As much as we often mock anti-gun advocates when they are just blatantly and laughably wrong about facts, it would appear that some groups are actually using this as a strategy. The crazy thing is that I’m not sure that it won’t prove effective over time.
Theodore Bromund shares an email received by a Congressional office from eight gun control groups that were opposed to Rep. Mike Kelly’s amendment to the Defense Department budget to ban using funds for implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. What’s interesting about it is that they really approach the entire debate as though the US has already signed on and ratified it. They also get many basic facts wrong, but many of those misstated “facts” add up to creating the perception that the Arms Trade Treaty is the law of the land. How many Congressional staffers will know they are wrong? Very few.
Throughout their email, the NGOs completely fail to distinguish between the ATT and the authority of Congress: as they see it, everything the U.S. does in the realm of arms export control is already regulated by the ATT.
In fact, that’s the NGO strategy: Set up the ATT as the controlling moral and legal authority for U.S. policy, then slowly reinterpret the ATT to drag U.S. policy into alignment with their preferences.
Just to add some icing to the cake, Bromund also notes that UN is setting up a program to fund these anti-gun groups to provide “legal or legislative assistance” in expanding the Arms Trade Treaty to more countries.
Begging the question for fun and profit
The same thing is happening with the amnesty bill. USCIS is already getting ready to implement it, because as some of the contacts in the office said “its going to go through”.
And NAGR keeps shouting at me of the looming disaster, and if I’d just share some coin they’d stop it.
The courts have already determined that any treaty, signed and ratified, UN or no, does not overrule the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
that may be true, but it also means that we would effectively be stuck with just domestic production, which will push prices even higher than they are now, and prevent many popular guns not produced here from being available.
Temporarily, until US based manufacturers stepped in. It would dampen foreign made C and R stuff, but rest assured someone would start cranking out CZ-75s, Saigas and whatever else. Hell the actual companies might even set up shop here.
Say what you want about NAGR, but at least they are running ads against Toomey, which I just saw on TV here in the Pittsburgh area the other night. I don’t think I’ve seen anything paid for by the NRA on TV here since the 2012 election. While I’ve never given them any money and I’m well aware of their tactics on other fronts, at least I have to give them credit for that.
That’s a pretty funny joke. At least, I assume it’s a joke. You can’t be serious thinking that the best way to spend a limited budget is on commercials 3 years out, can you? If so, please give examples of where such a tactic has been successful. I’m happy to consider those cases.
Look, I’m not happy with Toomey one bit. His office knows this, and I know they know it about many of his other supporters, too. However, by speaking out against Toomey right now without actually offering any alternative candidate running for the office, you’re effectively only backing the only other declared candidate – Joe Sestak. You do realize that he doesn’t even consider self-defense as a legitimate reason to own a gun in your own home, right?
This.
I think the gun market itself would adjust, as so much is already made here anyway. Or at least assembled here. The ammunition market would be the one that would face some upheaval for a time.
There really isn’t any chance that the ATT would be ratified. However, the idea that the UN would spend US tax dollars contributed to the UN to lobby US legislation is outrageous.
I think they realize that the ATT won’t be ratified, so that’s why they want to just start spreading the notion among Congressional staff that many of the components are somehow binding or simply shouldn’t be questioned. If they can get elements of the treaty happening either through Congressional action or Congressional inaction on keeping the Executive in check, then they still make advances.
I’ve seen this vague sort of argument all over on the Progressive side.
(Say, with the Landmine treaty; it’s “good”, so it should be treated like it was law even if it isn’t, because UN.
It’s baffling to me, but … I suppose I just share so few core assumptions with the other side that our worlds don’t even really overlap.)
I agree, Bitter, that that’s the strategy for the communications you report.
Actually, what they want is Congressional cover for when Team Obama starts implementing the thing by executive order and regulation. sarc> Who needs that whole ratification thing? /sarc