From whom are ATT proponents getting their talking points?

Original Story Via:  Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.

These Op-Ed pieces appeared Thursday in Newsday and The Hill, at the same time that Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was blitzing the Internet to urge gun owners to oppose the treaty, and contact their two U.S. Senators. Gottlieb will be at the U.N. during the fateful week when negotiations on this treaty are to be wrapped up.

Gottlieb was instrumental in the creation of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

Retired military offices have just as much right to support or oppose an issue as any other American citizen. They just shouldn’t say it from what appears to have been the same script.

Rear Admiral (Ret.) Stuart F. Platt, joined by Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, had this to say in their July 12 Op-Ed that appeared in Newsday:

There’s less oversight on sales of grenade launchers in international markets than of iPods or bananas. Yes, you read that right: We have strict international rules and regulations on selling fruit and MP3 players, but no unifying international laws governing the sale of weapons…

“… While the United States maintains some of the strictest regulations on the import and export of tanks, guns, missiles, ammunition and other arms, many countries have little to no regulation at all. This patchwork system makes it all too easy for traffickers to sell powerful weapons and ammunition to terrorists and warlords that they can then use against our troops and innocent civilians.’

Compare those remarks to what appeared under the byline of Major General Roger R. Blunt (Ret.) in Thursday’s edition of The Hill:

We have international agreements regulating the cross-border sale of iPods and bananas, but we have no global treaties governing the international sale of weapons. The ATT would fix that by becoming the first-ever treaty governing the international trade of conventional weapons.

“The United States has some of the strictest regulations when it comes to the import and export of tanks, attack helicopters, guns, grenades and ammunition, but many countries — especially in the developing world — have little to no regulation. This patchwork system of national laws rewards bad actors by making it easy for them to exploit loopholes. These loopholes are used to arm the terrorists and insurgents killing our troops and warlords who are responsible for untold suffering throughout the developing world.’

A remarkable coincidence of commentary?

One would hardly question the patriotism of men who devoted their lives to the defense of this country. However, the issue at hand isn’t patriotism, but United States constitutional sovereignty. In this case, the Second Amendment-protected individual right to keep and bear arms is allegedly at risk, according to CCRKBA and other gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre spoke at the U.N. this week, as reported by this column, and CCRKBA was involved in crafting House and Senate legislation to prevent a global gun control treaty from affecting the Second Amendment.

Today’s exercise is about the First Amendment, which gun rights advocates also hold dear, along with the other amendments that delineate individual rights in the Bill of Rights. This column has no dispute with Maj. Gen. Blunt, Rear Admiral Platt or Mr. Carey about exercising their right to free speech.

It’s just curious how they managed to say it so similarly on the same day in two different publications.