Well, I’ve been reading several articles on this UN treaty. As an NRA member, I’ve always distrusted the sincerity of the UN when it comes to arms agreements. This is because there is an international effort to ban private possession of firearms, and we have seen how successful they were in infringing gun rights in English speaking countries. The 90’s saw guns being banned in the United Kingdom and Australia, the later of which has also banned swords. In Canada, a gun registry was implemented, but anti-gunners were unable to go further due to the mass civil disobedience of Canadians. After two registration systems were successfully used to confiscate guns, it is no wonder that Canadians thought that that would be the next phase after registering them.
And so, I have studied these articles:
After reading them, I have come to the conclusion that, even if their stated intention of reducing illegal arms traffic is the true goal on the part of some, others have the ulterior motive of creating a gun registry and of using this tool and the commission set up by the treaty to advance a gun banning agenda. After all, what kind of action would really benefit those poor men, women, and children suffering from genocide and other forms of violence in Africa? We’ve seen the use of violence throughout history by various greedy, power hungry, and bloodthirsty individuals. The only recourse held by these people is to fight. America was never in a position to right all the wrongs of the world, and, if we attempted to help the people of Africa, we should have to resort to force on their behalf anyway.
The primary tool for fighting for the past three hundred years has been the firearm. Instead of passing laws trying to restrict individuals, primarily African Muslims, who would be just as happy to kill Christians with a blade or by bludgeoning, perhaps we should be more concerned with arming the beleaguered peoples of Africa and giving them military training. That would be a UN resolution I would sincerely endorse.