Here is an explanation of why I’m posting a class paper here. Basically, I’m circumventing turnitin.com ethically. Last paper I’m posting here for this reason ever! Enjoy.
—
This work is in the Public Domain.
Novel Pro-Gun Groups, the United States, and the Proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty
Jessica Dickinson Goodman
Carnegie Mellon University
April 2010
Introduction
Supporters of the proposed United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) must understand the extent to which novel domestic pro-gun groups are seeking to influence the United States’ stance on that treaty to fully grasp the domestic context of the United States’ position. Some allies are baffled by U.S. historical resistance to gun control(1); a firm grasp of the tactics and policies of these growing groups will illuminate the broader domestic opposition to the ATT. Although the influence of these groups cannot be quantified, and their final effect on the U.S’s stance is unpredictable, an examination of them will help supporters of the treaty better understand opposition to the ATT in the U.S.
Background
The ATT is the U.N.’s attempt to regulate the estimated $4 billion dollar a year trade in small arms(2). Illegal arms are “a major threat” to global security, causing “massive deaths and unleashed or sustained armed conflict in many regions” according to a statement from the First Committee of the U.N.(3). There are currently 153 states supporting the treaty, with the United States cautiously included as of October 2009(4). Although there are some international controls over the flow of illicit arms(5), constituents of the U.N. believe an international treaty is necessary(6).
Most writers mark the genesis of the ATT at a 1995 speech by Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias calling for international principals regulating the global arms trade(7). The treaty’s development accelerated in 2003 when 20 Nobel Laureates signed on to support an ATT(8) and Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) founded Control Arms, now the leading NGO fighting for the ATT(9). Non-governmental organizations have been gaining significant power in international negotiations in the last decade(10). A number of pro-gun groups with both domestic and international goals have been founded in the United States, including The Oath Keepers, Calguns Inc, and Open Carry, in direct opposition to the goals of Control Arms and the 153 governments supporting the ATT. The relevant U.N. Committees have been meeting to discuss the treaty since 2003, with the diplomatic conference set for 2012(11).
The proposed treaty currently attempts to regulate the illicit trade in arms. This is a narrower mandate than that of a similar proposal discussed at a U.N. Conference in 2001. Its failure is attributed to resistance from the U.S. (12).
Secretary to the UN John Bolton famously said the following to that conference:
We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic […] The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the constitutional right to bear
arms(13).
This hostility from the United States has colored many commentators’ assessments of the feasibility of any international arms treaty(14).
With the new administration came new priorities. In October 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared U.S. support for ATT in the context of an October 2009 meeting. She wrote, As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations (15). The Secretary’s memo gives some supporters cause for pause(16). Her insistence on “consensus” has been interpreted as a requirement by the United States that its demands for international protection of civilian gun ownership be met without compromise (17). However, even this stance is more flexible than that of the novel pro-gun civilian groups, who do not accept any form of international regulation over arms or anything else(18).
Background: Domestic Gun Control in the United States
The novel pro-gun groups seeking the influence the United States’ stance on the proposed ATT have grown up within the context of the broader domestic gun control debate. This debate has been defined by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has the 6th most receipts of all federally registered Political Action Committees and 4.3 million members (19). The NRA has made gun control one of the most fiercely contested areas of government regulation in the U.S. (20). Gun owners whose positions often but do not always overlap with those of the NRA have strong emotional and cultural attachments to their weapons and associate them with safety, patriotism, and freedom from government (21). Like the NRA, many gun owners see individual ownership of firearms as a right enshrined in the United States constitution through the Second Amendment (22). The pro-gun movement evolved in the political crucible of the domestic gun control debate, but has an interest in influencing international law as well (23).
