misuse"?
Even if the treaty applied only to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan? Would we be forbidden from supporting resistance movements around the world that rise up against the very dictators who support this treaty?
The treaty establishes a bizarre moral equivalence between countries that trade arms to defend freedom and those that do so to suppress and extinguish it.
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment