Most of the media, who are clearly anti-gun have pooh-poohed the issue and tried to make it look like NRA paranoia. I am not an NRA member, do not fawn over them and try to make up my own mind on issues. I have tried to look at all sides, and I think this treaty is a serious concern for those who love liberty.
As the article, and other evidence suggests, on this issue, you basically can't trust the UN, or the Obama administration to be sincerely concerned about Second Amendment rights. There is good reason to see a red flag here.
Although both are the "supreme law of the land," the Constitution take precedence over treaties. Currently, the Second Amendment protects at least otherwise lawful keeping of arms by ordinary law-abiding people in their homes." How far beyond that it reaches, is unclear until the U.S. Supreme Court speaks again on the topic. Many of the lower court decisions treat the right unsympathetically and refuse to extend it beyond the home. However, there are clearly 4 anti-Second Amendment liberal votes on the Court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg). The replacement of a pro Justice with an anti could mean the Second Amendment rights of individuals could disappear. I don't need to remind you which presidential candidate is likely to make such an appointment.
Thus, the Second Amendment is currently a frail, and potentially disappearing protection against the potential harm to current Second Amendment rights that could result from the treaty. Given that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," I urge you to contact your Senator and ask that he/she vote against the treaty if and when it comes up for a vote.