The NRA is losing its grip on the fringes of its movement (24) and being targeted by some of its former members as for being too moderate (25). The Tea Party movement, an anti-government backlash widely believed to be a reaction
to President Obama’s candidacy and election (26) and of which 18% of Americans considered themselves to be supporters (27), has spawned new grassroots, internet-based pro-gun groups have emerged. These novel groups are serving niches of the extreme fringe of pro-gun civilian groups(28). For example, The Oath Keepers recruits pro-gun members of the military and polices forces(29) and Calguns Inc has lead a campaign to increase civilian ownership of assault rifles in California(30). While these groups do not have the funding, political connections, or standing of the NRA, they are seeking to influence the United State’s stance on the ATT using innovative tactics and pushing extreme policies.
Analysis
Novel Groups: Tactics
The newest members of the pro-gun movement conduct their advocacy against the ATT online, but have the capability to support offline protests. They are already seeking to influence the U.S.against what they call the “UN Global Gun Ban” 31 , primarily by reproducing the content which more established organizations and figures have generated. Groups supporting the ATT, which are more centrally organized and less nimble, must find ways to
adapt to these tactics. These new groups have built their bases on the internet, and do not struggle as the NRA does to bring a large off-line community online. Using the communication paradigm Clay Shirky calls Many-to-Many(32), they collectively, but without visible coordination, broadcast similar messages to many online readers. They use blogs(33), email lists(34), and online forums(35) constantly and effectively, unlike the NRA which posts policy papers and fundraising missives masquerading as blog posts(36). They have a vociferous and aggrieved online following whose opposition to the ATT they both support and seed.
These groups use their web presences to encourage and channel opposition to the ATT. For example, many small groups and individual bloggers redistributed a punctuated letter by Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA)’s missive against the ATT(37) widely, reproducing it whole-text, quoting excerpts, and using sections of it without citation(38). This distributive network is a powerful use of the internet to spread a political message. This network was also evident in the wide distribution of a letter from the National Association for Gun Rights protesting the ATT republished on 60 sites(39). While the derivative nature of the content of these letters will be discussed below, their their reproduction is an effective use of new media.
These groups also support offline protests, though not against the ATT at this stage. Several groups facilitated Second Amendment or “open-carry” rallies, where pro-gun individuals wear their weapons or simulation weapons openly during the rally, two of which were held in Washington DC on April 19th 2010 with hundreds of attendees and widespread national media coverage(40). The NRA was explicitly not involved in either of these rallies (41). It is
important to note that openly carrying a gun is legal in 26 states (42). At these rallies, speakers used aggressive, populist language popular with grassroots pro-gun activists:
We’re in a war […] They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming
for everything because they are a bunch of socialists (43).
These rallies are loosely organized through online groups like Open Carry, some of the members of which hold radical, anti-government, anti-internationalist views. Though there have been no explicitly anti-ATT protests
supported by any constituency to date—given that the treaty conference is 12 years away this is not surprising—these groups have a demonstrated capability for radical activism in that form. These small groups are bellwethers, cresting a wave of popular resentment, navigating and and perhaps steering it occasionally, but not guiding it significantly(44). Understanding their new place in the pro-gun movement will help groups trying to secure United States support for the ATT understand their opponents. These groups distinguish themselves from the mainstream pro-gun movement through their use of technology to support populist protesting, use their power to promote policies developed by others rather than generating their own.
Novel Groups: Policy Positions
The novel groups who are seeking to influence the United States’ position on the ATT are fundamentally against the U.N. and any gun regulation; their stated policies are also usually derivative. These views, while extreme, do speak to a population in the United States which is becoming increasingly vocal through online forums and the Tea Party movement. These groups groups see the existence of the U.N. as an attack on U.S. sovereignty. One supporter of the Oath Keepers, a pro-gun group for members of the armed and police forces who took an oath to uphold the U.S. constitution, says:
I’m fed up with the U.N. and its machinations to destroy our Constitution and our sovereignty. The United Nations should either be dismantled or evicted. I swore to defend this country and I’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of Ohio. I WILL NOT break my oath and I WILL NOT allow this nation and its people to fall into the hands of others to become slaves. (45)
While the levels of vitriol vary, these organizations and their supporters are uniformly against any tax-payer funding of the U.N. (46), military support for its missions47 , or any authority to regulate the United States’ civilian gun use48 . To these groups, the United Nations has even less of a place regulating civilian arms than the United States government. These novel groups have little interest in any form of government gun regulation, making the NRA’s position appear relatively moderate (49). They see any government regulation as a violation of the Second Amendment and a step towards tyranny (50). They see gun registries as the first step towards confiscation and control on assault rifles as a small step towards a global gun ban and have absolutely no tolerance for government intrusion into their choice of weapons. This opposition to domestic control, paired with their dismissal of the United Nations ensures that these groups will never support an ATT in any form.
