Author’s Note, 31 July 2012: It appears that, for now, the Arms Trade Treaty is on hold. That doesn’t mean it won’t be pursued in the future, so stay aware.
Author’s Note, 18 July 2012: Since originally writing this article over two years ago, we’ve finally had more information leaking out. I hope to post a full update when true content is really known (such as the treaty text or other relevant items), but until then, keep in mind the age of this article (becoming outdated) and the fact that our public servants are indeed pursuing this treaty. In Article 6:2 of the Constitution we see the following:
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
To me, this means whatever the content, the treaty—if passed into law—will supersede even our own Constitution. In the meantime, keep an eye on the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs page (“…strengthening peace and security through disarmament”) and the Arms Trade Treaty Conference page for current updates. One question—how does a small-arms treaty with the UN benefit the citizens of the United States (whatever its content)? And now, back to the original article.
Last week my dad mentioned that, though I won’t hear it on main-stream news sources, our beloved Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, had signed a small arms treaty with the UN.
“What!?! Those globalist jerks!”
Wait a minute. Let’s cool off and see what we can find reported on this topic.
A quick search through Google led me to an article posted at one of the NRA’s pages, effectively stating that Ms. Clinton did not, in fact, sign any treaty regarding small arms, nor was such a treaty negotiated or ratified by the Senate.
Good. Case closed.
Well, not quite. Today I noticed all sorts of chatter recirculating on this topic, appearing to emanate from a letter by Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia which was posted at the National Association for Gun Rights. Here’s an excerpt of that letter:
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
- CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
- BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
- Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
Hmmm. Time to do a bit more digging and see what we can find. The NRA’s page I mentioned earlier is still posted, so no changes there. Maybe the UN has something to say about this?
Yes. Or at least the UN Dispatch does, in an article directly addressing this topic. But first, who is the “UN Dispatch”? Are they really related to the UN? Sort of. On their “about us” page, they disclose they are funded by the United Nations Foundation. Who are they? On their “about UNF” page, they reveal their advocacy of the UN. Here’s an excerpt:
The UN Foundation, a public charity, was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. We are an advocate for the UN and a platform for connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems.
We help the UN take its best work and ideas to scale—through advocacy, partnerships, constituency building and fund-raising.
Whoa. OK, so let’s get back to the UN Dispatch, who is supported by the UNF, who is an open advocate of the UN and the amazing work they do throughout the world. What do they say? Here’s an excerpt from their statement on this treaty.
Needless to say, the UN does not want to confiscate Americans’ firearms. What many member states do want to do, however, is make it more difficult for guerrilla movements, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, member states proposed setting in motion a treaty process that would do just that. The Bush administration, though, opposed the treaty process. This was problematic for the cause, as it were, because the United States is among the world’s largest exporter of small arms. Any treaty without the United States on board would not be very effective.
The Obama administration does not share the previous administration’s view of the utility of a small arms trade treaty. This fall, Secretary Clinton made clear that the United States would support the arms trade treaty process. However, understanding that any treaty requires senate passage, the United States set one big condition on the treaty negotiation process: that it proceed by consensus. This means that unanimity is required for all votes, which, in turn, gives the United States an effective veto over the entire process. This has not seem to quell the conspiracy spinners, who apparently remain convinced that the UN is plotting to take Americans’ guns away. But the fact of the matter is, this treaty process is all about restricting the international transfer of small arms to irresponsible end users, like terrorist groups, militias that use child soldiers, or governments that use the weapons to commit terrible human rights abuses.
Oh. Right—nothing to see here. Except that we have a Secretary of State who is in apparent support of such a treaty. And that we don’t know what that treaty says, and probably won’t until it’s on the table for signatures. Perhaps it’s like the recent health care debacle, of which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Wouldn’t that be nice? I just love surprises.
There’s also that trifling little bit about guerrilla movements and insurgents and such. You don’t think they’re talking about Patriots Clubs or Tea Party organizations, do you?
