The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) recently published a warning about a UN-sponsored Arms Trade Treaty Resolution that poses a distinct threat to the private ownership of weapons. NAGR claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to promote passage of this treaty through the U.S. Senate. Obviously, such a plan must be blocked.  

The NAGR report stated that our nation has joined with 152 others at the UN as a supporter of the treaty resolution that calls for establishing a timetable in 2012 when a UN conference will iron out details about the planned comprehensive treaty. The group quotes former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton who cautions America’s gun owners that the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nations, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Steve Sanneti, Former Ruger Arms Company executive and current CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation is also raising alarms about the proposed UN treaty. Noting that “the current (Obama) administration has gone on record as saying it’s time for this country to rejoin the community of nations,” he has warned.

Essentially, the international community doesn't understand why Americans respect and protect their Second Amendment rights because in most countries no such rights exist.... Of course, the Founders added the Second Amendment as one of the safeguards, and it's not something open for discussion as far as we're concerned.

Like so many harmful initiatives in recent years, the proposed “Small Arms Treaty” (another label for the eventual product of the current discussions) is being promoted as a measure many Americans would support. Supposedly designed to fight terrorism, insurgency and international criminal syndicates, it will instead, according to NAGR, require licensing of gun owners, confiscation of firearms, a banning of arms sales, and the creation of an international gun registry. Writing for ESPNOutdoors, columnist Colin Moore notes: “As for the Arms Trade Treaty, Sanetti said he thinks it might pose the greatest danger if only because there are so many different permutations it could take, any of which could be disastrous to gun owners.”

The possible introduction to the Senate of a formal treaty to accomplish any of these goals brings to mind some previous measures and recommendations emanating from the highest levels of the U.S. government. In 1961, the U.S. State Department issued a document entitled “The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” Characterized as a measure to address the threat of nuclear weapons, State Department Document 7277 (its other name) called for the scrapping of all nuclear weaponry for all nations but not for the UN. But it also contained a complete UN-enforced ban on the private ownership and manufacture of weapons stating in part: “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

Though official U.S. policy, State Department 7277 has never been enforced. But it certainly shows the eventual goal of the gun-banners.

In 1962, the U.S. State Department financed and issued Lincoln P. Bloomfield’s Study Memorandum No. 7 carrying the title “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” Again, this document preyed on widespread fears about nuclear weapons being unleashed. But it called not only for nuclear disarmament under UN control, it sought to block any sort of citizen uprising from guerrilla war or something similar that might challenge total UN domination, even in a limited way. The document reads in part, “No international system except a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state would be capable of dealing with certainty with this type of disorder.” It doesn’t require sophisticate legal expertise to understand that no private ownership of weapons would be tolerated in a “world effectively controlled by the United Nations.”

The State Department’s 7277 and the Bloomfield-authored document have not been enforced. But the fact that they both pointed to the United Nations as the source of all authority over a disarmed citizenry amply demonstrates the thinking of some in high government positions. Both are consistent with the threat pointed to by the National Association for Gun Rights.

That Hillary Clinton would be a backer of a UN treaty designed to disarm Americans (and others throughout the world) will surprise virtually no one. That the possession of firearms by Americans citizens seems again threatened will startle very few. But these potentialities are real and should not be discounted.

Blocking this threat can be accomplished first by electing leaders who will not put the likes of Hillary Clinton in high office, a point also noted by Sanneti. “Our salvation might be that 2012, which is when the UN will put the Arms Trade Treaty on the front burner, is an election year,” Sanetti told Moore.

Second, and just as important, the U.S. should withdraw completely from the United Nations. Sooner, not later.

John F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Impressive feat, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Dwight lane said:

... No, they are not lazy in this matter! Anyone with a set of ears know what Hillary and Obama have said in the past about guns. One portion of the treaty states that the goal is to regulate the small arms trade between nations. But is doesn't stop there. It also wants to register all guns of all owners in all nations, and form a register of said guns. Since America is the only nation worth speaking of concerning unregistered guns, one can conclude that the treaty is AIMED at Americans (pun intended)! If you can't see that this is a progressive step toward total control of the people, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. One question for you. We Americans are peaceful and have never had any troubles in the past with bearing arms, why should we register now, and in the future give them up? A: Because we armed Americans stand between the elites and their goal of absolute domination of the planet, including population control!!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

February 05, 2010
Votes: +10

Joe Schmo said:

	Really? 1) You didn't answer the question asked by Opened Source and, 2) You're wrong - http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topic..._East.html
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 05, 2010
Votes: -5

COME AND TAKE THEM said:

	... gunpolicy.org, yeah no agenda there... They are clearly unbiased.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +2

Lee Gonzales said:

	Open Source, are you being paid to be an ass or are you just a twit that gets a kick out of making assine statements?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +0

RP said:

	Text of the resolution can be found here http://www.reachingcriticalwil...38Rev1.pdf
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +2

Anti-Citizen said:

	State Nullifcation While UN encroachments like this always concern me, state nullifications on any D.C. edicts have passed in many states and continue to do so. Even should Senate ratify some anti-Constitutional document as mentioned, it will have relatively little weight.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +0

Opener Source said:

	... So...still no actual analysis, huh? Mr Gonzalez, yes, you're right, I'm being paid big bucks by the NWO cabal. They pay me in Euros. They made me give away my guns before they would employ me too.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +0

Opener Source said:

	Johnny C Hey, Anti-Citizen, how'd that wacky nullification idea work out for John Calhoun?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +0

M Btok said:

UN Confiscating Guns They Want Us Unarmed like Pol Pot's Subjects! Here is something else I found out about that no one is speaking of! Is this going to affect Canada? Hunters and Sportsmen, Sports Shops are certainly not going to go for this secret con- job by the United Nations! Read this: Dear fellow patriot, With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU. . http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=n12

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +0

Openn Source said:

	... So...still no actual analysis, huh? Nope, thought not. Good work Mr McManus. You're really prosecuting this argument well.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 11, 2010
Votes: +0

RP said:

	Like many JBS members, you must have read the resolution and all related documents and done your OWN analysis, right? On which points of the summary presented do you disagree?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 11, 2010
Votes: +0

rprew said:

	Read the resolution and referenced documents The UN documents you need to find (Google works) are: A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1 (this is the resolution itself) Referenced documents: A/62/278 (Part I and II) and Add.1-4 (this is 6 different documents) A/63/334 (item #25 is of particular interest) A/AC.277/2009/1 All of the above are available in pdf format.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 12, 2010
Votes: +0