website security
Our "GO-TO" company for graphic design!
Click on above link to visit their website

CONTACT US
Click on name to send e-mail
Douglas J. Hagmann
Joe Hagmann

Prudent Places USA


Dare to Prepare!


Archived articles

Categories


Misleading gun owners on the Arms Trade Treaty

By Douglas J. Hagmann

15 July 2012: Technically, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is not an overt “gun grab” treaty. Apparently, that statement alone is sufficient to cause many Americans to lose interest, misunderstand and downplay the threat posed by this treaty. Such characterization will be to the peril of every American, gun owner or not. They are failing to understand the playbook in use by the globalists which includes a well  orchestrated disinformation campaign being waged by antagonists of the Second Amendment.


To quote Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has been attending the ATT conference, “the U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment.” Perhaps most importantly, the U.N. and the globalists are adept at playing the “long game,” exploiting a weakness of most Americans in the realm of the globalist agenda. Simply because no one is expected to show up at your door today or tomorrow does not mean it won’t happen in the near future. My own research finds this to be a very real possibility, contrary to government and privately funded sources claiming otherwise.

As I wrote a week ago under the title “Obama’s back-door gun control efforts,” it is fully expected that the United States, under Obama, will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) later this month.  Too few Americans are sounding the necessary alarm bells pertaining to this ultimate usurpation of our Second Amendment rights. Too many rely on internet sites or other sources that subtly twist the facts to suggest that the treaty could not and would never have any effect on our Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms and ammunition. The majority of both sides appears to emphasize or alternatively, find comfort in the fact that the treaty needs Senate ratification to be fully implemented, while completely dismissing the threat that merely signing the treaty poses.

It is critical to understand that by merely signing the treaty, as the U.S. is expected to do under by order of Barack Hussein Obama, the Vienna convention on treaties would disallow the United States from any act that would “defeat the object and purpose [of the Arms Trade Treaty].”  This must be fully understood by every American concerned about gun ownership rights.

If ratified by the Senate, unthinkable in different times, the treaty assumes parity with a Constitutional amendment under Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Understand this:  the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would possesses equal authority to any U.S. law, including the Constitution itself. The very thought of this should send shudders down the spine of every American with a pulse.

While the ATT would seemingly regulate only the trading and transfer of conventional arms across international borders, it will not necessarily be limited to such. According to Dr. Bromund and others, the language being used to draft the treaty is ambiguous to the point of being potentially dangerous. Bromund notes that “…the default U.N. tendency—partly out of malevolence, partly out of ignorance—is to act in ways contrary to the Second Amendment…” Nonetheless, Obama, Clinton and other Progressives, in both the public and private sectors, are working in tandem to promote the U.N.’s ATT to the peril of every citizen of the United States while attempting to paint a much different picture.

Identifying misleading rhetoric

Everyone needs to understand the unadulterated facts regarding the Arms Trade Treaty and be able to identify the various individuals and groups who are deliberately misleading the American public, including the U.S. State Department itself. I’ll address the State Department first.

The U.S. Department of State has published “Key U.S. Redlines,” that states, in part, that the Second Amendment must be upheld and that “there will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.”  According to the State Department, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Well, except when it’s not.

The State Department is making reference to Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution, known as the “supremacy clause.”  At this point, one should ask themselves how well that’s worked out in recent times. We should also consider how this is likely to play out when we will have two laws of equal weight in direct opposition to each other. At the very least, judicial interpretation and even activism from the bench could cause hideous legal Constitutional problems. Again, examples of this are currently plentiful.

The Arms Control Association rhetoric

Next we have the haughtiness of the self-proclaimed nonpartisan Arms Control Association. Founded in 1971, the ACA describes itself as “an independent, membership-based organization dedicated to providing information and practical policy solutions to address the dangers posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons” [Emphasis added]. It is funded in part by organizations including the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Ford Foundation.