I would really like to see some of the language contained within this treaty, as would most – I know. That being said, I believe most of the posters on this site have been around long enough to know the UN and Congress do not have [our] best interest in mind. If the UN is permitted to sink their talons into any verbiage that remotely contradicts the 2nd Amendment, I truly believe they will eventually try to confiscate ALL firearms held by U.S. citizens. I know that may be a slightly radical mind-set, but you’ll be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.
As a former United States Marine that served during and after the Gulf War, I witnessed first hand the evil that accompanies the “blue and white” helmet. Well – to be fair – the individuals pulling the strings of these (for the most part) former law enforcement, mindless drones. Some of these individuals are fully capable of administering water and food rations to a disheveled region, then walk through the very next day to quietly “remove” any person adamantly apposing a newest political faction propped-up by the U.S. Take it to the bank, UN Peace Keepers will be global police force before it’s all ‘said and done’…
Moving right along – It took 6 years of working for our Military Industrial Complex before I pulled my head from my butt and decided, enough is enough. I suspect that is the true essence of term irony… working for the very entity I was enlisted and sworn to protect the U.S. citizen against. Those days now 15 years in the wind, I have since become a staunch supporter of the Constitutional framers’ true intent of U.S. Constitution. Of which, the 2nd Amendment and supporting cast is very near and dear to my heart. I mean, seriously, in this age of false flag campaigns and alleged terrorist attacks, how can anyone with a fully functioning brain not fight to the death for their life and liberties?!
In any event… thank you very much, Jeff. I certainly appreciate you taking the time to post this information and for your logical opposition to the Liberals that disagree with the mere concept of a true Republic nation.
God Bless!
When agreements are not forthwith in writing for all to read and understand, then there is a hidden agenda not in the interest of public trust.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
not much more to say.
I think most of the paranoia around this issue among those of us who believe in RKBA is the track record of the current administration in hustling items through without a thorough vetting by the public. Witness the $850 “Stimulus” Bill, which was so urgent that there was no time to debate it in the Congress, followed by the Healthcare Bill, which was so vast that no one completely understood it. Many conservatives fear that the Obama administration will sign a UN treaty which conflicts with our Second Amendment rights, then jam it through the Senate when no one is looking.
The funny part about all the contradictions to all the things being debated at this time is that there are silly comments made about those working in the government like, he doesn’t know what he’s doing or she doesn’t know what she’s doing. Haven’t you folks ever heard of the (Illuminati) or (one world order). They have been trying to eliminate us middle class folk for the last 200 years or so. It all revolves around the richest people in the world manipulating everything. You folks really need to do your homework and realize what this whole plan is all about. I’m quite sure this won’t be published because I will be considered some kind of a wacko. Remember what our fore fathers warned us about. The government is supposed to work for you, not you work for the government. Have a nice day while you can. There trying very hard to eliminate that also.
“I’m quite sure this won’t be published because I will be considered some kind of a wacko.”
Well, are you some kind of wacko? If so, what kind?
Regardless of any conspiracy theories, the facts are that the current Administration and Democratic Congress have little regard for the average American and feel so superior that they don’t believe we even need to be consulted anymore. I don’t like being paranoid but their actions have taught me to believe the worst about their motives. When the American public is clearly confused about the UN Small Arms Treaty, why doesn’t someone in government try to explain the detail instead of brushing off such requests as the rantings of “wackos”….maybe there is something to hide.
We all know Obama and Hillary would like to sign a UN Treaty backdoor removal of the 2nd Ammendment and somehow get it ratified, BUT…….even if ratified (good luck there), the treaty’s legal impact, domestically, would still be subserviant to the 2nd Ammendment. If the treaty’s restrictions are unconstitutional, then they are void. You can’t ammend the Constitution (get rid of the 2nd Ammendment, for example), without going through the Constitutionally-specified ammendment process. Hell, they’d REALLY need a lot of luck to get that through!
We have a constitution that for all means is being violated now. Talking about the 4th amendment which in part reads you need probable cause for search a seizure, yet the random drug test is here. No reason to believe they won’t continue to eat away our rights with some language that sounds nice to the brainwashed public
Somebody wrote: “I would really like to see some of the language contained within this treaty”.
