1.  Even if the United States Senate doesn’t ratify the U.N. treaty (in many instances only to keep up a “pro-gun” pretense with enraged voters), one of the clauses in the scheme is international “majority rule”. The treaty will be considered an amorphous type of “International Law” even without formal U.S. approval. http://www.davidkopel.com/un-wants-your-gun.htm

Unbelievably, the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy) has given credence to “international law” in a recent decision http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=155617. Truly scary is that Kennedy is one of the “conservative” Justices. The four “liberals” must certainly embrace a like view. When our highest court begins looking outside our Constitution, to foreign legal policy for “guidance”, we are in deep trouble.

2.  And remember, the major arms dealing nations in the world also control the U.N. Security Council. Billions upon billions of dollars are being made in the arms trade. The treaty will be wielded far more specifically against the “lesser” nations that manufacture firearms. The treaty will be a convenient device to secure the playing field for only the “big boys”.

♦ And remember, the major arms dealing nations in the world also control the U.N. Security Council.

3.  The largest corporations in the American firearms industry (some of them actually owned by foreign entities) might secretly embrace this treaty. Perhaps they’ll be given “carve outs”. This is a sad and troubling possibility to confront. What if the treaty reduced, or even eliminated, imported cheaper firearms (or ammunition) on the American marketplace? Restrictive legislation has frequently been used to increase the power of monopolies throughout modern history.

♦ … to increase the power of monopolies throughout modern history.

We must remember that the main players in the American gun industry duplicitously condoned the “Gun Control Act of 1968”. This draconian legislation actually mimicked Nazi German law: see "Gun Control", Gateway to Tyranny. These misguided domestic industrialists felt that they’d be able to take a significant part of the gun market back from the readily available (and cheaper) products that were being imported from other nations. (See this link, specifically page 9, for many intriguing details of GCA ’68: Firearm Owners Protection Act This was where and when the infamous “sporting purposes” language slithered into American life. (See also: "The Gang")

How disgusting. Profits first … patriotism if convenient.

♦ … patriotism if convenient.

4.  Where does ammunition enter into all of this? Certainly, small arms ammo will fall under the U.N. globalist umbrella. We’ve seen proposals for global “carbon” taxes. Why can’t we expect global ammunition taxes? This can be done either from an “environmental” angle (lead and powder pollution), or from a “health care” angle (the alleged medical costs of “gun violence”).