As if attacks on the second amendment within the borders of the United States weren’t enough, we now have to defend the right to bear arms on a global level if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has her way. The U.S. has agreed to a timetable for the UN Gun Ban:
The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.
Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.
The stakes couldnâ€™t be higher.
Former United Nationâ€™s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN â€œis trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but thereâ€™s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.â€
Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.
As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
While this so-called treaty still has a way to go, it is likely that most, if not all of the other 151 nations will approve this UN declaration. Most other countries, unlike ours, do not value this right of the individual to defend himself.
This is an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and according to the Constitution itself, cannot be violated by domestic law, let alone an irrelevant international body.
As a constitutional amendment, the very idea of the treaty should be immediately scrapped by our President and Congress:
The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“
The Constitution of the United States, Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Our Constitution was designed to specifically forbid this exact scenario from occurring. Any such action to mandate, through a global governing body, that the right to bear arms is illegal is nothing less than a treasonous act by any and all elected representatives who would vote to approve such a treaty.
Regardless of what a particular elected official would like to happen, the Constitution forbids it. If the right to bear arms is to be taken away, it must be repealed by a constitutional amendment, not a vote in Congress that approves a foreign treaty.
If the United Nations were to pass a declaration specifically forbidding any speech that is contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, how would Americans react if it were made into US law, and subsequently enforced in America? This is exactly the same idea as a foreign treaty that aims to ban firearms globally.
Incidentally, the United Nations Declaration Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, section 3 does specifcally ban any rights and freedoms outlined within the declaration if they are “exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.“