Whatever language is in the treaty it:
1. Has to be ratified by a 2/3 majority in the senate.
2. Is just as subject to Constitutionality as any domestic law. If it’s unconstitutional in any other piece of legislation it will be struck down as unconstitutional if it’s contained in a treaty.
Treaties are not an end run around the constitution as some people seem to think. Any part of a treaty struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds is null and void as far as US compliance with it. The supreme court has already ruled in Reid v. Covert that the constitution supersedes international treaties.
Steve,
While that’s the clear reading of how things should work (from the Constitution), why do you believe such a treaty would need to pass Constitutional muster to be implemented? Do you have evidence of scrupulous adherence to the Constitution in the last 50 years you can cite to back up your claim?
I’m not trying to bash your post so much as to point out how naive it is (in my opinion) to believe new laws/treaties/declarations/executive-orders will conform in any way to the Constitution. I simply have no reason to believe our government has any interest in keeping their oath to uphold the Constitution—yet it would be quite the encouragement to me to have such reason.
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
The 1957 supreme court case Reid vs Covert established that the Constitution supersedes and international treaty. Also Congress cannot be bypassed by the President in the treaty process, all treaties must pass the Senate by a 2/3rds vote. In other words, this is a non-issue and simple fear mongering.
William, I replied the same to Steve as I would generally reply to you. With all the evidence that our government holds little regard for actually conforming to the Constitution (as they all swore to do), why do you hold such glib faith that a restrictive small arms treaty of this sort could never happen? A brief reading of the Constitution (can be done in 15-20 minutes) reveals very clear language that the Constitution supersedes international treaty (Article VI, Clause 2). The Supremes must have enjoyed such a light day.
But this isn’t necessarily the point of contention, since rare glimpses of what this proposed UN treaty seem to simply shout over all questions that the intention is not (horrors!) to restrict the rights of any US citizen to bear arms. Well, they said it, so I guess it’s true, right? Really? No reason to believe that enforcement of this treaty will necessarily require registration of all firearms to ensure compliance? Restrictions on what constitutes a legally-possessable firearm, per our second amendment, no doubt being something less than what is commonly possessed today?
Of course, the other reason this whole debate may not concern you, William, is that you simply wouldn’t mind the registrations and restrictions. That perhaps you’ve little or no recognized need for this right? Just a shot in the dark. I simply don’t understand why anyone would have such glib faith that our government will follow the “law of the land” when it’s been trod upon so much recently.
Thanks to you all for keeping up the vigil, however, I agree it is a non-issue at this time.
God bless the Four Boxes of Freedom: The Soap Box, The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and most importantly, The Cartridge Box…..
Pingback: The U.N. Wants Your (our) Guns. - Page 5
Well, I don’t know if this is fear mongering or if our second amendment rights could actually be circumvented by a UN treaty agreement. What I DO know is this. The American people are so utterly disgusted and outraged at their ineffective, unresponsive, incompetent, arrogant government, – that WE THE PEOPLE are on the fence, as to whether we should abolish this worthless, unaccountable, band of power hungry, socialists, and start all over again. WE THE PEOPLE are mad as hell and this government has turned its back on us, and decided that “they” know what is best for us. That arrogant attitude will not be tolerated much longer. I have no idea where our frustrations and anger will take us. However, Americans as a group, are slow to react. But, when we are backed into a corner, and forced to fight, it is usually a very bloody ending. This non-compliant, bunch of renegades, in Washington D.C. had better wake up. WE THE PEOPLE are fed up. Trouble is brewing, and soon. “NUFF SAID.” !!
I only heard about this is in the past month, just got around to checking it out before writing my two senators and congresswoman to request and explanation from them and also to request that they stay vigilant and not allow some back-handed attempt at a runaround of the 2nd ammendment. I for one do not wish to live in a country where the only guns are owned by the government (and criminals). I am especially suspect of the UN and their one world view and objectives such as this treaty. I agree with others in that it would be a first step in global gun control. Individual liberty and freedom have made this the greatest nation in history and as we lose these, we will see ourselves in decline.
