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.“
There you go. Another step closer in-line with the new world order agenda. The UN and the central bankers of this world are in charge now. Without personal protection under the second amendment, US citizens will lose yet another liberty under law of the Constitution Â and the debt-creators of this world will have less effort to take what is eventually theirs by inflation and deflation.
Low and behold…the elite wins again.
Don’t you hate globalization and utopia politics? I surely tend to feel that way…
I, personally, do not see this happening.
There are too many Americans, from all across the political spectrum,Â who would raise hell.Â Besides, this is one of the few areas of the economy doing well right now…
Well, let me rephrase my prediction – if the Feds try to pull some $#!^ like this, things in this country will get very, very ugly.
On a completely unrelated tangent – it should be known that some states allow private party-to-private party sales of firearms without any sort of registration.Â That is, the sale does not have to be registered with the state.Â Put another way – if one were to choose to purchase a firearm in such a way, there would be no way to trace it…and no one would know about it.
Consult your local firearms laws.
Rob, in regards to your comment: “Without personal protection under the second amendment, US citizens will lose yet another liberty under law of the Constitution”
I agree and will suggest that the 2nd amendment is the very protection that prevents violation of the 1st.. If the 2nd were to be repealed or somehow overwritten by some international law, then that’s the end of America as we know it, in my opinion.
On a more positive note, I am with Rick and don’t think something like this will fly. I think even some of the anti-gun libs out there might freak out if they saw an attempt like this. We’re talking about a foreign power dictating domestic law and policy.
I would hope that the final cross-check would be the Supreme court… But, even they have been known to cite international law in making determinations on US law, so this check/balance is not 100% guaranteed.
On one side I am astonished that an American, at one time a presidential hopeful, would even consider discussing something like this! On the other side, however, I am not at all surprised. It’s things like this that make the global governance agenda a conspiracy fact and no longer just a theory.
“I agree and will suggest that the 2nd amendment is the very protection that prevents violation of the 1st.. If the 2nd were to be repealed or somehow overwritten by some international law, then thatâ€™s the end of America as we know it, in my opinion.”
Bingo!Â I am a left of center person and I hate guns (Too easy to kill a person, just point and click), but I do know that we were born from the barrel of a Pennsylvania Rifle and that the gun is an integral part of our history.Â
We have the rights and freedoms that we do because the gun enables us to resist power cheaply and raises the costs of projecting power for those who would try and take our freedoms away.Â We only have the rights that we can defend.Â Wouldn’t you agree?
Let me reveal the ABCs of Gun Confiscation in the US:
A. Congress must approve this. After we get done gutting the dishonest bastard-thief club this fall, I’m thinking the answer is going to be, “No.” (See United State Code Of Federal Regulations, relative sections to treaties and international agreements)
B. As Rick mentioned many states have FTF sales. I own a dozen rifles, half a dozen shotguns and half a dozen pistols. Of those, maybe half a dozen were purchased at dealers and “registered”. I’m all legal and everything but advertising what you have to crooks that break in and steal stuff, regardless of whether they work for the US Government or not, is just dumb and I avoid it (and another thief called the tax man) as much as is legally possible. Read this as: they can’t easily find them without a search. (See US Constitution, 4th Amendment Violations)
C. The quickest way to foment a revolution in the USA would be to start an unconstitutional gun confiscation at the behest of some international regulatory body. Can you say “Get Shot At!” Besides, law enforcement and military have sworn an oath to The Constitution. They would have to violate said oath. There are not enough of them under normal circumstances even if we stacked all our guns on the front ports for them to come and pick up so by the time you get enough of them to break their oaths, well, forget it. That leaves foreign troops. To most of the rednecks I know (I’m not excluding myself), you put foreign troops on US soil to take our guns, there is only one word for it: Guerrilla War.Â End of story. (See “Quickest Way To Die In A Foreign Land” or “Redneck Revolution” by Bubba Jones)
(OK, the book titles were a joke, but, you get the picture.)
