NY Times: US Arms Position Hurting Global Anti-Gun Efforts

Not one to miss a chance to carry water for the anti-gunners, the New York Times laments the lack of progress on global gun control, a favorite item of that utterly corrupt organization, the United Nations.

UNITED NATIONS — Diplomats from the world’s governments met throughout this week on agreements to cut the global illicit trade in small arms, but their work was curtailed in part by the near-boycott of the meetings by the United States.

(A gun market operating in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The region is a haven for arms traffickers. Photo: New York Times)

The tone of the meetings underscored the political complexities of gaining full support for international small-arms agreements from the United States. The American view has balanced recognition of the dangers of illegal proliferation with the government’s own arms-distribution practices and with the American gun lobby’s resistance to the United Nations’ proposals.

Since 2001, United Nations members have endorsed a broad but loosely defined initiative, called the program of action, for a collective effort against illegal arms circulation. The agreement in part encourages governments to tighten controls on manufacturing, marking, tracing, brokering, exporting and stockpiling small arms and to cooperate to restrict illicit flows, particularly to regions perennially in armed conflict. It addresses hundreds of millions of weapons, ranging from pistols to shoulder-fired rockets, that the United Nations says are in circulation worldwide.

Attempts to dress up gun control arguments as mechanisms to limit "illicit flows" of arms is nothing new. Indeed, that's the tactic that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino are trying with their gun-control organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

When confronted, these anti-gun types vociferously deny any attempt to restrict "lawful uses" of guns, which invariably means "hunting".

But initiatives toward a more comprehensive and binding agreement have been vehemently opposed by gun-owner organizations. The National Rifle Association, America’s largest gun lobby, has labeled the process a thinly masked effort to undermine lawful civilian gun ownership and urged the United States to resist the measures.

The United Nations and advocates of gun control have said that such fears are unfounded, and that there is no effort to impose standards on nations with traditions of civilian ownership, or to restrict hunting. The programs, they said, apply largely to areas suffering from insurgencies or war. [emphasis added]

The United Nations will continue to try to screw over American gun owners. Unfortunately, the next administration will likely be more sympathetic (perhaps much more so) to those efforts than the current one.