“Perfect Storm” For UN Gun Control Agenda

The folks at United Nations headquarters in New York City, and our “allies” at Number 10 Downing Street in London, must be rubbing their hands with glee. Gun control groups here and abroad likewise are at last quietly cheering. Why? After a decade and a half of pushing unsuccessfully to secure America’s support for a legally-binding, international instrument to regulate the marketing, transfer and brokering in firearms, they are now on the brink of success. The process of formally negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) now has Washington’s seal of approval; announced October 14th by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It was not always thus.

In the summer of 2001, the UN formally launched its multi-year effort to institutionalize its role as regulator of international transfers of firearms; something it had coveted openly since the mid-1990s. In July 2001, John Bolton had been serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs for barely two months. It is this office at the state department that is responsible for issues ranging from nuclear disarmament to land mine eradication. When the UN began its foray into “small arms and light weapons” (a term that incorporates virtually every type, size and model of firearm) in the mid-90s, the issue fell into the lap of whoever occupied that office.

In one of his first public addresses after being sworn in as undersecretary, Bolton delivered the opening statement for the United States at the UN arms conference on July 9, 2001. His blunt words shocked many of the delegates present. The message he delivered made crystal clear, with reference to our constitutionally-guaranteed “right to keep and bear arms,” that the US would not be a party to any international effort that would directly or indirectly infringe that fundamental right.

Over the next five years, in meeting after meeting, the US was true to the words Bolton delivered in 2001. Refusing to bow to intense pressure from many of our “allies,” including most notably the UK, the US opposed and even vetoed numerous efforts to afford the UN any legally-binding power to regulate the “international” trafficking in firearms. The Bush Administration realized that doing so would tie US policy makers’ hands in supporting certain arms transfers in our own national security interests. Moreover, and more relevant for Second Amendment purposes, a legally-binding instrument purporting to regulate illicit international transfers of firearms, would necessarily touch domestic activities. For example, in order to know and regulate international transfers, the UN folks would have to know what firearms were being manufactured, stocked, and purported to be transferred within each country.

The playing field now has changed dramatically. We have a president, a secretary of state, and an undersecretary philosophically in synch with the UN and its member nations who have been clamoring for the US to join the march to an ATT. In her statement of October 14th announcing Washington’s reversal on this issue, Clinton made not even passing or indirect reference to the Constitution, much less the Second Amendment; a position so clearly and forcefully employed by Bolton when defending our interests against the international “community.”

The irony in all this is that the US maintains the most rigorous and consistent legal controls on the export and import of firearms of any nation. If those nations pushing for an international arms trade treaty were sincerely concerned with tightening such controls internationally, all they would have to do would be to adopt regulations and laws as we have in the US already. But that’s not their true agenda.

The real agenda of these folks at the UN, and in London, Tokyo, Brasilia, and the other capitals around the world of nations pushing the US to “come on board,” is not international regulation, but limiting the freedom we enjoy within the United States to keep and bear arms.

124 comments Add your comment


October 28th, 2009
9:44 am

I am a gun owner and I am obsessed with my collection! I have several .50 cal’s., .45 cal’s., .44 cal’s. I have many weapons that are strictly military in nature. I also have the accuterments that go along with them, bayonets etc… I fire these weapons every chance I get.They all ignite with either a flint or a percussion cap. They were all designed to do one thing, kill! I also have guns that are not part of my colelction. These I hunt with. I know people who obsessivly collect coins, stamps, old cars etc…. What is wrong about being obsessive about what one collects?