These groups’ have no novel policies to propose as alternatives to the ATT or other forms of gun regulation, and what negative policy positions they do hold, are derivative. With the exception of the CalGuns Inc campaign for the assault rifle in California (51), these new groups rarely craft campaigns or policy positions of their own. Most of their radical protesting strategies, such as the open carry protests, originated with the broader Tea Party movement. They all produce informal policy pieces—such as blog posts—prodigiously, but they do not produce white papers or original campaigns, choosing instead to ride on the products of others. The widespread redistribution of Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA)’s statement against the ATT is case-in-point (52).
Both the ATT and these novel groups are at relatively early stages in development. It is possible that these new groups will develop a capacity for original policy proposals, but with such radical rejections of the United Nations
and any form of gun control or international regulation, their influence will probably always be limited.
Policy Proposal
Those nations, individuals and NGOs supporting the eventual passage of the ATT by the U.N. need to understand the development of new pro-gun organizations to have a complete understanding of the domestic U.S’s arms control domestic context. Even though these organizations do not have the funding, political clout, or traditional role in the negotiations of the NRA, they represent a facet of the pro-gun movement in the U.S. and supporters of the ATT should take their views into account when crafting their strategy for encouraging U.S. support.
The role these groups will play in the final development of the ATT is unclear, as is their potential to influence the U.S.’s position. But as bellwethers of a larger pro-gun and internationalism movement in the United States, they
should be closely watched for possible influences. With their strong online infrastructure and their history of effective offline protests, they have the potential to make their radical views widely heard in the United States.
It is highly unlikely that any of these pro-gun groups could be persuaded to support any form of ATT, and so any effort to deal with their influence on U.S. law-makers must be towards neutralizing their impact rather
than forming a coalition with them. Any effort to counteract the messages of these groups will fail without a firm understanding of their constituencies, tactics, and policies.
Conclusion
These novel gun groups have the potential to influence the U.S.’s position through their innovative use of technology and their populist base, but their lack of original policy proposals and the stridentness of their positions
limit their role in the international debate on the arms trade. The Oath Keepers, Open Carry and CalGuns Inc are just three of a wide range of new organizations seeking to influence the United States’ decision on whether to support the ATT. Predicting the impact of these groups is impossible; however, because they differ significantly in their tactics and beliefs from the NRA and other mainstream pro-gun groups, a full understanding of them is necessary for supporters of the ATT to comprehend the full context of the arms debate in the United States.
Footnotes
1 Parker, Sarah. “A World of Weapons: An ATT: In Our Sights or in Our Dreams?” International Relations and Security Network. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Special-Reports/A-World-of-Weapons/Editorial/
2 Small Arms Survey. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, and the Graduate Institute’s Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies (PSIS), Geneva, Switzerland.Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/home/FAQ.html#FAQ4
3 U.N. Sixty-fourth General Assembly, First Committee. “Time for General Discussion on ATT Is Over.” 21 October 2009. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gadis3396.doc.htm.
4 Schroeder, M. “Turn back the Clock: sweating the small stuff.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Volume 63, Number 5, September / October 2007.