Shogunole, very well said on all counts.Â There is no doubt that guns are very easy to misuse. I am not a violent person, nor do I desire to bring violence to anyone. War — I am not interested in it. Having to ever shoot anyone — I’d rather not. But my immediate concern is for securing my family and myself in the event that a threat is presented.Â Since the second amendment protects the right to bear arms on the basis of security of a free State, I think the right to bear arms on an individual level for self defense is granted automatically — I am assuming the founding fathers didn’t even deliberate this because it wasn’t an issue. All men up until that point, throughout history (all the way back to spears and rocks), had armed themselves. Self preservation – a natural right. (I’m sure there are constitutional challenges and such on this but I am a bit lazy right now). Thus, for me, I feel threatened by this UN proposal, because I feel like it is a direct attack on the individual’s ability to defend himself.Â It shouldn’t be just Americans that reject this.Â All nations should — unless of course individual freedom and self sufficiency is not the ultimate goal.
NR, for an instant there I thought those may have been real book titles! Like one of those off the wall e-books. I would have at least read the first chapter in each.
You make a very good point here, NR: law enforcement and military have sworn an oath to The Constitution.
I agree, but I also think there will always be those that violate their oath to the people they swore to protect, and say “we are just taking orders.”
I got two words for the Sec. of state and the UNÂ , Thay aint “Happy Valentine’s”!!!
“FROM MY COLDÂ DEAD HANDS ……”
I can just imagine the reaction of a bunch of cops ar roll-call being informed that they are being tasked with going door-to-door in an effort to confiscate the guns of American Citizens.
I can also imagine the reaction of the American Citizens when the cops show up at their door. It won’t be a friendly or fun day for the cops.
Shouldn’t being bogged down in an domestic Iraq style war be enough to dissuade the idea of something like this? What’s next the War on Guns?!?!?
I, for one, am not counting on the Constitution saving me. For instance…
Article I Section 8:
“Congress shall have the power
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Article I Section 9:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Article I Section 10:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”
How we doing so far? And I just spent 10 minutes pulling this out. I’ll bet I could find a dozen subversions of the Constitution if really tried.
It’s clear the dismantling of this great framework for government has been under way for quite some time.
They will confiscate your guns…..http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gun+confiscation+new+orleans&search_type=&aq=0&oq=gun+confiscation
There are literally tens of millions of veterans across America that have guns and know how to use them ……Â who I believe, will independently, one by one, in fire teams, and in squads, collectively: EXACT a price the government cannot affordÂ to bear if they attempt to confiscate our weapons.
An army ofÂ MinutemenÂ will rise up in America again.Â Patriots for sure, they will rise up in every village and town, every hamlet and city, every street and neighborhood to protect our Constitutional Right to KEEP and BEAR arms. The government will have to come block by block, door by door, to pry them from our cold, dead hands.Â These traitorsÂ will be met by a savage resistance fiercer than any enemy they have ever faced on the battlefield before: their neighbors.
We didn’t throw out the British to be oppressed by our own governmentÂ andÂ stripped of our Constitutional Rights by our own elected officials. If they try that, we will try them. There will be blood on the streets of America like never before. The body count will make D-Day look like a walk in the park. And then they will have to face the American electorate. And after new elections, trials for treason. And after the trials, judgement. There can only be one judgement for traitors. The death penalty.
Death by firing squad would seem, to me, to beÂ appropriate justice for any public official or servant, who commits treason in office.Â Poetic justice, sure and swift, is the answer. Make an example of one and the others will get the message: the Constitution of the United States of America belongs to the People of America, and if you disregard the Law of The Land, if you disregard our Heritage, you do so at your peril.
What government would want an armed population when the global depression kicks in ?
Massive unemployment, starvation, economic collapse, climate change havoc Â and it’s all going to last for 5-10 years at least.
The governments all knew all this was coming (as the evidence has been there for years) so little wonder they don’t want an armed population !
As all the guns are registered they’ll just come and take them and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Although, just making ammo unavailable would have the same result, as no-one has the equipment to make their own ammo (cases).
So..what do do you all say ?
The government makes the laws and they can change them to whatever they want – just throw in a bit of “it’s all in aid of preventing terrorism” bullshit and everyone will say yes.
Well, beyond conventional firearms lies something very interesting…when the homegunsmith site reopens you’ll find info there, but don’t hold your breath.
If you’re in the USA and can get out permanently , do it !
Should this pass. I see the beginning of a new CIVIL WAR….We allowed the patriot act..so why not this? AMERICANS stand together united and stop this from happening.
I agree this would be hard pressed to happen, but what we need to look out for is the slow process of giving up our rights.
The second amendment was not to protect ourselves from each other it was to protect ourselves from the government. If the second amendment is taken away it would only be the first of several.