October 28th, 2009
11:19 am

I keep seeing posts about obsessions over guns. We who LEGALLY have guns for our protection are not obsessed with them. We do not rant constantly about your right to NOT have them. Our belief is that every person in this country has the right to believe ANY WAY AND ANYTHING THEY WISH to believe. The point is that you do not have the right to force your belief on anyone and I do not have the right to force my belief on anyone. You are attempting to force your belief on me by depriving me of my firearms. I do not force you to own firearms do I??? In Gun Facts 5.0 you will learn that legal firearms owners are almost never guilty of the unlawful use of firearms. Only the criminal obtains and uses firearms illegally. Think! Riddle me this. If you force the honest and productive citizen to give up his firearms, a law most of them will obey, who will then own firearms. Well? When anything is banned it creates a black market and criminal activity not otherwise found. Now it comes down to this. Since everyone is entitled to his own belief we must not infringe on each others right to his own belief. Look around you. See that so many things are being done by the liberals to infringe on others rights. I will honor your belief and your right to believe it. However if you try to shove your belief down my throat I will do my best to kill you. I do that in my defense of my right to not believe as you believe. That my friends is freedom in a nutshell. My government is infringing on my rights as a free man. When a government infringes on the inalieanable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of its citizenry it becomes opressive and soon totally totalerian. That is simply why our founders insisted on the rights of free speach and to own a gun. Google the names of the founders of this great country and contemplate what they say. Also may I ask a question? Is not guncontrol people obsessing about gun ownership? If they were not obsessing about gun ownership, gun owners would not be countering with fact which is not obsessing but defending point by point what gun controll is obsessing. Gun proponents are not trying to force anything upon anyone. gun controll people are trying to force their beliefs upon me-to force their point of view down my throat. I do not tell you you have to own a gun. do not tell me i have to not own a gun. GOT THE IDEA YET OR ARE YOU CHOKING YOUR CHICKEN AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION. one about fed up sheepdog who loves his sheep.


October 28th, 2009
3:51 pm


Bruce Siperly

October 28th, 2009
4:29 pm

Since when has anyone in the Obama administration given one rats fuzzy about the Constitution, our liberties and rights, soverenty, or anything else Americans cherish? Why don’t you goody-two-shoes wordy little twerps get real or get lost!


October 28th, 2009
5:27 pm

Wake up and smell the ammo. This is not about taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Glad to see paranoia is alive and well.


October 28th, 2009
6:33 pm

PEOPLE, PEOPLE! Let’s get one and one thing only straight. It does not matter how many laws,regulations or policies that are made, evil is inherent in every single human being, it is with ones own ability to choose between right or wrong. YES, I do own guns. YES, I do believe the Second Amendment was put in place to keep our government in check, for without it all else becomes null. Yes, I do believe any and all attempts to stifle MY Constitutionally guaranteed Rights are acts of tyranny. Whether or not the UNs’ latest acts of world domination are directly aimed toward the U.S. not being totally Free, it is still apparent what their goal is. Also, if it hasn’t been answered yet, here ya’ go, (The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dicitionary of the English Language) and I quote “COMMUNISM: A THEORY OR SYSTEM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION BASED ON THE HOLDING OF PROPERTY IN COMMON, ACTUAL OWNERSHIP BEING ASCRIBED TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE OR TO THE STATE; AN ECONOMIC THEORY OR SYSTEM BY WHICH THE STATE CONTROLS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND THE DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS.” Also, Socialism…and I quote, “A THEORY OR METHOD OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT WHEREBY THE CITIZENRY JOINTLY OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION, AND THE POWER OF ADMISTRATIVE CONTROL IS VESTED IN THE STATE; IN MARXISM, AN INERMEDIATE STATE WHICH MUST NECESSARILY FOLLOW CAPITALISM BEFORE THE GOAL OF A TOTALLY CLASSLESS SOCIETY CAN BECOME A FUNCTIONAL REALITY”. I could go on and on about the similarities between communism, socialism, nationalism and how Mr. Obama, the UN and all other entities aspiring to the same agenda are connected but I’ll leave that, for all of you AND especially those that think I am wrong in my beliefs, to research and distinguish. Why it’s so hard for people to understand that these things DO NOT work is a mystery. The writing is on the wall and in the history books that are all but vanished. Otherwise this country would have never gotten into the shape it is in. If you dig deep enough you will all find that the events of today are all caused by the greed of socialists over a hundred years ago, even back to President Lincoln. So there.

Chip Jones

October 28th, 2009
9:05 pm

AMEN Hard Right !! (and thank you Gaston Glock)

[...] The Full Story October 29th, 2009 | Category: Things That Piss Us Off [...]


October 30th, 2009
12:01 am

Here’s what will happen, mark my words. Obumble finally gets what he wants and the US joins the UN in gun control. The ‘10 elections did not go well and the ‘12 elections are drawing near. Obumble makes a decision to start taking guns from houses during the day under an “international search order” when people are not home. This results in shootings from home owners that refuse to give up their arms. Obumble sees this as the opportunity he has been waiting for and enacts marshal law. He further declares the upcoming elections to be delayed untill he sees fit, ths ensuring his dictatorship. All I can say is lets get this thing started, civil war anyone? Be afraid liberals, be vey afraid.

[...] remember, it isn’t “paranoia” if they’re really after you. …The real agenda of these folks at the UN, and in London, Tokyo, Brasilia, and the other [...]


