By: Edmund Jenks – West Coast Editor
Do the words LAME Duck mean anything to you? What does international treaty and its application to the laws of a sovereign country mean to the people of said sovereign country?
Well, the answers to these two questions and the effect on our freedoms here in the United States may have real and serious consequences to our way of life as the Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations seek to curb access to ones self-protection and self-determination here in the United States through a treaty.
NOTE: Law of the Sea Treaty (Arms Trade Treaty) and its signing on July 27th discussed by Dick Morris HERE>>
This excerpted and edited from ConsortiumNews –
Seeking Rules for the World’s Guns
By Paul R. Pillar / x-CIA analyst – July 9, 2012
A conference opened last week under the auspices of the United Nations to draft a multilateral treaty aimed at controlling the international trade in conventional arms. Such a treaty potentially could do significant good, although many legitimate questions remain concerning its terms and feasibility.
Neither the good nor the bad is likely to be clarified in public discussion about the treaty within the nation that is the world’s biggest arms exporter and thus the most important player in this process: the United States. We are more likely to hear the sort of ill-informed debate that too often has characterized treatment of multilateral conventions, as we have seen most recently with the law of the sea treaty.
The background of the prospective arms-trade treaty being discussed in New York should make politicization of the issue in the United States unsurprising. A resolution of the U.N. General Assembly intended to advance the subject in 2006 passed with 153 states in favor, twenty-four abstentions and a vote against by the United States. Three years later, the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty.
What debate has already taken place in the United States on the prospective treaty has featured some of the same infringement-of-sovereignty notions that were heard in opposing ratification of the law of the sea convention. In the case of the prospective arms-trade treaty, the National Rifle Association has been out in front with warnings about how the treaty supposedly would circumvent the Second Amendment.
Some of the legitimate reasons to raise doubts about an arms-trade treaty concern its effectiveness — and its effect on the arms balances in local conflicts — given the extent of gray-market arms dealing outside the control of governments that would be parties to the treaty.
Other legitimate concerns involve the inevitable differences of view in trying to develop criteria for proscribing or limiting arms transfers and in applying any such criteria consistently in different areas of conflict. One man’s contribution to local security is another man’s stoking of regional instability.
Informed debate about these and other legitimate concerns is likely to be less prominent than ill-informed statements about such things as taking away the people’s right to bear arms. The fact that the conference in New York is scheduled to conclude its work near the end of this month — amid a U.S. presidential election campaign — will make the subject ripe for the crasser forms of politicization.
On U.S. insistence, the rules of the conference provide that unanimity is required for a draft treaty to emerge directly from it.
That will repeat the experiences of the law of the sea convention and the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, with all the uncertainties of the United States not being a party to a major element of otherwise widely accepted international law. If that happens, among those likely to be disappointed will be American arms exporters, who look favorably on an arms-trade treaty as a way of standardizing the many different national rules with which they now have to deal.
What this means, even though this former CIA analyst feels that the United States will not sign on to any treaty placed in front of it by the United Nations, is that world powers are desperate to find a way to control the freedom of access to firearms through “standardizing the many different national rules” worldwide regardless of their intent.
Again, “the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty” and we all know what that means to the average American citizen, the United States Constitution, and the desire by the progressive political class to apply CONTROL over the majority who believe that rights outlined by the 2nd Amendment are valid and unalterable.
Remember what happened with transparency during the healthcare debate in this country? Remember how most American citizens felt about the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills and the results to our opposition to the expansion of government spending (an additional 6 Trillion dollars of debt and NO BUDGET in only 3.5 years)?
One of the main protections and rights outlined in the United States Constitution is about to be sold down the river in a “bow” to the world through a treaty put together by political progressives in the United Nation.
Here, during Carter’s Second Term, to be clear – The Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations are teeing up to essentially cancel our 2nd amendment rights through the signing of an international treaty during the Lame Duck session (after the November 2012 election) of Congress.
Farewell to the arms treaty – for now
Kenneth Epps – The Globe and Mail – Published Wednesday, Aug. 01 2012, 2:00 AM EDT
Lost in the hoopla of the opening ceremony of the Olympics, a vital international marathon of another kind ended Friday with a race suspension just before the finish line. At the United Nations in New York, a month of intensive multilateral negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons concluded without agreement, largely because the United States called for more time on the final day.
The U.S. announcement was a surprise. Just a few hours earlier, many participants were anticipating a positive outcome after Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina, who presided over the conference, introduced a revised text that gained widespread support.
For Control Arms, the international coalition of NGOs that has campaigned for a treaty for more than a decade, Mr. Moritan’s text was not perfect.
The real reasons the United States pulled the plug are known only within the Obama administration, but many conference delegates suggested the impending U.S. presidential election was a factor.
The ATT has been cynically portrayed by the National Rifle Association as a UN instrument to attack U.S. Second Amendment rights. That the U.S. gun lobby has deliberately misrepresented the treaty for its own ends is not in question. The question is whether the NRA message is believed by U.S. voters, and the assessment of the administration appears to be yes.
[This is troubling] Fortunately, the ATT process did not end on Friday. The United States has called for the negotiating conference to reconvene in 2013, again operating on a consensus basis. Other countries may not wait that long nor be willing to negotiate under a consensus constraint.
** Article first published as Obama Administration, Democratic Party, and UN Will Cancel the 2nd Amendment on Technorati **