HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The Heritage Foundation R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:47 AM

The Heritage Foundation Refutes the Big UN-Arms-Trade-Treaty Conspiracy

Media Matters reports with lots of cool links

The right-leaning Heritage Foundation has thrown cold water on the revival a conspiracy theory pushed on Fox News by contributor Dick Morris and the National Rifle Association that the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is actually a sinister Obama administration plot to eliminate the right of private individuals to own a firearm.

During a Heritage Blogger Briefing, senior research fellow Ted Bromund stated, "I don't think that the ATT is a gun confiscation measure for a variety of reasons. First, because I don't regard that as within the bounds of possibility in the United States and secondly, because that is not what the text says."

Bromund's assessment is correct. The stated goal of the treaty is to regulate the international trade of firearms in order to prevent the diversion of arms to human rights abusers, and the most recent version of the treaty's text expressly prohibits the regulation of firearm ownership within sovereign nations.

The preamble of the July 26 treaty draft clearly "reaffirm the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." Furthermore, the Department of State has stated that it will oppose any treaty that contains "restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution."


The gullibility of the gun-rights folks is really funny. When Wayne tells them to be afraid, or to be outraged, they obey blindly. They love to perceive themselves as victims fighting to the death against overwhelming odds. I've named this phenomenon grandiose victimism.

What's your opinion? Will the pronouncement of the Heritage Foundation ease their troubled minds? I doubt it.

Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

16 replies, 2015 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:59 AM

1. it is not unique to NRA members

The gullibility of the gun-rights folks is really funny. When Wayne tells them to be afraid, or to be outraged, they obey blindly.
all propagandists depend on gullibility, including you. Ever notice how gun control groups use meaningless buzz words like "make my day" "shoot first law" and "assault weapon" often not bothering to look up the law or what the term means? How about blogs that copy and paste from poorly written unresearched bullshit from each other?

To answer your question, some folks believe centralization equals authoritarian or totalitarianism.

Edit to ask, has Wayne or the NRA said the UN will take away anyone's guns, or is it hyperbole that some blogger wrote and people started accepting as gospel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:59 AM

2. NRA conspiracy theory mongers

Yes- on many ocassions Wayne has asserted that the POTUS is conspiring to take gun rights away from Americans, with the help of the UN. Just look at the hand-wringing and crazy conspiracy schemes that greeted police that were simply trying to force irresponsible gun owners to pick up thier bullet casings, instead of littering our national parks with them. Alex Jones and the head of the NRA agree with each other's assesment and the narrative being presented by both of these conspiracy theory mongers is filled with hyperbole and out-right lies about the patriotism and morality of president Barack Obama.
So yeah...Wayne is just as much of a conspiracy theory monger about the UN and gun rights issues as the teabaggers are on birtherism and creeping sharia law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sigmasix (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:18 PM

6. If Alex Jones agreed with me that water was wet, I'd rethink my position NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:15 AM

3. I prefer to see the text of the treaty.

I am concerned about a provision the requires the manufacturing company to be told of who the end user of an internationally traded gun is. Does that mean that if I buy a SIG that SIG has to be told that I bought it? But the final treaty has not been finished so that provision may be dropped, so I want to see the proposed treaty.

Because of other UN treaties will we be required to obey it, even if the Senate rejects it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:13 AM

4. There is some ambiguity in the treaty language that the opponents are citing

That language would not matter in a repressive countries like Russia or Mexico but does in a nations with slightly more freedoms like the US and Canada.

Its too late to change the language since adoption has started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:45 AM

5. SIG does have a manufacturing plant in the United States for the P229.

 

Glock, H&K, and FN Herstal also have factories here so they could technically skirt that part of the treaty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:11 PM

7. A) it's a handful

 

B) the claims on the other side are equally ridiculous.

/pistol grips make a gun military-style! Shoulder things that go up increase the lethality of the weapon by a bazillion percent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:13 PM

8. like, I give a fuck what Wayne says.

Bruce Wayne, maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:07 AM

9. According to the UN’s own policy makers they are standing by to disarm civilians around the world

We can discuss the intent of UN officials that craft gun control policy, including the ATT, and then there is the matter of what language actually ends up in the ATT. Based on the first link and section of quotes, the intent seems fairly clear; even if this is not written into early drafts of the ATT. The second link explains the mechanics of disarming citizens and explains how the UN would be more than happy to help in such efforts:


In the UN article below, it is clearly and explicitly stated that their intent is to disarm the world's civilian population; and that, by definition includes American gun owners - gun ownership in the USA is also explicitly mentioned.

