Even While Its Shutting Down, The Tribune-Review Is STILL Misleading Its Readers On The UN Arms Trade Treaty

This is what the editorial board had to say:

Hope springs eternal among gun-grabbing interests that the Obama administration somehow will get the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty through the Senate.

At the Second Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty in August, the U.S. representative said America still wants to ratify the accord, signed by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013, The Daily Signal reports. But the treaty, which critics say could provide the rationalization for a national gun registry, has met stiff opposition. After Mr. Kerry signed it, 50 senators penned a letter to President Obama opposing the pact as being “vague and easily politicized.”

Not so vague as it turns out. But as evidenced by the braintrust's (gee, I'm gonna miss you guys!) editorial, it is easily politicized.

Not the term used in the first paragraph: gun-grabbing.  Now what do you think that means?

They're trying to get their readership to think that this UN treaty will give the UN the authority to GRAB ALL THE GUNZ, those dirty rotten gun-grabbers.

However as we've said before - 3 years ago - the Preamble of the Treaty contains these two clauses:

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial interests of States in the international trade in conventional arms,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

They leave that part out when they're trying to con their readers into thinking that the UN is going to get in the way of a trip to the gun show at the Monroeville Mall.

Additionally, the source the braintrust uses (this article at the Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation-owned Daily Signal) also gets the treaty wrong.  Take a look:

Second Amendment advocates are concerned the treaty could provide an international law rationalization for a national gun registry in the United States, and is overly vague.

“The language is so vague is could almost mean anything. A lot could be done to rationalize gun control. The treaty has no prohibitions, no thou-shalt-nots,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told The Daily Signal.

No prohibitions? I guess they didn't bother to read Article 6, which is titled,  "Prohibitions."

The Tribune-Review braintrust was wrong 3 years ago and it's wrong now.  The treaty reaffirms the sovereign right of any nation to regulate arms "pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system" (in our case, the 2nd Amendment).

Why do they keep missing that part?  I guess they're not counting on someone checking their work.