Amazed…… So many here pointing fingers and slurs . Name calling and arguing will no stop the aristocracy. You can call them republican, democrats, liberal ,or conservative, but in the end they are the same. Thomas Jefferson wrote ” do not lend your nation over to the aristocratic elite for if you do they will sell it out from under you, and leave you destitute in the streets. If you are a patriots of means lend those means for the good of the many not the few. If you are a patriot of meager means and do not trust your government .. Then change it .. A little revolution is good now and then!” now I don’t know about you , but I have not seen any semblance of an America in a while. Only the rich aristocracy getting rich and everyone else getting the shaft. So the next time you want to use names like bus people, Joe six pack , etc. Stop and think about what the aristocracy thinks about you ? I personally find it disgusting that the last administration or aristocracy controlled governmental regime gave military contracts to privateers ! Those same privateers have retained the contracts and are now located in Dubai. So you have foreign companies now in control of our government and military contracts, and W made it so behind all our backs without so much as a bye or leave . It does not matter which aristocracy runs the show they all have an agenda and are real good about ramming things through congress! Be Americans and patriots and not sheeple with osteritis, and please for Gods sake stop polarizing!!!!!
Being an avid gun owner, one that is tired of the way this country is being ran anyway, I wonder how many people out there would actually use them in the ways of our fore-fathers. Two hundred years ago Americans didn’t set and complain about the many ways our elected officials screwed us for personal gain. They took care of it!!
This treaty is not an issue. The US Constitution supersedes international treaties. Since 1957. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert), They could actually word the treaty to specifically state you can’t own a gun, and as a US citizen, it means nothing to you as your rights are protected by the Constitution. The whole argument is moot.
SDB, you seem to be operating under assumptions that, 1) the Constitution is the true law of the land, and is followed strictly, and therefore, 2) anything contradicting the Constitution will not be enforced. If so, how do you explain what we see with enforcement of the Patriot Act with bureaucracies such as the TSA given all sorts of power to interfere with unhindered travel of citizens (blatant disregard for fourth amendment)?
Hello, I don’t blame people for being worried but this has been fact-checked and it’s not a threat to internal US gun ownership (altho maybe harder to get some imports.) See for example fact-checking site http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp. For example:
“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.”
Well, laying aside some skepticism about “aims” of the UN, such a treaty would indeed not abrogate domestic gun ownership rights and as further explained at the site. Keep an eye out for specific laws to look at here, don’t be distracted by “lore” items running around.
The “Bill of Rights” and the Constitution of the United States no longer exists! For example, in 1941, Americans, actually born in America were rounded up, and placed in concentration camps soley because of their Japanese ancestry. Just when they needed their so-called “rights” they were taken away. American have only a Bill of Temporary priviledges.The “Patriot Act” is unconstitutional.
The Industrial/Military/Petroleum Complex controls everything. America is a military dictatorship disgused as a democracy!
Give liberty or give me death!
Today (Dec 10, 2011) I received an email from Rand Paul stating that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton RECENTLY announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new Small Arms Treaty.” In the email Sen Paul was also asking for a donation. I guess it is always ‘RECENT’ to try to get a donation.
Why is it that every time someone mentions anything regarding guns or any form of restrictions on their ownership, someone has to immediately jump to the conclusion that our Constitutional rights are being violated? When was the last time that happened? I am not referring to small-minded conspiracy theorists, I am referring to mainstream Americans. I think anyone posting here would be very hard pressed to point out any specific time that your right to keep a firearm has been restricted. Sure, Congress periodically pops out some type of idea about restricting the sale of guns, but in the end, this country has more firearms than any other nation on the planet. How many of you would be happy with the idea of a Muslim owning firearms? I imagine that the Constitution only applies to Christians nowadays, doesn’t it? This treaty is designed for the sole purpose of restricting the global trade in small arms, not the everyday sale or use of these weapons within the United States. Just how many of you own a full-auto machine gun? Plenty. How many care that the ownership of that weapon may be illegal? Not a damn one, and yet here you all are bitching up a storm everytime someone suggests a way to keep terrorists around the world from having weapons at the ready. No it won’t stop it entirely any more than making a submachine gun ownership illegal to all but a select few within the US, but it may be a start.
