Letter to the Editor: U.N. treaty not a threat
Trending
On May 1 the News and Sentinel printed a letter to the editor condemning the United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty. That letter was aimed at frightening local citizens with lies about the U.N. treaty, which that letter writer says would place U.S. gun ownership and gun rights in jeopardy.
That idiotic letter was pure garbage.
This is not the first time that writer has attacked the U.N. small arms treaty. Anytime the writer runs out of other silly conspiracy trash to excite readers, that U.N. treaty is dragged out of the file to impress readers who probably missed earlier lies about the treaty.
The basic idea behind this treaty has been bouncing around the U.N. for about 40 years. It was initially triggered by several Nobel Peace Prize winners who thought it would be a good idea if the U.N. gained some control over weapons shipments throughout the world. Several members agreed and that started preliminary treaty discussions. It was negotiated on and off for about 20 years and eventually offered to the U.N. General Assembly in December 2006 as resolution 61/89.
The purpose of the treaty was to track all arms shipments and penalize any nation that sends weapons to terrorist states. That treaty, then and now, contains absolutely nothing ominous nor threatening to the gun rights of U.S. citizens. The treaty does not infringe on the national gun laws of any U.N. member state. A final draft of the treaty was adopted by the U.N. in April 2014
To date, 111 U.N. members have ratified the treaty and another 42 nations have agreed with the purpose of the treaty but without ratification. The U.S. is in that second group.
That May 1 letter said the U.N. would meet soon to "coerce" the U.S. into ratification of the treaty, which would immediately cause absurd fantasy events to begin happening, like: restrict our 2nd Amendment rights; regulate ownership of firearms in the U.S.; force registration of all guns, making confiscation easier; plus, other assorted idiotic fabrications about the treaty -- none of which have any factual basis.
The sad part of this story is that letter writer probably thinks readers are so poorly informed they automatically believe the amateurish political lies, which are obviously made up as the writer goes along.
Ralph Chambers
Parkersburg