Friday, November 16, 2012

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

Media Matters reports

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[s] 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.

17 comments:

  1. No, Mikeb, we're not mindless sheep who follow whatever voice sounds the prettiest. The Arms Trade Treaty is another piece of feel-good talk that will stop no violations of human rights, but that could be used in an attempt to justify all manner of regulation here. You keep telling us that Heller and McDonald allow for that. You just don't think we have any memories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you know better than the Heritage folks, huh Greg?

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, do you notice the irony of you standing up for the Heritage Foundation?

      Delete
  2. Apparently Greg, you didn't read what the blogger said. Mike is right. It didn't change your mind because you are intent on believing the conspiracy theories which are clearly not true. Facts matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan, I read the draft of the treaty while it was being discussed a few months ago. Its language was typically wordy and mealy-mouthed, but the clear goal was to eliminate private ownership of firearms.

      I read what the blogger had to say. Reading it doesn't mean that I have to believe it. That's your job, which is why you won't let me comment on your blog.

      Delete
    2. Greg, what legitimate interest do non State actors bear in the possession of firearms?

      As I have said before, rights, including "self-defense" are collectivized upon formation of a (State enforced) civilized society, and therefore mere citizens have no reasonable claim to individual rights which do not empower the State with a duty or obligation to it's subjects.

      Delete
    3. E.N., you can spread bullshit around all you want. You can dip it in chocolate sauce and add cherries. It's still bullshit. There is no such thing as a collective right. All rights are individual. States have no rights whatsoever. States have powers, and in free societies, those powers are strictly limited.

      Delete
    4. Rights do not belong to the State, rights belong to the collective society, and are enforced by the State. In a civilized society, mere individuals have no reasonable claim to enforceable negative rights.

      Delete
    5. Then I pray to the gods that we never achieve the kind of civilized society that you envision. I certainly won't accept it.

      Delete
  3. Its a shame that the drafters of this resolution are (apparently) squandering their opportunity to create an international right to civilian disarmament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The U.N. squandering time, money, and opportunity? Now there's a novel idea...

      Delete
  4. I'm back from a enjoyable day at the range, freshening up my handgun skills. I wasn't alone. The key point to control freaks is that Americans own and love guns. We won't give them up. It would be best not to try taking them away from us. We practice regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don’t believe the ATT will result in confiscations of guns here in the USA. Will it hurt my ability to buy imported military surplus 8mm Mauser ammunition? Yeah, most likely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you gravitate to weapons used by the Third Reich. Are you a nazi perhaps?

      Why do you need Ammunition to preserve (a rather gruesome) history? I can understand owning such a device, as a means of preserving a piece of military history, but using such a thing (for target practice or hunting, presumably) serves no understandable purpose. Does one use a Bentley 4.5 liter too get milk and eggs?

      Also, the proper name for the ammunition (for it's proper intended use - State actors) is 7.92x57 German, not 8 millimeter "Mauser".

      Delete
    2. E.N., 8mm Mauser is a common term for the ammunition in question. Are you Mr. Spock, unable to round off?

      As to why a person would want one, yes, it's a piece of history. A lot of Mausers have been sporterized, since they were made in large numbers. The ammunition is ballistically similar to our .30-'06, an excellent deer cartridge. The Mauser action is respected for its strength. Many of the magnum rifles use the same design.

      But it's no shock that you can't understand why we would want to use such a rifle. You see it as a museum piece, just as you see our rights as belonging in an institution under glass.

      Delete
    3. My Mauser is Czech. But I also own a Luger, so go ahead an trivialize the holocaust by calling me a Nazi.

      Delete
    4. Mine's a Yugo copy, and I have a Czech vz 24 that was rebarreled and rechambered in .30-'06. As a matter of fact, many of my guns are Commie Bloc leftovers. I guess by E.N.'s line of thinking, that makes me a communist. I just like them because they look like something out of a cheap sci-fi flick from the fifties and they always work.

      Delete