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.