The treaty will not supercede the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution (regardless of what the meaning is to anyone), nor is it intended to. I am a liberal and I own several guns, plan to keep them all in excellent working order should they be necessary for hunting or self-defense and out of the reach of my children until they are old enough to understand their proper usage. Quit equating Democrats with your petty fears, we’re tired of hearing the same old lame crap from the paranoid and under-educated. Try reading things for yourself instead of relying on the “news” to inform you. Thank you for allowing me to avail myself of my 1st Amendment right.
Well, Sam, is it not readily apparent that our Constitutional rights are regularly violated, whether with this issue or others? Do you really believe this isn’t a concern, when corporate bribery of elected officials is openly legal?
Regarding restricted rights of keeping a firearm, how about the National Firearms Act of 1934? All sorts of restrictions were created, including that of silencers requiring endless paperwork and a $200 tax. Shooting ranges would be much more pleasant with the use of such devices.
Or all the legal hurdles, restrictions and requirements with the Gun Control Act of 1968?
Or the ban in 1994 of scary-looking firearms, and the creation of a new legal designation of those firearms with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
All of these represent specific instances in which my “right to keep a firearm has been restricted”, to answer your question. And this isn’t even an exhaustive list.
I’m certainly not “bitching up a storm” that terrorists have “weapons at the ready”. Where are you getting these wild ideas? Was it from my article on the U.N. and their wonderful plan to keep weapons out of reach of those who would use them against unarmed people? Perhaps I should point out that a terrorist—who has little regard for human life—has even less regard for human laws? How, exactly, will mere law govern the lawless? Please, enlighten me. You seem to know so much and have so many profiles to apply to me.
I’m a bit late in catching this thread but, since I’m here now, I would like to address Sam in Md, regarding the following part of your post of 9 February, 2012:
“When was the last time that happened? I am not referring to small-minded conspiracy theorists, I am referring to mainstream Americans.”
I believe that would be in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina. The people living in that area can relate to you precisely when and how their 2nd Amendment rights were completely ignored. By the way: Bravo, Jeff. Concur wholeheartedly.
And I MUST agree with Jeff’s earlier sentiments, to wit: “I simply don’t understand why anyone would have such glib faith that our government will follow the “law of the land” when it’s been trod upon so much recently.”
After spending (and these days, I begin to wonder if “wasting” might be a more accurate word) more than 26 years of my life in the military, having sworn an oath MANY TIMES OVER, to “….support and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic….” (emphasis mine), it turns my stomach to see it absolutely raped (and I can think of no more accurate term for what is happening to it as I type this), by NUMEROUS administrations past, but never more arrogantly or brazenly as by the current administration. But what turns my stomach even more than that is to think that there are people who call themselves “Americans” who are still willing to vote the current rapist-in-chief into another term and, by doing so, assisting in the suicide of the (once) greatest nation on the face of the earth; the same nation that has survived for more than 200 years by the willingness of my brothers and sisters to shed their blood and, in more cases than I care to think about, give the ultimate sacrifice. Kevorkians, one and all.
The fact that Japan refrained from invading the continental U.S. during WWII because they feared there would be a gun behind every blade of grass, speaks volumes in favor of the second amendment.
On point, G. Nesbitt. Well said. The leaders of Japan’s military complex expressed those very sentiments. It is very refreshing to hear from someone who actually reads and understands history, without trying to twist or distort it.
To take the Second Amendment issue a step further, one can see from reading the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and The Federalist, another reason the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment. That reason is occurring as we discuss this. It’s referred to by a very appropriate and carefully chosen word in those documents: Tyranny.
