We are currently paying 25% of the total costs of maintaining the UN.
Although the United Nations has been studying the feasibility of effecting an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" and will result in a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" — is erroneous in all its particulars.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed, nor has the U.S. Congress ratified, a United Nations small arms treaty. In fact, such a treaty hasn't even been drafted yet; it's merely a concept which is currently in the discussion phase. (An Arms Trade Treaty Conference is taking place at United Nations Headquarters in New York throughout the month of July 2012.)
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The putative United Nations arms treaty referenced in the Reuters article linked at the end of the example reproduced above has nothing to do with restricting the sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of a potential U.N. arms treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons"
in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." Even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.
OK, I'll buy that for the present.
Can anybody explain what the treaty means when it says " conventional weapons ". No, you can't,because there is, as yet, no interpretation in the treaty of what a conventional weapon is. Who's going to make that determination?
Hand held semiautomatic? The capacity of a magazine? The caliber size?
Long guns? Magazine capacity? caliber? Is a pimped-up shotgun a conventional weapon? Can we still purchase firearms from across the
moat? Can we purchase rounds for our out-of-country firearms once they run out of them here?
Too many unanswered questions.