5 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Stopping the Destructive Spread of Small Arms,” Homeland Security Digital Library, entry, http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5426
6 Annan, Kofi. “SECRETARY-GENERAL’S STATEMENT (Press Release of 10 July 2006).” U.N. http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
7 Stohl, Rachel. “UN to consider ATT – US opposes.” SN, Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 16 Nov 2006. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=52737
8 “ATT: A Nobel Peace Prize Laureates’s Initiative: About Us.” armstradetreaty.org. Visited 27 April 2019. http://www.armstradetreaty.org/
9 “Small Arms at the UN.” International Action Network on Small Arms. http://iansa.org/un/index.htm (accessed March 11, 2010).
10 McGann, James and Mary Johnstone. “The Power Shift and the NGO Credibility Crisis.” The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law. Volume 8, Issue 2, January 2006. http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol8iss2/art_4.htm
11 U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs. “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty”. http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATTMeetings2009-11.shtml
12 Stohl, Rachel. “United States Weakens Outcome of UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty.” Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/stohlsept01
13 Crossette, Barbara. “Effort by U.N. To Cut Traffic In Arms Meets A U.S. Rebuff.” New York Times. 10 July 2001. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/world/effortby-un-to-cut-traffic-in-arms-meets-a-us-rebuff.html?pagewanted=1
14 Cox, Chris. “International/UN Gun Control Issues: Barack Obama and the Global Gun Banners.” Posted 9 November 2008. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=321&issue=015
15 Clinton, Hilary Rodham. “U.S. Support for the ATT.” United States Department of State. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm
16 Parker, Sarah. “A World of Weapons: An ATT: In Our Sights or in Our Dreams?” International Relations and Security Network. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Special-Reports/A-World-of-Weapons/Editorial/
17 Abramson, Jeff. “U.S. Supports ATT Process.” Arms Control Association. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_11/ArmsTradeTreaty
18 Admin, “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty,” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?p=178
19 O’Connell, Vanessa. “Gun Advocates Open a New Front: Saying NRA Isn’t Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics.” Wall Street Journal. 19 April 2010.
20 “Home on the range: Gun control does not work in America, because it barely exists.” The Economist. Visited 27 April 2010. Published 26 March 1994. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Economist_Articles/home-on-the-range.html
21 “Home on the range: Gun control does not work in America, because it barely exists.”
22 “Second Amendment Foundation: Frequently Asked Questions.” Second Amendment Foundation. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=saf_faq
23 “A Message from Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA): Complete the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey and STOP THE U.N. GUN GRAB!!!.” National Association for Gun Rights. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=UNWS
24 O’Connell, Vanessa. “Gun Advocates Open a New Front: Saying NRA Isn’t Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics.”
25 http://www.nrawol.net/
26 “Times Topics > Subjects > T > Tea Party Movement.” New York Times. Updated 15 April 2010. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=tea%20party&st=cse
27 “Second Amendment Foundation: Frequently Asked Questions.” Second Amendment
28 O’Connell, Vanessa. “Gun Advocates Open a New Front: Saying NRA Isn’t Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics.”
29 http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
30 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php
31 Admin, “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty,” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?p=178
32 Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Books.
33 Admin, “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty,” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?p=178
34 “Subscribe to the Oath Keeper’s mailing list.” http://oathkeepers.org/oath/subscribe/
35 Open Carry Forum. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/CalGuns Inc Forusm. http://calguns.net/
36 NRA Blog. National Rifle Association. Visited 27 April 2010. http://nrablog.com/
37 Admin, “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty,” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010, http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?p=178
38 Google general and blog search for middle portion of letter text. Last tested: 27 April 2010. Source of text: “A Message from Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA): Complete the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey and STOP THE U.N. GUN GRAB!!!.” National Association for Gun Rights. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=UNWS
39 Google general and blog search for middle portion of letter text. Spot-checking showed many sites were reproducing the full text of the letter verbatim. Last tested: 27 April 2010. Source of text: “U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban.” 12 January 2010. National Association for Gun Rights. http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359
40 “Gun activists rally in U.S. capital.” CBC News. 19 April 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/19/gun-rally.html#ixzz0mNeYyKsJ
41 “Gun activists rally in U.S. capital.” CBC News. 19 April 2010.
