Straight from his latest diplomatic triumphs in Syria and in handing over control of the American-invented Internet to a lawless UN body, Secretary of State John Kerry signed an extreme anti-gun treaty drafted by the totalitarian and authoritarian states that make up the majority of the United Nations.
Kerry, who has had an all-but-sexual drive to find someone, anyone, to surrender the United States to, ever since he tried to cut a private deal with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, argues that the law does not infringe gun rights because it still allows hunters to have firearms, if government feels like giving them permission.
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
The main objective of the treaty is mandatory global gun registration. It does this by requiring signatories to report all firearms transfers, down to the level of “end users.” This is the backstory to the current push for “common sense gun laws” like “universal background checks,” or backdoor registration.
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers….
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”
The Coalition believes that, once this treaty is signed by Congo and South Sudan, the current violence in those African kleptocracies will come to an absolute standstill. There are some ideas so stupid that you pretty much have to be a globalist NGOnik or diplomat to believe them.
Of course, when that doesn’t happen, look for the same rootless globalists — like Kerry — who support the first treaty to propose a tightening. Because Kerry’s target is not some warlord in mismatched camo in whatever the natives are calling Stanleyville these days: his target is you.
Now, one may not be inclined to take the word of a retired sergeant, who is known in team room and Chancery alike for his disdain for diplomats and all their demoniac works, that this treaty is a steaming pile of that which issues from the south end of a northbound equine. So allow us to refer you to these words written four years ago by an actual striped-pants diplomat, and one who has, moreover, retired to not-quite-gun-free-but-working-on-it California, no less. In a long post on this treaty, he notes:
The treaty, as with all liberal/leftist efforts, seeks a massive role for the state and an implied one for lawyers, in those countries, such as ours, where we take the law seriously. Look at Article I, for example. The objectives laid out there would require an enormous new body of law and regulations to be drafted and implemented in the US; it would require it to be drafted in such a way as “to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms.” In other words, we would have to try to bring our laws and regulations into sync with those of the rest of the world. I do not need to spell out what that means when it comes to bearing arms.
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 comprise the core of the treaty. These articles would provide endless employment activity for “activists’ and their lawyers. They establish obligations on the “State Parties” that would, in essence, kill the trade in small arms. The language about weapons “being diverted to the illicit market,” or “used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children” means endless lawsuits against exporting and importing states, manufacturers, and sellers. While the ostensible purpose is international trade, that would quickly become a domestic legal issue in the US. Say, for example, that a Glock, either one made in Austria or in a Glock factory in the US, were used for “illicit” purposes or was involved in an incident of “gender-based violence” in the US, the lawsuits would be ferocious. The threat of constant legal action effectively would halt the export and import of small arms–at least from and to those countries that take laws and treaty obligations seriously. The treaty would provide the basis for additional US domestic legislation that would incorporate the UN language and ideas into our laws. Private firm gun manufacturing and sales would be halted by the constant threat of lawsuits.
Again, these are the words of an actual diplomat, one who has served in Foggy Bottom, in many missions abroad, and actually in the United Nations itself. He speaks with the authority of the insider. And his conclusion?
While proponents claim that the UN Treaty would not infringe on the second amendment rights of Americans, that is a lie. The purpose of the treaty is to circumvent the second amendment by destroying the small arms industry and trade. It is an effort at a gun ban. They know that and we know that.