Commentary by Kendal Hemphill | TF&G Political Commentator
Smoke, Mirrors, and the UN Arms Treaty
J
udging by the number of calls and emails I’ve received, one of the most troubling issues for Texas citizens of late, besides the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, seems to be the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, and what it means in regard to our Second Amendment rights. The fact that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton signed the treaty has many wondering if, sometime in the near future, we will wake up one morning to discover BATFE agents rifling our gun cabinets and piling all our firearms into a trailer, to be hauled off and beaten into plowshares. Myriad websites, blogs, and electronic newsletters notwithstanding, the threat posed by this treaty to the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is minimal. While I am loathe to condone laxity in the diligence of citizens to protect their freedoms, there are, frankly, more serious dangers to deal with. And the longer the U.N. Small Arms Treaty holds our attention, the less likely we are to notice attacks on our rights in other areas. The U.N., for all intents and purposes, is toothless. It is basically a collection of self-important poster children for worldwide impotence. The fact that Muammar Gaddafi, one of the most heinous human rights offenders in history, was ever allowed to darken the door of the U.N. building should tell us everything we need to know about the group’s interest in fairness and freedom. It’s true that Hilary Clinton signed the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, but unless ratified by the United States Senate, the treaty is not binding on the American government. And despite calls from anti-rights groups like the International Action Network on Small Arms and Handgun Control, Inc., I believe the senate is more likely to vote 20 |
A U G U S T
Commentary.indd 20
2 0 1 2
|
to cut its own pay in half than ratify the UNSAT. Clinton knows that, and only signed the treaty to appease the rabid gun grabbers that she thinks are representative of the American people. Of course, I’ve been wrong before. So, if the senate should decide to appease Ms. Clinton and ratify the treaty, what will that do to our Second Amendment rights? Not a lot. That’s not what you’ve been hearing, though. A recent Forbes article entitled ‘U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up in Arms’ was representative of the hype the UNSAT has generated across the nation. It said the treaty would, among other horrible results, create an international gun registry (the first step toward confiscation), make licensing requirements tougher, outlaw all semi-automatic guns overnight, and pretty much dissolve our national sovereignty like zombie skin in sunlight. In fact, the UNSAT is an international treaty, so it would have no effect inside the borders of the U.S., or any other country, for that matter. The treaty would create restrictions for import and export of firearms between nations, making it more difficult for Russia to continue selling AK-47s to Syria, and for China to sell their version of the same rifle to anyone and everyone, etc. It would create end user certificates designed to prevent sales of small arms to terrorists and other bad guys. The U.S. already applies such restrictions and agreements. This is not, by any means, to say that the treaty would have any affect whatever on international firearms commerce. In order for the UNSAT to actually make a difference, good or bad, to the gun trade, federal governments would have to adhere to it. And here we’re talking, obviously, only about countries that actually ratify the
T e x a S
F i s h
&
treaty. Those that don’t ratify are as exempt in theory as they are in practice. And practice is where the pin meets the primer, when it comes to the illegal arms trade. Anyone, Hilary Clinton and Rebecca Peters (of IANSA) included, who thinks they can stop the sale of guns from one country to another by applying ink to paper probably also believes Al Gore deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. But then, they know better. This treaty, like every law ever passed, is not about stopping the criminal act in question, but applying punishment when, and if, the criminal is caught. Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of such a treaty on illegal arms trafficking, delegates from over 150 countries met at the U.N. in New York during the entire month of July in an effort to draft a global arms trade treaty. The results (or lack thereof) of this august conference have not yet been released, but the effort has been touted as a high-level meeting which will produce a ‘legally-binding treaty,’ according to a June 28 Voice of America article. The last paragraph of that story sums up the tragically naïve view held by the entire gun grabbing community. It said that, according to “many western military analysts, the weapons provided by Russia to Syria could be used against civilians.” As if weapons could be good or bad, and not the inanimate objects they in fact are. The bottom line is that the UNSAT is worth just a little less than the paper it’s written on. But if the antis can keep us worried about the treaty, we are much more likely to overlook their real agenda. And don’t be fooled: the gun control issue, as always, is not about guns. It’s about control.
Email Kendal Hemphill at khemphill@fishgame.com
G a m e ®
7/9/12 4:46 PM