Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes What do you make of this? Is this about reducing international crime or is it international cooperation on domestic arms control? Mind you, this article is an op-ed piece, but I'm wondering how this treaty actually works and how it's being sold. But in a general sense, what do you think? I'm torn. I don't have an issue with reasonable arms control. However, this does strike me as a bit heavy-handed. It seems that this sort of thing should be handled domestically, rather than as an international treaty. At the same time, it would be of benefit to have nations on the same page with regard to how to handle arms regulations. I suppose I simply view the small arms trade as something rather unsavoury and that maybe it would be of benefit to have some kind of international regulatory agreement.

.. will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.