In an issue brief written by ACA Executive Director Daryl Kimball and Wyatt Hoffman published on July 11, 2012, they stated that “allegations that an ATT would infringe on the right of U.S. citizens to legally possess firearms amount to irresponsible demagoguery. No one, except maybe illicit arms dealers and human rights abusers, should oppose common-sense international standards for regulating the global arms trade.” Right.

In the same article, under the subheading  ”Second Amendment nonsense,” Kimball and Hoffman reassure the reader that the “Obama administration has repeatedly stated that it opposes any infringement on national arms transfer and ownership.” Feel better now? If that was truly the case, why is Obama, Clinton and company even entertaining the treaty?

Their condescension to proponents of the U.S. Constitution knows no bounds as noted in their coup de grace regarding the purpose of the treaty, which would be laughable if it was not so perilous. Kimball and Wyatt write: “[T]he purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is to make it harder for unscrupulous government suppliers and arms brokers to transfer conventional weapons and ammunition across international borders in violation of international arms embargoes and to governments committing human rights abuses and to criminal gangs and terrorists.” Have they not heard of Fast & Furious?

Notice the deliberately marginalizing verbiage used by Kimball and Hoffman, the former who has also been cited by globalist George Soros’ Media Matters.

Media Matters for America rhetoric

Speaking of Media Matters (MMfA), a politically progressive watchdog group established to counter conservative misinformation, they could not resist characterizing anyone concerned over the treaty as hysterical and part of the “black helicopter crowd.” Unfortunately, MMfA has the financial resources of Soros globalists to flood the internet with ad hominem attacks while not providing all of the facts in the manner they need to be presented.

Research has found that many interns for MMfA are busy posting commentaries to websites and forums to “debunk the hysteria” of the gun owners of America.

Snopes

In the event you are unfamiliar with Snopes, it is a website established by Los Angeles based husband and wife team David and Barbara Mikkelson, whose mission is to research internet urban legends and to separate fact from myth. Snopes has become “an online touchstone of rumor research,” and “their work has been described as painstaking, scholarly, and reliable.” If you don’t believe me, just ask them.

Regarding the Arms Trade Treaty, Snopes has weighed in about the treaty being a “legal way around the Second Amendment.” They assert that this claim is false, and just in case you don’t believe them, they display a big red button next to the word FALSE.” Of course, the self-proclaimed arbiters of truth have spoken, and this appears to be sufficient for many journalists, researchers and concerned citizens.

Unfortunately, they are refuting a patently false e-mail of unknown origin, thus failing to address the actual issue while offering virtually no academic insight or analysis into the mechanics of the treaty, its history, or the individuals and organizations involved. It is this investigator’s opinion that on this issue, the research duo is either involved in deliberate deception or are incompetent, neither of which are endearing traits to anyone seeking the truth behind such an important matter.

What’s the agenda?

There are many others who are very busy trying to deflect people’s interest and twist their understanding of the pending Arms Trade Treaty. The Progressives and the globalists are tag-teaming the American public using as many informational assets as possible (websites, political forums, e-mails, etc) to refute “hysteria” surrounding the Arms Trade Treaty. After all, the treaty is only concerned with transfer of conventional arms over international boundaries and has nothing whatsoever to do with the sale, transfer and ownership of your guns within the borders of the United States, correct?  No.

The Progressives and globalists are using this opportunity to craft the treaty using language that could be interpreted through judicial processes to include domestic gun transfers, create an international gun registry, and other craft other aspects that could place U.S. gun owners and dealers under an international mandate, requiring them to comply with international law. The tentacles of this treaty are far reaching, well beyond what we are being forced to believe.

Given that the signing on to the ATT will anger a LOT of gun owners (and voters) during a critical election year,  anyone paying attention would be well advised to ask “why now?” The reasons are less comfortable to consider when viewed through the prism of recent Executive Orders,  the NDAA and all other related legislation and policy directives.

Think about it.

RELATED: Obama’s plan to disarm America