Opinion: “World Needs An Arms Treaty” – I Don’t Think So!

0
Share
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt

Hat Tip to Author, Rosalie Hanson, who sent the original Newsday story

Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt, retired, was appointed by the Reagan administration as the U.S. Navy’s first Competition Advocate General. Galen Carey (big peace guy) is the vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals. They teamed up to write an opinion piece for [Newsday] with the unequivocally cocksure title, World Needs An Arms Treaty.

One must be impressed by Platt’s credentials. He was a Rear Admiral and he was appointed for a position by Reagan. Don’t be fooled – he’s not what he is pretending to be.

He claims we need an arms treaty and can’t believe there are people that would be opposed. The arms treaty allegedly only deals with illicit gun shipments. What he seems to not understand is that it includes all guns and will mandate markings and other requirements that will make rifles, shotguns, and pistols cost prohibitive. If the council agrees to marking ammo, it’s all over for the second amendment.

He is rightfully concerned about the illegal arms trade but is wrong-headedly ignoring the fact that most of these shipments are coming from communist countries and other countries without a second amendment but with big, totalitarian governments.

Platt is a globalist. He wants global regulations governed by the corrupt U.N., most members of whom hate the United States.

Platt says, “If agreed to, the Arms Trade Treaty would establish a global framework and close loopholes exploited by those intent on achieving power through terror. Such a treaty would also help authorities track and extradite illicit arms brokers and bring the rest of the world more in line with the rigorous standards and regulations already in force in the United States. This is why you see a joint byline like ours — retired U.S. military leaders have joined with America’s religious communities to support a robust Arms Trade Treaty.”

Then he brings out the big guns, the religious leaders and other unnamed admirals and generals, the same people who want us to surrender our seas to the U.N. under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, together with global Christian voices including the Vatican and the World Evangelical Alliance, have called on world leaders to negotiate a strong arms treaty. Last spring, Christians from over 3,500 congregations in 48 states joined in a day of prayer and fasting to draw attention to the fact that the “least of these” suffer the most when weapons flow unimpeded into conflict zones. The congregants were joined in their support for the treaty by a number of retired generals and admirals who echoed the CIA‘s assessment that the greatest future threats to America’s troops and security will likely come from terrorist groups and small bands of guerrilla fighters arming themselves through the under-regulated weapons market. [Editor’s note: Yes, and the commie nations who are responsible shouldn’t be the ones regulating them.]

The retired Admiral claims it will not interfere with the second amendment. With all due respect to the admiral, the suffocating regulations will most definitely make it costly and possibly impossible to make and produce guns for the general public. As usual, the criminals and the rich will still be able to get guns. In fact, the common person will likely resort to illegal gun purchases because they will want guns.

Forbes article of July 10th by Larry Bell responds to the clause in the treaty that purports to protect a sovereign country’s right to bear arms. There are many skeptics.

One reason, among many [Editor’s note: for the skeptics], is that Iran, a country that is one of the world’s worst human rights violators, yet often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council…yes Iran, arms supplier to many of America’s most determined adversaries… was selected for a top Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) planning conference position. The members, apparently including U.S. representatives, authorized this selection shortly after the same U.N. found the very same Iran guilty of transferring guns and bombs to the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad who is presently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens. Meanwhile, the U.N., America included, purporting to be distraught about illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms, watches in the wings as these tragedies unfold. Of course, they’re very busy. Those arms control planning conferences require a lot of attention.

The Republicans aren’t buying it according to Larry Bell.

On June 29, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Democrats have accused Republicans of making this a political issue, maintaining that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat. Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

Please consider reading the rest of Bell’s comments at Forbes for some of the historical proof that this treaty is not what it purports to be. This treaty is an attempt to limit or eliminate our second amendment.

Platt was appointed by Reagan for a limited role. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a lover of all things Hillary Clinton, the anti-gun Secretary of State who thinks the U.N. is a legitimate organization. He carries Hillary’s water.

Platt is a brilliant man, author of two books, and he is a patriot. He is however, a serious liberal. He supports every big liberal agenda. The Center for New American Security lists him as one of the supporters of Harry Reid’s cap and trade. They call it climate bravery. He is a big Reid supporter as well.

He is part of the management team of Harbor Technologies, which would seem to profit from the Law of the Sea Treaty and has profited from this government’s largesse. In 2010, Harbor Wing Technologies Inc. won the grand prize from the government: Raytheon Co. will take the Seattle-based company [HT] under its own wing under the DOD Mentor Protégé Program. This DOD program gives big companies a million dollars a year for three years to innovative smaller companies Like HT. [Source: Washington Technology.com]

Platt’s expertise earns him respect in his particular area, but he is a globalist, not a typical American. It is a bit disingenuous of him to use his Reagan appointment when presenting his leftist viewpoint because he is insinuating he is a Republican supporting this when he’s a liberal. I was an ACLU member and I joined every far left environmental group years ago, but I can hardly say I am a far left liberal supporting Mitt Romney.

 

Share