The left is busy trying to debunk Chuck Norris’s assertion about the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It’s also being covered by a blog UN Dispatch. You can find a source of documents here.
All I know is this: we do not yet have any formal treaty, but the parties involved with this are people I did not vote for, nor had a chance to vote forÂ and Â I do not trust them or their intentions. So as far as I’m concerned, they can take their treaty and shove it where the sun don’t shine, whether Chuck Norris is right or wrong. But everything I’ve seen suggests there’s much to worry about. From the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (the name of which should raise eyebrows immediately):
In considering problems relating to the unregulated circulation of small arms, it remains essential to focus on integrated policy approaches. The changing nature of armed violence, including where the United Nations has been active in peace operations, post-conflict reconstruction or development assistance, has blurred the line between armed conflict and crime, and between politically motivated and economically motivated violence. Peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities and development assistance require planning for small arms control and armed violence reduction as a priority. In such contexts, it is vital that traditional arms control measures be integrated into interventions that target the demand for weapons and enhance the ability of security providers and governance authorities to strengthen community security, manage conflict and mitigate violence.
Also from this document here:
The draft Bill establishes a principle that has developed globally in the last decade, and is a core objective of many governmentâ€™s efforts to strengthen their national legislation: â€œthe possession and use of weapons is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.â€
Policies targeting specific SALW typically do so because of certain features â€“ such as lethality or easily concealable firearms â€“ that make them particularly dangerous for civilian use. Specific SALW may also be prohibited because they are not only extremely deadly, but appear to serve no legitimate civilian function.
Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.
Ifâ€˜personal protectionâ€™is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed. Research from UNDP in El Salvador indicated that when firearms were used in self-defence, the person was four times more likely to be killed than when firearms were not used in self-defence.
Sorry, given the supporting documents for this Treaty, it’s hard for me to say that Chuck is wrong. In fact, given that the United States accounts for about 1/4 of the UN budget, I would suggest pissing off the most powerful lobbying group in the country is a bad idea if you want to continue to occupy significant space on some of the most valuable real-estate in our country.
Don’t let the left fool you. There’s plenty to worry about from the UN. While we have the votes to prevent ratification of this treaty, it could wreak havoc with arms and ammunition from countries that do sign on. Take a look at some of your favorite cheap ammo, and see where it comes from. Them do the same for your guns. This is a big deal no matter what they tell you.