Where's Obama When an Unelected Foreign Entity Wants More Control Over The U.S. ?

The gun lobby was 100% correct in their fears of Obama. Literally hours after Obama was elected the U.S. is now agreeing to debate a draft version of a U.N. conventional arms ban.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

A few things here are strange to me. Why, if the treaty does not effect U.S. domestic gun sales, do U.S. officials have to acknowledge that information "privately"? Also the name "U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee" does not sound like a committee devoted to maintaining gun rights. The fact of the matter is this; the U.N. is trying to mandate global gun laws. Once the framework is in place the U.N. will begin to encroach on U.S. gun owners individual rights. There could be no other reason to agree to something like this. As I have said before, "find me any newly created legislation that limits the power of those who passed it".

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

The entire premise of this treaty is absurd. Does anyone really believe that those who violate human rights can't manufacture their own weapons? Iran is on the verge of manufacturing a nuclear weapon with the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but we need to focus on hand-held weapons?

Anyone who thinks that this will not effect the U.S. and private gun ownership is far removed from reality.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!