42 “Maps: Open Carry of a Loaded Handgun.” Visited 27 April 2010. http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
43 “Gun activists rally in U.S. capital.” CBC News. 19 April 2010.
44 Jackman, Tom. “Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va. ‘Exercising Right’ Called ‘Unreasonable’ by Some.” Washington Post. 15 July 2004. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html
45 McCoy, Pat. “I WILL NOT break my oath.” 10 February 2010. Visited 27 April 2010. Oath Keepers. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/02/10/i-will-not-break-my-oath/
46 Barker, Frank. “My Oath, My Country, And My Rant On Today’s News.” 25 September 2009. Visited 27 April 2010. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/09/25/my-oath-my-country-and-myrant-on-todays-news/
47 Dan. “I Would Not Serve Under a Different Uniform Or Flag.” 8 November 2009. Visited 27 April 2010. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/11/08/i-would-not-serve-under-a-differentuniform-or-flag/
48 “A Message from Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA): Complete the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey and STOP THE U.N. GUN GRAB!!!.” National Association for Gun Rights. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=UNWS
49 Gouras, Matt. “The NRA sits on sidelines of gun fight with feds.” Business Week. 19 April 2010. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9F666GG0.htm
50 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php, http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
51 O’Connell, Vanessa. “Gun Advocates Open a New Front: Saying NRA Isn’t Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics.” Wall Street Journal. 19 April 2010.
52 Admin, “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty,” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010, http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?p=178
Bibliography
Journals and Books
McGann, James and Mary Johnstone. “The Power Shift and the NGO Credibility Crisis.” The International Journal of
Not-for-Profit Law. Volume 8, Issue 2, January 2006. http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol8iss2/art_4.htm
Phillips, Thomas R. “No Meeting of the Mines: An Analysis of the U.S. Policy Regarding the International Ban on Anti-
Personnel Landmines (The Ottawa Convention).” Winter, 1999. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal
Temple International and Comparative Law Journal.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin.
Stohl, Rachel. “United States Weakens Outcome of UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty.” Visited 27 April 2010.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/stohlsept01 10
Newspapers, Magazines and Radio
“Home on the range: Gun control does not work in America, because it barely exists.” The Economist. Visited 27 April 2010. Published 26 March 1994. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Economist_Articles/home-on-the-range.html
Crossette, Barbara. “Effort by U.N. To Cut Traffic In Arms Meets A U.S. Rebuff.” New York Times. 10 July 2001. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/world/effort-by-un-to-cut-traffic-in- arms-meets-a-us-rebuff.html?pagewanted=1
Gouras, Matt. “The NRA sits on sidelines of gun fight with feds.” Business Week. 19 April 2010. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9F666GG0.htm
“Times Topics > Subjects > T > Tea Party Movement.” New York Times. 15 April 2010. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=tea%20party&st=cse
MacInnis, Laura. “U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people.” Reuters. 28 August 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL28348938 20070828. Citing Small Arms Survey.
O’Connell, Vanessa. “Gun Advocates Open a New Front: Saying NRA Isn’t Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More
Aggressive Tactics.” Wall Street Journal. 19 April 2010.
Parker, Sarah. “A World of Weapons: An ATT: In Our Sights or in Our Dreams?” International Relations and Security
Network. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Special-Reports/A-World-of-Weapons/Editorial/
Vowell, Sarah. “Guns: NRA vs NEA.” This American Life. Mp3. http://thisamericanlife.com/radio-archives/episode/81/Guns
U.S Government and United Nations Websites
“Crush the illicit trade in small arms.” U.N. Conference to review the implementation of the Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
“U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment.” FindLaw. Visited 10 March 2010. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
data/Constitution/amendment02/
Annan, Kofi. “SECRETARY-GENERAL’S STATEMENT (Press Release of 10 July 2006).” U.N. http://www.un.org/events/
smallarms2006/
Clinton, Hilary Rodham. “U.S. Support for the ATT.” Visited 11 March 2010. United States Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm
U.N. “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
their Destruction.” Oslo, 18 September 1997. Visited 11 March 2010. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.
aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-5&chapter=26〈=en
U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs. “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty”. http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/
ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATTMeetings2009-11.shtml
U.N. Sixty-fourth General Assembly, First Committee. “Time for General Discussion on ATT Is Over, First Committee
Hears, Seeking in One of Five Drafts to Prevent Diversion of Weapons to Illicit Market; Small Arms, Light Weapons
Unleash Armed Conflicts; Failure to Include Them in UN Register of Conventional Arms ‘Missed Opportunity’, Committee Told”. 21 October 2009. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gadis3396.doc.htm
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Stopping the Destructive Spread of Small Arms.” Homeland Security Digital Library. Visited 10 March 2010. http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5426
Websites
“About Oath Keepers.” Oath Keepers: Guardians of the Republic. Visited 11 March 2010. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
“ATT: A Nobel Peace Prize Laureates’s Initiative: About Us.” armstradetreaty.org. Visited 27 April 2019. http://www.armstradetreaty.org/
“Grades and Endorsements.” National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx
“Second Amendment Foundation:Frequently Asked Questions.” Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=saf_faq
“Small Arms at the UN.” International Action Network on Small. 11 March 2010. Arms. http://iansa.org/un/index.htm
“Twisted Gun.” Virtual NYC Tour (beta). Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.virtualnyctour.com/directory.php?id=634
“The UN And International Treaties.” National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. November 25, 2009.
Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5224
Abramson, Jeff. “U.S. Supports ATT Process.” Arms Control Association. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/ 2009_11/ ArmsTradeTreaty
Bolton, John. “International/UN Gun Control Issues: Bolder Bolton, Will America Bend its Knee?” Interview by Ginny
Simone. May 7, 2009. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Visited 11 March 2010. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=355&issue=015
Cox, Chris. “International/UN Gun Control Issues: Barack Obama and the Global Gun Banners.” Posted 9 November 2008. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=321&issue=015
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.” The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/1997a.html
Small Arms Survey. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, and the Graduate Institute’s Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies (PSIS), Geneva, Switzerland.Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/home/FAQ.html#FAQ4
Webforums
“Gun in knot statue, where is it located?” The Firing Line: The leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts. Web forum, February 14, 2001. Visited 11 March 2020. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=120063
Admin. “Hillary Clinton and the UN Small Arms Treaty.” The Rantnation Blog, entry posted March 9, 2010. Visited 11
March 2010. http://www.rantnation.com/wordpress/?P=178.
Blogs
“A Message from Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA): Complete the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey and STOP THE
U.N. GUN GRAB!!!.” National Association for Gun Rights. Visited 27 April 2010. http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=UNWS
“U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban.” National Gun Rights Blog. Visited 11 March 2010. http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=359
Barker, Frank. “My Oath, My Country, And My Rant On Today’s News.” 25 September 2009. Visited 27 April 2010.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ 2009/09/25/my-oath-mycountry-and-my-rant-on-todays-news/
Dan. “I Would Not Serve Under a Different Uniform Or Flag.” 8 November 2009. Visited 27 April 2010. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/11/08/i- would-not-serve-under-a-differentuniform-or-flag/
McCoy, Pat. “I WILL NOT break my oath.” 10 February 2010. Visited 27 April 2010. Oath Keepers. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/02/10/i-will- not-breakmy-oath/
Saveamerica1. “The Great American Gun ban: The UN Small Arms Treaty.” December 17, 2009. YouTube.com. Visited 11 March 2010. The Great American Gun ban: The UN Small Arms Treaty.
Dedicated to the Public Domain.
Inspirational Quote:
“Always start out with a larger pot than what you think you need.”–Julia Child
Thank you very much for the best post.
I’ve just discovered the public domain. Can you tell me where you get these great articles.