No, but thanks for asking

When the Ancient Mariner stoppeth one of three and you happen to be that one, there are several ways you can respond:

1) Print everything the old guy says.
2) Perform some basic verification, starting with, for example: "Gosh, Ancient Mariner! How do you know that?"
3) RUN!!!!!!

Lather, rinse, repeat on (2), pausing every now and again to compare what you're hearing to what is known about the empirical world, and before long you can decide whether you have (a) a news story or (b) a random fable about a scary world of orcs and monsters. Wonder how the Fair 'n' Balanced Network fared with its top story of the afternoon!

 A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

Just to set your mind at east -- no, Ahmadinejad isn't mentioned in the story. Not that details like the relevance of illustrations are going to slow down the Fox train, but this trick is going to have a limited shelf life; Ahmadinejad's second term ends next year, and two is the limit. But our point is the nature of the two statements about what could happen. The first is a statement about what could happen; the second, about what critics say could happen. The second is easier to substantiate, but that doesn't mean it's foolproof. Let's see how the story proceeds:

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Point 2, then, is true: This is what "critics" warn. And how do they support the warning?

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

Well, that straightens that out!

... In another exclusive interview with FoxNews.com, the top government official on the issue under President Bush says he’s seen nothing new to convince him the U.S. should be at the table today. ... [Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007] also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

Gotcha, Ancient Mariner! And how are the cunning Kenyan Muslim socialist and his one-world sharia pals going to do that?

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

In short, no. Whatever "ongoing concern" there might be about those pesky furriners and their access to "U.S. gun-ownership records," it turns to dust when exposed to sunlight. The imminent appearance of the Second Amendment in the dock at Brussels is similarly supported: It's true because LIBRULS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spare a kind thought for our little friends at Fox. Not only is there a campaign to run, there are ongoing threats to American exceptionalism, missing moms, and the persistent refusal by the cunning Kenyan Muslim socialist to recognize an existential threat when he sees one. It's rough being an editor these days.