By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer
A new report touted by NBC News’ Maggie Fox makes the claim that the level of firearm ownership can be correlated with homicide deaths of Law Enforcement Officers. More civilian gun ownership in a given area, more dead police. Study authors David Sewedler and David Hemenway would later admit that perhaps this homicide rate was actually driven by criminals. The “criminal offender theory” draws the not-so-remarkable conclusion that police who have frequent encounters with violent criminals are more likely to be injured or killed. Not all that surprising a proposition, is it?
Of course, gun hating members of the media aren’t interested in the legitimacy of a study, but in the claims of its authors. In this case, more police are killed in states which have more of those evil guns. It’s short, sounds reasonable and is easy to pass off as fact. What could be better!
But why has the media decided to pick yet another nationally syndicated fight with gun owners?
On September 25th of last year, Secretary of State John Kerry-acting on behalf of the president-signed the UN’s Global Arms Trade Treaty. Though it has not been ratified by the Senate, Obama’s minions traveled to the UN Arms Treaty conference in Mexico on Monday, August 24th.
It’s quite clear that the purpose of the Treaty is to disarm civilian populations—that is, people deemed unauthorized by government officials to possess firearms or ammunition. But the federal government and individual states have attempted to disarm the American people before. Connecticut and New York recently passed legislation requiring owners of “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines to register these items with the state. It has been widely reported that more than 1 million “assault weapon” owners in the two states have publicly defied the legislation and law enforcement officials, many who refuse to enforce the law anyhow.
One purpose of the UN Small Arms Treaty is to bring an end to this spirit of freedom and defiance on the part of American gun owners. As Article 16 of the Treaty explains:
“In implementing this treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include management, disarmament, demobilization, model legislation and effective practices for implementation.”
So Barack Obama might dispatch U.N. forces to quell unrest in Ferguson, for example. Once accomplished, this makeshift army of mercenaries could be directed to forcibly disarm any and all civilians in the area. U.N. officials would have the authority to formulate the law themselves, or go back to State Department Publication 7277, which purports to work towards the goal of the small arms treaty, “where all nations have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control within standards set by the United Nations.”
Barack Obama and the radical left are hoping to use the Arms Trade Treaty to affect an end run around our inalienable, constitutionally protected right to self-defense, that is, to keep and bear arms. What couldn’t be accomplished in Congress or by the Supreme Court will now take place thanks to the authority of a treaty. And according to many, use of the Fast Track trade agreement will preclude the necessity of the Senate having to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. Obama, or any president, will have the power to impose every article of the treaty as the law of the land.
Maybe the media has picked this fight because they figure it’ll finally be a winner.