Randy[Rodney] R -what do you mean random drug tests? Legally, when you take a job (like mine, surveying from 3,000ft. below ground in a coal mine to 200′ above ground walking a belt-line post-build) you are required to take a drug test, for everyone’s sake. Don’t like it? Find another job where safety isn’t compromised. That would be like a drunk complaining about how he can’t get to fly the space shuttle; of course not.
And by the way, I’m all for protecting the constitution of the United States, it’s people, and this land, from all enemies and those who would see her demise. Wished Ron Paul would win the nomination and the election, voted for him, but I doubt I’ll see that, but he’d put us back on the path the Founding Fathers saw for this Great Nation.
so what happened to the transparency the president was taling about before the election he is a complete liar! he is continually going behind our backs and the congress and senate breaking every rule of the constitution he swore to up hold, LIAR! HE CAN NOT EVEN PROVE HE IS REALLY A CITIZEN ON THE UNITED STATES. AND WHY IS NOTHING BEING DONE ABOUT IT WHERE ARE OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES ANY WAY. THE ONLY HOPE IS IN GOD! GOD BLESS AMERICA IN SPITE OF OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. PLEASE PRAY FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ITS LEADERS. AND MAY GOD HELP US…
the senate has already gone on record sending obama a letter that the senate will not ratify this treaty
canada has thrown a wrench in the works by requesting provisions be inserted to protect the rights of sportsman
the nra is going to sent john bolton to represent americans in the treaty hearings
i donated 75 to help pay his salary . i like boltons in your face style and im sure he will clearly convey the sentiments of american sportsman
this morning i read an on the undispatch website claiming that this treaty isnt harmful to sportsmans interests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG_og-I_PqY this guy sez the us japan canada are trying to write in exemptions for sportsman
donate to the nra to send john bolton to this meeting to express our interests
It’s interesting to me that the debate has been rephrased to pretend to care about the right to bear arms—only as it pertains to hunting (or “sportsman” activities). In fact, that largely misses the point, which is to keep the power of the people within the hands of the people. After all, why was there a revolution against England in the first place? Because of the overbearing tyranny of the ruling class over the many—because this ruling class could, at their own whim—rule with unlimited injustice against the citizens.
Think about the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
Here’s my question. When a society has reason to “alter or abolish” their government, what becomes the only possible means of doing so? If tyranny truly reigns, how will the people “throw off” such tyranny? Will petitions do such a thing? How about pitchforks? No? The only means is by an armed citizenry. The entire point of the second amendment is to forcibly keep the government in check, should the government decide to turn rogue and lawless. This is not about deer season. It’s about the ability of the people to live as free men.
You are spot-on, Jeff. And that is precisely why this “Rapist-in-Chief” wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. It’s not going to happen. If he tries – by using the UN as a puppet, or by another ILLEGAL Executive Order – he will find out exactly why that Amendment exists, and why Americans will NEVER let it be taken away.
The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting !
The Federal government has been ignoring the Constitution since before WW2, NFA 1934, internment of the Japanese, filing income tax return is legally testifying against yourself (read the instructions on the signature line, under penalty of perjury ), GCA 1968, AWB 1994, the Patriot Act,……………………..
How can any sensible person not see the way this is headed ?
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/
Heres the actual text of the treaty.
On another subject kind of… The treaty is to restrict the “bad guys” from obtaining small arms. Sometimes the line between good and bad is a perceived line. From what I understand the UN wants to be the one to decide which side get the guns.
Do you think the UN would have given/ allowed us to buy, guns during the revolution? Revolution is a good thing. Gee did I just say that? Ben Franklin said a revulotion every hundred years or so keep a government honest. Oppressed groups of people should have the opportunity to arm themselves against tyranny without the approval of the UN. Good bad or ugly it is not the UN`s call.
Once a global treaty is in place like this its no longer a matter of right and wrong it is a matter of perception by that entity.
Any measurement requires a standard against which the measurement can be taken, whether in terms of length (inches), volume (gallons), or ethics (such as the Bill of Rights). With the UN, the one who decides which standard of measurement is used is also the one desiring to restrict or distribute arms. Convenient. And yet, where is the equivalent of our Bill of Rights found within the UN? Was England founded upon documents declaring the right of the people to reform its own government (by whatever means) when necessary? Was France? Yet they’re members of the UN. So why would we in this country choose to cede any power to such a draconian organization as the UN? To whom is that good, other than those who advocate tyranny?
