Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:55

CFR Tells Americans "UN Doesn't Want Your Guns"

Written by 

Stewart M. Patrick of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations says that gun owners' concerns about a United Nations small arms treaty, the so-called Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being drafted in New York this month, “are not only inflammatory, they are completely unfounded.” The CFR pronounces that “Your Guns Are in Safe Hands” with the United Nations.

Stewart, a senior fellow and director at the establishment organization's Program on International Institutions and Global Governance, wrote on the CFR website July 20:

The treaty is limited to the international trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders. The draft text of the treaty explicitly recognizes “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through the constitutional protections on private ownership.”

In reality, the actual United Nations Programme of Action adopted in 1999 requires gun control in every nation, despite paper promises today. The Programme of Action requires nations: 

To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons. [Emphasis added.]


To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities. [Emphasis added.]

Not surprisingly, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that dominate UN conferences on small arms have uniformly backed the outlawing of privately held firearms and repeal of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. So it should also not be surprising that the United Nations, regarding an armed citizenry, takes a view opposite that of the Second Amendment. The UN Small Arms website claims: “A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.” Of course, historically, the reverse has been true. Armed citizens are far more secure. Meanwhile, unarmed populations have often proven to be victims of their murderous governments, even fairly poorly armed governments such as Rwanda's in the 1990s. In the case of Rwanda, the UN helped the genocidal government secure an arms deal to accomplish the slaughter of minority Tutsis. 

Stewart claims that international gun control under the UN is a moral necessity for the United States: 

As the top global supplier of major conventional weapons, accounting for 30 percent of all exports (Russia is a close second with 24 percent), the United States has the special responsibility to marshal its diplomatic energy toward crafting a robust, enforceable, and sustainable treaty that will raise global standards and ultimately save lives. Given the divergent and often competing interests at stake, appeasing domestic constituencies is just one of the many hurdles to overcome in order to reach a consensus on a “bulletproof” treaty.

Stewart is not alone in providing reassurances. Retired Maj. Gen. Roger R. Blunt wrote a similar whitewash of the UN gun-ban agenda in The Hill July 12, claiming, “This treaty would have little to no impact on international weapons transfers by the United States and no impact on Second Amendment freedoms. It would also in no way establish a supranational regulatory agency that could in any way violate U.S. sovereignty.”

Of course, if Stewart's desire for an “enforceable” treaty is realized, how could the UN not establish a supranational regulatory agency?

Blunt also claimed, “Opponents have been trying to muddy the waters by raising unfounded and non-specific Second Amendment concerns to scare their members and raise money. They do this knowing full well that the ATT charter explicitly limits the scope of the ATT to prevent it from having any influence over domestic gun laws or sales within countries.”

But the UN Small Arms conference's Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), which set up the goals of the treaty negotiation, included national gun registration. And it included not just “imports” and “exports,” but all “transfers” of small arms. While the final ATT treaty text is not yet available, national gun registration is neither an unfounded nor a “non-specific” concern for defenders of the Second Amendment. 

Photo: United Nations General Assembly hall


  • Comment Link Del Wootten Thursday, 26 July 2012 09:42 posted by Del Wootten

    The Council of Foreign Relations was formed as a Globalist Organization during the Woodrow Wilson Era, all administrations have had deep affiliations since the days of FDR.. Many of the same family names are familiar with initial formulation, and ongoing leadership within the U.N., The Trilateral Commission, The Council of Foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve. These are Globalist Groups (fabianists), all affiliated and have the same goal of evential global governance by the relative few.

    You as an individual can still easily access and tie the individuals and overall goals together, research "Fabianism"). The CFR reassuring the American People of the overall safety regarding U.N. Treaties concerning gun registration and ownership, would be the classic case of the wolves reassuring the sheep that they were safe with his watchful eyes.

    The U.S. Constitution is the true friend of the people in this nation, it preserves your rights as a free citizen. Never allow the relative few to coerce or change your opinion on that subject. There is no need for America to sign an international U.N. Treaty mandating the registration or surrender of firearms, unless "the few" plan a global crack-down, and eventual disarmament of the U.S. Citizen.

    Research Public Law - 87-297 intitially signed by the President in 1961, it concerns the subject of national public disarmament. You may find this interesting.

  • Comment Link Madeleine Thursday, 26 July 2012 04:36 posted by Madeleine

    I am only adressing this issue to inform you and the UN that no treaty can go up against our 2nd amendment. Nothing can superceded it. The UN is wearing thin, they are throwing their weight around as if they were somebody, they are unelected and led by a chinese communist, of all things, since when do we take orders or make deals twith the communist Chinese? Joseph McCarthy is looking pretty good right about now. If we had no protection I can't imagine what our lives would be like, like Britains and Norways I guess with young girls being raped in the streets, at least we could shoot them, those people have no weapons , even the British police don't carry guns, they stand there and watch the attackers beat up Brits and wait for the Police dept. to deliver a few guns if they are lucky.

    Even the CFR gets into the act on this gun issue, are we suppose to believe the CFR, who are you? You say you have nothing to do wiht our Government yet every President is a member, all of the top brass in the Pentagon are members, that should stop, considering all of the leaks we have been having lately, especailly the one where the UN gave our secrets to Iran and S Korea. they are still being funded by us, that should stop soon, now they want to legalize prostitution and make drugs legal. I am hoping they will defund these tramps and just get them out of our lives, you will have ot find somemone else to do your dirty work, they can stop worrying about our guns, they are going ot be here a lot longer than you or the UN.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in