November 1st, 2009
8:52 am

If anything like this is voted for by a representative of the US without a national referendum hee/she will not only be removed from office, they & all like idiots will be terminated! Enough of this commie bull being put forward by the Usurper & his minions – take America back from these subversive anti- Americans. If you want a civil war, we will give you one!!!!!!!!!!!!!


November 3rd, 2009
10:50 pm

Someone from the NRA called us tonight to warn us that the UN wants to ban guns in the US. Just who exactly starts these fear campaigns that those who feel helpless without guns buy into? He said if guns were banned the bad guys can still get them on the black market. Well, so can everyone else if they want them! Easy access to guns makes it easier for bad buys and nut cases to get them. So why not slow them down with good gun control laws? Why are people so afraid of the UN when if it weren’t for us there would be no UN? The UN is us!!!


November 16th, 2009
9:33 am

It seems to me that gun control folks are like wannbe doctors that address symtoms and never look at the cause of a problem.. We live in society with a massive amount of laws that even lawyers dont know all of them.. Yet a simple list of rules like the ten comandments is rarely argued.. Then why constantly argue that simple document known as the Bill Of Rights.. It seems to me that most politicians justify their existance by dreaming up ways to create more taxes and more gov. and the incredable 2nd amendment is always a target ..
Someone here posted about folks that: “beg borrow and steal to get to the USA” .. I think that says it all..
And another posted that : Fascists cannot push Socialism until the public is disarmed.. Who in their right mind would allow this ?
I think anti gun folks are just grossly misinformed .. But what if all Americans were required in school to take some military training or even ROTC,, just enough to develope some patriotism and inner strength..
Then all these missinformed gun haters would be a lot smaller group and America and her awesome Constitution would stand a better chance of surviving..

D Albert

November 16th, 2009
1:06 pm

They will have to take it from under my dead body.


November 16th, 2009
3:43 pm

“More conservative conspiracy lunacy.
We have and will continue to have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s in the constitution, Mr. Barr. Chicken Little column in my opinion.”

Wrong. Please read article VI of the US Constitution. The second paragraph.

“Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”

A treaty made by the US will trump anything on the Constitution.


November 16th, 2009
5:22 pm

There is no such thing as a “professional” militia.
A militia is made up of non-military, able-bodied male CITIZENS who are called up or volunteer to support and fight alongside regular troops! They are NOT the National Guard nor the Reserves!


November 17th, 2009
12:37 am

It amazes me how people on the left want to call people who beleive in our Constitution radicals,crazies etc. The lefties completely disregard World History, our Founding Fathers and the greatest Document ever written. Our Constitution. Read it,understand it and respect it.


November 17th, 2009
12:53 am

To JJVP. You are correct about Article VI. However, what you forgot was the Oath every politician swears to when being sworn into office. I do solemnly swear to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This is something you Marxists just do not understand!!! Therefore, it is their sworn duty not to vote in the affirmitive for any Treaty that would violate the Constitution. You need to educate yourselves!!


November 17th, 2009
10:04 am

It’s obvious that Obama and his cronies want to disarm the American people so that they will be easier to control. This has been the first thing to be done in every country ever taken over completely by the ruling faction. “A man with a gun is a citizen, a man with none is a slave”.

graham banks

November 17th, 2009
4:42 pm

Bob: Treaties are ratified in the Senate, not both houses. The Senate is required only to consult the House, and this has no binding nature.

In this day and age we should be arguing the affirmative case on the second amendment, that current gun regulation is a violation and should be rolled back. The idea held so dear by the Framers was one that would allow the people to protect themselves from the government, or army. That idea is completely moot today, in light of the tremendous gulf between military technology and civilian firepower.

As long as we continue to argue to PROTECT the meager rights we have been ALLOWED to keep regarding firearms, we will continue to fall more and more indefensible against the threat of government force.

musket vs. musket : equal
rifle vs. rifle : equal
rifle vs. machine gun: uh-oh
rifle vs. smart bomb: tyranny



November 17th, 2009
10:38 pm


Rebellion News

December 20th, 2009
6:43 pm

[...] “Perfect Storm” For UN Gun Control Agenda [...]


January 3rd, 2010
12:49 pm

Just build a fence around the UN and make damn sure, that you search all that go in and come out. One more thing, Why isn’t there a Tim McVage to take care of the UN?
These rats that belong to this UN should all be tared and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Good Ol western justest is coming. and the hang man isn’t far behind.

[...] For more, go HERE [...]