Disarmed people tend to be much more compliant with tyrants. What choice have they got?
To be perfectly honest, the UN has outlived it’s usefulness. I think it’s time to end their lease, tell them to go find somewhere to play in the EU. And we need to completely divorce ourselves from that “organization”. It’s obvious to the most casual observer what that “organization” really is, really wants, and will do anything to achieve. If the illegal Kenyan who is “occupying” the People’s House is removed, that’s the first step. Next is oil independence by tapping into our own oil. Once that happens, we can clearly and cleanly give the UN the bird.
Mike, I’d be careful in putting any faith in energy independence at our current rate of energy consumption. Oil production (globally) has peaked for sure, and it’s at a high within our country because the price domestic producers can sell oil right now can (barely) justify production. If the price of oil falls to any significant degree, forget it—oil companies would be quickly operating at a net loss. The plain fact in this case is that we consume far, far more than we can produce—we import much more than we produce as a case in point.
Taxation and inflation (which is non-representative taxation) will soon hit domestic oil producers, driving their costs higher, decreasing viable oil production. I’ve got to take a much more negative view on this one, given the facts. And—like just about every other topic on primary news outlets during an election year—what is being reported is nearly entirely false.
Jeff, I understand your point from an economic perspective. And I don’t disagree with you. My point, though I didn’t clearly articulate it in my post, is that we as a country need to cut ourselves off from the UN. Completely. Whenever I think of the UN, I keep the relationship straight in my mind by thinking of a parasitic cancer. The more involved we get with them (and ipso facto, the more we facilitate the spreading of their cancer), the more difficult it will be for us to remain a free and independent nation. I do not now, nor have I EVER bought into the “global community” B.S.. That is most assuredly NOT what my brothers and sisters and I have sacrificed most of our adult lives (and sadly, for some, their literal lives) to support and defend. I see cutting our dependence on foreign oil merely as one step in the path to ultimately freeing our country of the cancer that is the UN, and the Islamo-Fascist countries who seem to be the darlings of said cancerous organization. That being said, I do understand the point you’re making. We have gotten ourselves into a quandry from which it will be most difficult to extricate ourselves. And yes, believe me my friend – I and those of like mind are very, VERY aware that what is being reported on nearly every news outlet, about virtually ANY topic, is patently false. Although I must admit that I tend to use more controversial terms – they are nothing short of LIES. And they are told willingly, even enthusiastically, to hasten the downfall of this once-great Republic. In the final analysis, there are but two types of people in this country: Americans and traitors. I thank God that he has given me the ability to discern the difference between the two. And I thank YOU for being a Great American.
Mike, I agree about getting out from under the UN. How many governments do we need, anyway? Free people need only be self-governed. Additional layers simply are—as you said—parasitic. Any additional layer of government that isn’t required brings only a net negative return (obviously).
Oddly enough, “global community” is what is pitched, while global rule is what is desired. But that doesn’t sell quite as well, hence the marketing/propaganda. Armed citizens are terribly inconvenient for such goals.
LOL! YES WE ARE, AREN’T WE?
)
let me chime in here,
I am a contractor for the DOD,small shop,just my wife and I.
This is language in a award i received But Cancelled because i didnt meet the critirea.
” THIS ITEM IS A DEFENSE ARTICLE AS DEFINED IN AND SUBJET TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS(22 C.FR. 120-30).AND THE ARMS EXPORT ACT.ANY MANUFACTURE OR EXPORTER OF DEFENSE ARTICLES “IS REQUIRED TO REGESTER WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF DEFENSE.”
TRADE CONTOLS (DDTC) ,DEPARTMENT OF STATE.DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF REGESTRATION MAY BE REQUIRED;.l
PRIOR TO AWARD. ADDITIONAL EXPORT RESTRATION APPLY”.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT DIRECTORATE OF DEFENSE TRADE CONTOLS (DDTC) REGESTRATION WHEN REQUESTED WILL RESULT INN WITHDRAWL OF QUOTES ?OFFERS.
