Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead… Not quite…

Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms. –Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

We’d like to express some level of relief that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT), which was going to be brought up for a vote on July 27 has reached an impasse.  But while we are thankful that this measure has failed for now, the fight to keep and uphold our 2nd Amendment is far from over and we should remain ever vigilant!

The mainstream media rightly expresses great sorrow over incidents like the recent mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, or the Gabby Giffords shooting last year yet barely pause before launching into tirades against our 2nd Amendment.  Anyone who doesn’t immediately support the call for stricter gun control measures in the U.S. is quickly branded a gun-toting psycho or a pawn of the NRA.  But are we wrong to question the ultimate motives of this administration when it comes to protecting our right to keep and bear arms?

The White House states that it has no intention of violating our constitutional right to bear arms yet the administration is headed by a man that can barely hide his contempt for civilian firearms ownership.  Barack Obama has demonstrated time and time again his desire to implement gun control on the American people. We need only to look at his actions as a State Senator of Illinois for proof. Larry Bell wrote an article in Forbes Magazine recounting:

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

And as he reached the pinnacle of political success in reaching the White House, we know that on the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Obama told Sarah Brady, wife of Jim Brady who sustained a debilitating head wound in the Reagan assassination attempt, “I just want you to know that we are working on it [Gun Control.] We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” Sarah is not simply a bereaved wife of a gravely injured victim of a madman’s bullet, she is also the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (which was formerly knows as Handgun Control, Inc.)!

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statement highlighted at the beginning of this piece regarding the UN ATT is yet another perverse example of Washington hypocrisy in lieu of the Obama Administration’s execution of the failed Fast and Furious program.  Making matters worse was Attorney General Eric Holder’s apparent cover up of both the scheme and scale of this plan whose ultimate goal was likely to provide false proof that the Mexican drug cartels were obtaining the bulk of the automatic weapons from US sources.

What this administration is saying simply does not jive with what it is doing. Just read this State Department October 14, 2009 Press Release touting the United States support for the Arms Trade Treaty:

“On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.”

Is this statement remotely consistent with what this administration and its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF) were actually doing with Fast and Furious? If we have the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers, how exactly are thousands of firearms making it into the hands of these Mexican drug cartels with no effort to track and trace them until they are found at crime scenes? Would we know anything about this scheme if Border Agent Bryan Terry was not murdered by one of these weapons and whistleblowers stepped out of protocol to call public attention to this travesty and injustice?

The United Nations certainly has no great record of promoting security and justice among its international beneficiaries, so when Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon clearly states that the UN’s “common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” it is difficult to match the intent with how this treaty will be carried out on the world stage.

Even though a July 5, 2012 U.N. Press Release claimed: “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons,” most of us recognize that a world body that includes Russia, China and Iran on its organizational board, cannot be trusted to look after the security interests of the United States, much less have a scintilla of concern about the US citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

Not believing the United Nation’s goals, 130 members of the House sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton expressing their concerns about the treaty.  Furthermore, 51 Senator’s sent a similar letter to Obama and Clinton stating clearly that they would not support any infringement upon our national sovereignty and its citizens’ constitutional rights. Yet the Obama administration will continue to pursue negotiations with the United Nations over its controversial Arms Trade Treaty, especially if he is elected for another term.

Fortunately for us, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has joined forces with Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) and other Senators haven’t forgotten Jefferson’ words and have expressed their grave concerns about the dangers the UN Arms Trade Treaty could impose on the Second Amendment. “Our Second Amendment is non-negotiable,”said Hatch. “We don’t need a bunch of bureaucrats at the United Nations dictating our liberties and freedoms. This Treaty should not be ratified and I will fight it tooth and nail.”

We should be thankful that the controversial treaty has been derailed for the time being but we cannot let our guard down for one minute.  The Second Amendment was not intended to arm American citizens to hunt, or to collect guns or to shoot targets.  It was intended to allow our citizens to protect their homes and family from crime and violence, both from criminals in their communities and especially from tyrannical governments. It was clearly written to remind the Federal Government that the American people shall retain the right to overthrow any government that imposes tyranny upon them.

Let us be reminded what Noah Webster wrote in 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Stay alert, my friends!  This treaty was thwarted for now, but this administration and its allies will not rest until America is disarmed from within!  Case in point, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is considered to be the most conservative member on the Supreme Court, said yesterday that the Second Amendment allows the government to regulate firearms. “It will have to decided in future cases,” Scalia told Fox News Sunday. Scalia claimed that there was precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that outlaw “frightening weapons” that must be considered.

So don’t think this is over folks.

Until next time, keep your powder dry and your faith strong!

Steve Nolan