Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Yes, the U.N. Arms treaty is a threat to America

Written By: Bob - Jul• 26•12

When I heard that the United Nations arms control treaty being hashed out right now was a threat to our sovereignty, I took it with a huge grain of salt. I’ve been hearing similar claims more or less continually since I first began following 2nd Amendment issues in the late 1980s, and none of those claims had ever born fruit.

This time, it appears to be a legitimate threat.

The arms trade treaty being hammered out by the United Nations is nearing completion, and the current draft shows it could lead to perpetual attacks on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and American foreign policy, critics say.

The document, which critics say has been framed by countries hostile to U.S. interests, allows for future amendments to be approved by just two-thirds of states showing up at an amendment conference. That means it could be agreed to by the U.S., put into effect and then changed over Washington’s objections. And even if the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify it, the deal could have a huge impact on the global arms trade, where the U.S. is the biggest player.

There are varying mechanisms by which treaties are observed, and not all of them follow the process the Founders intended.  Nor is this idea of global gun control ever going to go away as long as radical leftists exist in the world. Collectivism requires individual be subservient to the state, and armed citizens that can martially dispute government excesses are the bane of tyrants both foreign and domestic.

President Obama said today that:

“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

He intentionally refuses to acknowledge that the entire purpose of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was never intended to protect hunting or shooting sports.

The Second Amendment was written to protect the ability of the sovereign American people to resort to military force of arms to remove government when it becomes too tyrannical. It was written by men who had just done that very thing, and at a time when the Colonists had weapons that were on par with an occasionally superior to the military arms of the day.

In blunt terms, Mr. President, the Founders would indeed like to see AK-47s, M-4s, machine guns and even artillery in the hands of American citizens. They wanted a people capable or resisting people like you.

In the late 1770s, a skilled Patriot could fire an aimed shot at more than 200 yards and strike his target dead; a Regular’s Land Pattern Musket could not reasonably hope to hit a specific human beyond 50-75 yards.

The colonials also had artillery equal to that of the Regulars, in terms of quality and lethality, if not in quantity. The American Revolution was in fact triggered by Regulars attempting a raid to capture powder, shot, and cannon from the colonists.

I suspect that the Founding Fathers would not appreciate the restrictions on our rights bullied through Congress in 1934, 1968, and 1986 that made it more difficult and cost prohibitive for average citizens to own the contemporary small arms and light artillery they themselves as free men owned.

Americans are meant to be dangerous.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Jim says:

    If the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the people from the state, why does it specifically refer to the state militia’s and state the goal of protecting…the state? You have it completely backwards.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Your version would read:

    “A well armed populous, being necessary to secure the rights of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Or more simply, “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, with no mention of the militia or the security of the state.

    It seems to me you have to ignore half of the amendment to arrive at your view. Why do you think the founders mentioned the need to protect the state if that were not their intention?

  2. Mister_V says:


    According to the U.S. State Code, the militia of the United States is defined as all able-bodied males over the age of 16, not, for instance, the national guard, which wasn’t codified into a reserve section of the standing army until the Militia Act of 1903.

    If you want a more thorough view on the founding fathers’ views on firearms, you should read the Federalist Papers and other documents from the time. It’s pretty clear that the 2nd amendment was always intended both as a protection against invasion and as a check and balance against government tyranny. I’ll include a few relevant quotes for you.

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    — Patrick Henry

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe

  3. Patrick Chester says:

    The militia was mentioned as a (not the) reason for why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and not a limitation.

    HTH, HAND.