The discussion in this article includes the UN ATT as a vehicle to achieve gun control, leading to the ultimate goal of complete civilian disarmament – note that disarmament is like pregnancy in that it is binary and that it is a process leading to a logical ultimate conclusion.


http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2009/wemustdisarm/smallarmsnosinglesolution

"Disarming civilian populations is more difficult than disarming governments. Nevertheless it is arguably more necessary, given that civilians constitute the overwhelming majority not only of gun owners"

"Whether from state arsenals, defeated enemies, arrested criminals or civilian owners, small arms that are in surplus, obsolete, seized, surrendered or otherwise removed from circulation should be destroyed."

"One practical step toward disarmament is to slow the stream of new weapons coming into circulation. Thus far, no Government has been prepared to suggest reducing worldwide production, even by imposing maximum quotas. However, most countries now acknowledge the need for some limitations or constraint—or at least rules—on international sales of these arms."

"Reducing the international supply of new weapons: The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Some international transfers of weapons are obviously irresponsible: for example, if the weapons will arm an uprising against a legitimate government, or if they will be diverted into the hands of organized criminal gangs. The Arms Trade Treaty is an initiative to stop the most irresponsible transfers from going ahead, by asking officials from the exporting and transit countries to consider how the weapons are likely to be used and where they may end up. The proposed treaty would create a global standard for governments to apply when deciding whether to authorize an international transfer of small arms or other conventional weapons."

"Reducing the domestic supply of new weapons. While most countries permit civilian ownership of small arms, they are at the same time seeking to contain it to moderate levels. What is considered a moderate or acceptable level of gun ownership in society is coming increasingly under scrutiny as governments recognize the need to strengthen their gun laws. Driven by regional and international agreements, popular pressure and expert advice, gun laws around the world are growing tighter and more uniform. The emerging norms include integrated renewable licensing and registration of firearms and owners, based on proof of a legitimate reason for possession, limits on the types and number of weapons a civilian can possess, minimum age limits, checks of criminal record and other personal information, safe storage requirements etc. As the new laws reduce the proportion of the population legally entitled to buy or possess arms, as well as the number each licensee can own, the flow of new weapons into the country will slow."

"In relation to small arms, a crucial step toward disarmament is to recognize the link between the legal and illegal domains. The stock of illegal small arms is actually a stock of formerly legal arms. This is because almost all the small arms in the world were produced legally, manufactured in factories authorized (and often owned) by a national government.

It is only when the product leaves the factory and enters the chain of commerce that the possibility of becoming illegal arises. The same gun can be legal or illegal at different points in that chain of commerce, depending on who has it in their possession."

"In a non-conflict country like the USA, a private citizen with no criminal record might buy a gun from the ex-soldier (legal) or a gunshop (legal), and later sell it at a garage sale to a stranger (legal or illegal, depending on local state or city law). The stranger may transfer it to a criminal gang (illegal); or he may simply keep the gun at home (possibly legal), from where it may be stolen by a burglar (illegal), or taken to school by his adolescent son to impress his friends (illegal). The lethal potential of a firearm remains the same, regardless of its legal status."

"The implementation of these measures will advance disarmament "

"An estimated 75 per cent of small arms are in civilian hands. This encompasses all kinds and categories of arms and owners: security guards’ pistols, farmers’ shotguns, hunting rifles, collectors’ displays, retailers’ stocks, gangsters’ crime weapons, as well as the many millions of guns sitting in homes and cars around the world for no particular reason or in the general name of security."

"The best way to reduce diversion from the civilian stockpile to the illegal market is to reduce the size of the civilian stockpile, slow the arming of the population, and strengthen regulation of civilian ownership. "

"firearm registration, is perhaps the single most effective tool in stopping diversion of legal small arms from civilians."

"As in other fields of disarmament, reducing the danger of small arms also requires consideration of demand. What has motivated us to accumulate nearly 900 million guns on the planet, and how can we re-direct that motivation?"

"One of the benefits of the UN small arms process is that it has enabled a discussion of a new security paradigm. This new model recognizes that (a) threats to national security are more likely to come from within their borders than from outside attack, (b) the major security threats are not military but related to transnational topics such as disease, natural resources, flows of refugees, international organized crime, and (c) the price States are paying for small arms proliferation and misuse is too high, especially since it is preventable. This process and its companion projects have enormous potential to affect the mindset of Governments in relation small arms, and to encourage genuine disarmament progress. (The emphasis on international cooperation and assistance in the small arms process is especially helpful in this regard.)"

"What about the private individuals who control three-quarters of the global arsenal, and their motivation for acquiring arms? Again, there are some practical applications where guns are simply tools for feeding one’s family or doing one’s job. But the less rational factors driving demand among Governments also have their counterparts at the level of individuals—fear of the unknown, isolation, belief in the use of force to retain control, market and media pressure, masculine identity etc. Though these feelings may be irrational, they have a real impact. When translated into gun ownership they create insecurity for households, communities and countries as a whole. Paradoxically, people buy firearms because they feel insecure; and the result is more insecurity."