It Cost’s $2500 a year to register with the State Dept.
Thats only for the privlege to quote on govt. contracts.
I Give up, This Pres. is out of control.
I will die a free man. If the government wants to make that tommorow then so be it. I want my son to be free and the future generations of my family so if that means I have to take up arms against the U.N. then so be it. Fighting off Tyranny is faithfullness to God. The united nations is unConstitutional any ways. Leave me alone and dont talk all this anti-gun extremist bull crap Hillary! You are a traitor to the United States of America!
I say to the son-of-a-bitch government dictators trying to diminish the population’s ability to; cast off a government that has ceased to do the will of the people, that is injurious to the survival of the republic or even to protect oneself, in like kind, from criminals be they private criminals or government criminals (the later always have the people out gunned).
I say come and get them I will not comply with any-other onerous laws meant to frustrate the 2nd amendment. It is the US government that has proliferated small arms sales, no you and me….average citizens or average gun store owners.
Mike says:
February 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM
I’m a bit late in catching this thread but, since I’m here now, I would like to address Sam in Md, regarding the following part of your post of 9 February, 2012:
“When was the last time that happened? I am not referring to small-minded conspiracy theorists, I am referring to mainstream Americans.”
I believe that would be in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina. The people living in that area can relate to you precisely when and how their 2nd Amendment rights were completely ignored. By the way: Bravo, Jeff. Concur wholeheartedly.
And I MUST agree with Jeff’s earlier sentiments, to wit: “I simply don’t understand why anyone would have such glib faith that our government will follow the “law of the land” when it’s been trod upon so much recently.”
After spending (and these days, I begin to wonder if “wasting” might be a more accurate word) more than 26 years of my life in the military, having sworn an oath MANY TIMES OVER, to “….support and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic….” (emphasis mine), it turns my stomach to see it absolutely raped (and I can think of no more accurate term for what is happening to it as I type this), by NUMEROUS administrations past, but never more arrogantly or brazenly as by the current administration. But what turns my stomach even more than that is to think that there are people who call themselves “Americans” who are still willing to vote the current rapist-in-chief into another term and, by doing so, assisting in the suicide of the (once) greatest nation on the face of the earth; the same nation that has survived for more than 200 years by the willingness of my brothers and sisters to shed their blood and, in more cases than I care to think about, give the ultimate sacrifice. Kevorkians, one and all.
Mike perhaps it is time military types like yourself considered organizing yourselves and “regular citizens”. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the current national government is in the process of destroying the county economically, morally further diminishing/marginalizing the sovereignty of the states to sooner than later, have this county resemble some european county………all completely opposed to the founders vision. It is also clear that the elections solely rely on the “powers that be” saying they are “real”. I cant even get a copy or representation of my vote, nor do they require me to prove who I am…..duh…it is rigged, at least at some level. But it will require military and ex-military and and lots of verified AMERICAN CITIZENS. Peaceably, if possible, but with all willingness to do what the founders did and said if necessary (it is aways necessary according to the founders). We have many example of governments going down the same path this government is. At least today, there are 2 notable difference here in the US. One is that the founders instructed the people what do do and secondly, at least today we have the means to do it. But when they (be they US Troops, NATO troops, Local or National “law-enforcement”) start rounding you up, your weapons, your property, it is too late. Be sure they are planning just that, it is their mindset (see Hurricane Katrina), though certainly with an American twist…….but a slave is a slave and dead is dead.
Whether it’s intent is to do so or not really is irrelevant… if it could potentially lead to the stated result it can’t be allowed.
We all know what is paved with good intentions…
you people need to stop calling yourselves militia if you too chicken shit to live up to the heritage of Americas freedom revolutionaries, shit or get off the pot because theres millions of us with the balls to stop this by force…..and it needs to be stopped before winter.
Bill, who is calling themselves “militia” here? I must have missed that.