Another U.N. gun grab?

Americans concerned about the preservation of the Second Amendment's right of individuals to keep and bear arms are closely watching the machinations of a new U.N.-sponsored arms conference that opened yesterday in New York City.

According to U.N. propaganda, the world body wants all 189 member nations to sign a new "agreement" that would obligate governments to pass laws controlling the legal manufacture, transfer and possession of small arms. That includes pistols, "assault weapons," machine guns and "other light weapons."

I don't know about the rest of the world, but this is already being done here in the U.S. For better or worse, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms oversees this process; one thing Americans don't need, therefore, is another hapless bureaucracy – especially one the size of the U.N. – to try to do the same thing.

Let's be honest about what is going on in New York City. What is really at play here is just another attempt by the manic socialists at the United Nations to disarm American citizens or, at a minimum, negate the Constitution's Second Amendment.

TRENDING: Biden offers grants to teach children U.S. 'inherently racist'

Consider the language of the U.N.'s small arms proposals. Under the guise of eliminating illegal small arms trafficking, the U.N. wants all nations to basically manage every firearm on earth, from production to sale to delivery to ownership. And, it wants governments to have the final say as to whether or not those weapons can be owned by individuals.

One of the measures seeks to "prohibit the trade and private ownership of small arms designed for military use," according to Fox News. Well, gee whiz – any gun can be considered "designed for military use" if some idiot in charge says it was.

So much for U.S.-owned military weapon semi-automatic rifle look-alikes, among other guns popular with Americans.

Why does the world's foremost promoter of individualism and democracy so fear a world full of armed citizens? Why would these "leaders" prefer a world of potential victims, instead of a world full of people empowered to protect themselves?

Because such a world would not need the meddling little Napoleons that make up the bureaucracy of the United Nations.

The thing is, Americans don't need the U.N. to "manage illegal weapons trafficking" in the United States. We have more law enforcement agencies than we can shake a stick at as it is, and they do as good a job as can be expected.

Also, Americans are not in need of such U.N. protection. Our Founders wrote the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so we could protect ourselves instead of having to rely on our own government or, worse, some global entity, to provide such protection.

Though they will deny it, U.N. bureaucrats have, for years, tried to figure out a way to disarm the freest society in existence. Just look at the U.N.'s track record when it comes to American gun ownership; you'd be hard-pressed to find any major U.N. leader that believes Americans should own guns at all – and especially the kinds of guns we own.

There is little chance that this small arms conference will produce an agreement that will ultimately be used to strip Americans of their guns. But what is troubling is that the U.N. continues to look for a way to make that happen while far too many American leaders tolerate and assist the effort.