"The single most important step toward reducing demand for small arms is to enhance security, both in the reality and the perception. Strengthening security depends primarily on States and their policies to address the root causes of insecurity, relating to poverty, health, human rights, criminal and social justice. Improving perceptions of security involves many additional actors, including civil society and the media. Policies to reduce gun ownership provide benefits on both fronts, increasing both actual and perceived security, since the reason people want to have guns is because other people have them. Reducing the level of small arms proliferation is crucial in interrupting the spiral of insecurity.

"Practical steps toward disarmament include regulation, procedural reform, reassurance, information and persuasion."

"The challenges are significant, but countered by the certain knowledge that doing nothing will produce an outcome which is more dangerous and even harder to defuse. "


http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0540-en.pdf

Page 7:

"Collection of small arms and light weapons: It is applicable in settings that have undergone legislative reform restricting the access of civilians to small arms"


The statement from page 11 below acknowledges what we all know to be blindingly obvious; so why is the UN's primary objective disarmament, rather than addressing what motivates people to hurt each other?


"Removing tools of violence from communities without addressing the root causes of conflict is unlikely to make a durable contribution to building peace and security."


Page 30:

"The timing and duration of a weapons collection programme may be influenced by a number of factors. Timing may be determined by such factors as a shocking incident involving the misuse of weapons."


In other words, keep ratcheting up restrictions on what firearms civilians may own (until no guns or very few "qualified" people are left), and use every possible excuse to justify disarmament, such as "mass shootings".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:24 AM

14. masculine identity etc.

"In a non-conflict country like the USA, a private citizen with no criminal record might buy a gun from the ex-soldier (legal) or a gunshop (legal), and later sell it at a garage sale to a stranger (legal or illegal, depending on local state or city law). The stranger may transfer it to a criminal gang (illegal); or he may simply keep the gun at home (possibly legal), from where it may be stolen by a burglar (illegal), or taken to school by his adolescent son to impress his friends (illegal). The lethal potential of a firearm remains the same, regardless of its legal status."


"What about the private individuals who control three-quarters of the global arsenal, and their motivation for acquiring arms? Again, there are some practical applications where guns are simply tools for feeding one’s family or doing one’s job. But the less rational factors driving demand among Governments also have their counterparts at the level of individuals—fear of the unknown, isolation, belief in the use of force to retain control, market and media pressure, masculine identity etc. Though these feelings may be irrational, they have a real impact. When translated into gun ownership they create insecurity for households, communities and countries as a whole. Paradoxically, people buy firearms because they feel insecure; and the result is more insecurity."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Sounds like some of our fellow posters here write stuff for the UN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:37 AM

15. Interesting information in your PDF there.

6.4 Licensing and registration
Collection is not the only method of reducing the number of illicit small arms in circulation. Some
weapons may be illegal because their owners have not licensed or registered them in accordance with
domestic law. Such weapons may be rendered legal by encouraging their owners to licence and (if
required by law) register them, thus bringing formerly illegal weapons under State control.


So licensing and registration brings weapons under state control....Humm wonder what that means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Howzit (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:14 AM

16. The UN wants to regulate your ability to freely discuss this or any other topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/bitter-struggle-over-internet-regulation-dominate-global-summit-040702595--sector.html

The 12-day conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a 157-year-old organization that's now an arm of the United Nations, largely pits revenue-seeking developing countries and authoritarian regimes that want more control over Internet content against U.S. policymakers and private Net companies that prefer the status quo.

While specifics of some of the most contentious proposals remain secret, leaked drafts show that Russia is seeking rules giving individual countries broad permission to shape the content and structure of the Internet within their borders, while a group of Arab countries is advocating universal identification of Internet users. Some developing countries and telecom providers, meanwhile, want to make content providers pay for Internet transmission.

Fundamentally, most of the 193 countries in the ITU seem eager to enshrine the idea that the U.N. agency, rather than today's hodgepodge of private companies and nonprofit groups, should govern the Internet. The ITU meeting, which aims to update a longstanding treaty on how telecom companies interact across borders, will also tackle other topics such as extending wireless coverage into rural areas.

If a majority of the ITU countries approve U.N. dominion over the Internet along with onerous rules, a backlash could lead to battles in Western countries over whether to ratify the treaty, with tech companies rallying ordinary Internet users against it and some telecom carriers supporting it. In fact, dozens of countries including China, Russia and some Arab states, already restrict Internet access within their own borders, but those governments would have greater leverage over Internet content and service providers if the changes were backed up by international agreement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:40 AM

11. can anyone explain how entering into this treaty will benefit America?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:02 AM

13. If it doesn't result in more platform sales, I can't imagine it has any benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:58 AM

12. You're a big believer in the Heritage Foundation now eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread