The United States Ambassador to UN Addresses ATT Conference

Lots of talk about the urgent need of the treaty, along with assurances that this won’t affect domestic gun policy:

The Arms Trade Treaty should not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense. Acting together, we can strengthen international peace and security and the rule of law by requiring universal establishment of responsible national standards for the arms trade.

[…]

Moreover, we must acknowledge and respect that this negotiation is not an attempt to intrude, either in principle or process, into states’ internal activities, laws, or practices concerning the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms. Rather, this treaty will regulate only the international arms trade. Any attempt to include provisions in the treaty that would interfere with each state’s sovereign control over the domestic use or movement of arms is clearly outside the scope of our mandate.

And interesting question will be, if the treaty draft does indeed come out to not affect civilian arms, and Obama gives the treaty his endorsement, how does that affect this as an election issue? The other issue is that once the treaty is established, the anti-gun NGOs will be pushing to expand the scope of the treaty.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Wayne LaPierre Before the United Nations
  2. Update on United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
  3. UN ATT Postponed Without Agreement

6 thoughts on “The United States Ambassador to UN Addresses ATT Conference”

  1. THE SENATE BETTER NOT RATIFY THIS ATTACK ON THE 2 AMENDMENT. THE UN HAS HAD OUR RIGHTS IN THEIR TARGETS FOR SOME TIME

  2. Thats nice that he said that, but it will be better of the ATT actually reads that way.

  3. If you hear them talking, you know that they are lying. If you see what they have written, you can see that they are lying.
    If they tell you what they believe, you can believe that they are lying.
    All we have gotten out of this administration and its syncophant followers is one lie after another, deceit, circumlocution, and misdirection.
    January 20th cannot come soon enough.

  4. “. . .if the treaty draft does indeed come out to not affect civilian arms, and Obama gives the treaty his endorsement, how does that affect this as an election issue?”

    Almost no one who is sufficiently sophisticated about gun rights issues to be concerned about a UN arms treaty is going to change they way they vote in this election, no matter what happens. It is somewhat ironic that by caring so much about our issue, we become a known, and therefore ignorable, factor in it.

    1. Perhaps, but for a lot of people not “sufficiently sophisticated about gun rights issues” this will I believe be the first anti-gun measure during his presidency that the totally and very visibly owns. Compare to signing the concealed carry in National Parks legislation.

      Yes, Fast and Furious looks and is real bad, but he didn’t own it until he asserted executive privilege, and that’s a pretty sophisticated detail, who only people above, say, 50 are likely to be really familiar with (Watergate).

      If the treaty language is bad enough, we’ll be able to make a case that it will curtail imports, and that should be a big issue, particularly in a cost conscious era.

  5. Too bad John Ross never had his book published in the paperback format. Lots of people in various postions in the current administration could do with gettin’ a copy in the mail…

Comments are closed.