Obama Accused of Supporting Global Gun Agenda Just Hours After Winning a Second Term

The Second Amendment Foundation (I wonder what they are all about?) has accused President Obama of showing his hand at part of his agenda for his second term not even twenty-four hours after he defeated Mitt Romney to secure another term as the President.  According to the Foundation, Obama’s administration went along with a coalition that included China, Germany, France, and Great Britain, to name a few, but as many as 150 other governments as well, in supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  Gun rights activists say that this only shows that the fears they had all along of a second term for Obama were not unfounded.

Gun control is a hot button issue for many Americans. How does it weigh on your mind?

The treaty is not a done deal.  The nations indicated only indicated that they support further negotiations on the matter.  The treaty is scheduled to reach some sort of accord around March of 2013, but the language of the final document could be much different than the one currently on the table.  The treaty has been in the works since as early as 2006 and has already appeared in several different versions.  President George W. Bush was against the treaty back then when it was first introduced, citing that he believed that nations should decide such things at their own national level.  Obama expressed a different opinion in 2009, reversing Bush’s position, but there is still much consternation over what exactly the treaty, if it ever sees the light of day, will mean both globally and here in the United States.

So, that’s the story that’s going around.  Now, everyone knows we at Common Sense Conspiracy love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but we also are obligated by our mission statement to dig deeper and give you the real facts in situations like this.  The reality of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is that it is something that was designed on an international level, not a national one.  It’s intentions are to get everyone that signs on with the treaty to agree to certain rules and regulations about the international sale of weapons.  The purpose is to stop countries from selling arms and ammunition to rogue groups outside their country just to make profit or promote their own agenda.  So, it’s back to the old terrorist argument.  These 150+ nations are trying to agree that they will not pass weapons along to just anyone that comes along.  Or worse yet, pass along weapons to groups with the intention of arming them for a specific political purpose.  The undertones there are clear.  There are dozens of examples cited in the debates about the treaty, including such notable ones as a Dutch businessman selling Saddam Hussein materials to create mustard gas and a situation in 1991 when some retired members of the Chilean military sold weapons to Croatia.

The Second Amendment Foundation says that the treaty might be on an international level at first, but it has some questionable language about what is “appropriate use” of weapons and ammunition, and the fear is that this will eventually trickle down to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of American citizens to bear arms.  So, they are saying that by signing on to an international treaty, this will leave the door open for Obama and company to say, “Well, now we’re in this and you have to hand over your guns.”  Meanwhile, they would blame it on the international community instead of bearing the brunt of the blame here in America.

Is this a likely scenario?  Probably not, in all honesty.  At least not within Obama’s four years.  Such an action would have to be years down the road, and would probably have to stem from some sort of international event that cast the United States’ gun policies into doubt on the world scene.  After all, the United States does export more weapons and ammunition than any other country in the world, so you could see some possibility of a situation coming up where other nations cried foul if the U.S. were implicated in selling weapons to a rogue group that had sinister intentions toward one of the countries that was party to the treaty.  Still, is this an action to advance a gun control agenda?

Most likely, the Second Amendment Foundation and other gun activist groups are using this to stoke even more of a fire to discourage President Obama if such a thought had entered his mind.  Once again, we have reported before that President Obama has never went on the record with any such stance on gun control, but many people have been fearful of a second term and what he might do with no more campaigns to worry about.  What do you think?  Are you worried about gun control?  Or is this just people blowing smoke over a treaty that will probably be good for the world as a whole?  Or does that sound a little too New World Order-ish for your taste?  Let us know what you think.
[polldaddy poll=6679236]


One thought on “Obama Accused of Supporting Global Gun Agenda Just Hours After Winning a Second Term”

  1. The way this world works, the lack of trust among citizens and countries, this is not such a huge deal.
    Everyone realizes that 150 countries may sign this treaty, yet every one of them is going to do what they want, right?

Comments are closed.