“The majority’s exegesis has utterly failed to establish that as a matter of text or history, “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” is “elevate[d] above all other interests” by the Second Amendment. Ante, at 64.”
-Justice Stevens, Dissenting Opinion, 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller
Editor’s Note: Updates at the end of this piece.
The U.N. wants to take firearms from the U.S. electorate. The citizens of the U.N. member nations do not have the right to bear arms and have been actively trying to eliminate our second amendment with our administration’s encouragement through a small arms agreement which will become an international small arms treaty.
It is at our doorstep and will be signed by Barack Obama on July 27th.
Look at the forces here and abroad working to trample our freedoms –
When the SCOTUS voted on 2nd Amendment law, District of Columbia vs. Heller, in June 2008, Justice Stevens, who wrote the dissenting opinion with Justice Stevens, said, as quoted above, that we do not have any constitutional right to self-defense. As shocking as this is, it is more shocking to consider that the Supreme Court of the United States was one vote away from taking away our second amendment.
Remember the following Barack Obama quote repeated by Mrs. Brady, who became a strong anti-gun advocate after her husband was shot alongside Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 –
I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” ~ Barack Obama, May, 2011, referencing gun control
Barack Obama moves stealthily to implement what he believes to be right in defiance of the will of the people.
The movement in the United States to ban guns is real and it goes much further than fair and reasonable regulations. Despite a 2nd amendment, D.C., Chicago and NYC have banned guns. It certainly has done nothing for D.C. and Chicago and NYC crime is on the uptick.
Many believe that Fast & Furious was a concerted effort by Holder and Clinton to close in on the 2nd amendment. Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton continually claimed that Mexico’s guns are from the U.S.. At the same time, the U.S. government was supplying guns to the drug cartels without Mexico’s knowledge and with almost no effort to track the guns.
Sloppy work or concerted effort? You decide.
Heritage had an interesting piece from previous Fast & Furious testimony by Holder. Holder used the opportunity to further his extreme “gun control” agenda and lied about there being a law that already covers it. I shouldn’t say he lied, maybe he had another memory lapse. Dementia?
Attorney General Eric Holder used his testimony before a House committee to tout the need for new gun control laws to prevent “gun walking,” or the transportation of firearms across the Southern border. But he – and members of the committee – ignored existing laws that already accomplish Holder’s ostensible goals.
“That is why we need a stronger gun trafficking law,” Holder said in response to questions about recourse against officials who signed off on the gun walking tactic. The tactic was integral to Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed the transportation of roughly 2,500 firearms into Mexico, often with not just the knowledge but the facilitation of federal law enforcement officials, where those guns were given to violent drug cartels.
Many Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where Holder was testifying for the sixth time on Fast and Furious, echoed the attorney general’s calls for greater gun control. Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) touted legislation they introduced, which would make suspected “straw purchases” – the purchases of guns to be handed off to others – illegal.
Holder called that bill “a good place for us to start.”
But neither Holder nor committee members mentioned the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a federal law already on the books that appears to criminalize the precise conduct undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Operation Fast and Furious. Read here: Heritage
Senator Rand Paul has called for opposition to what now appears to be a new attempt at circumventing our constitution with the signing of a small arms treaty that would essentially eliminate the second amendment.
The Center for American Progress lamely tries to insist the treaty doesn’t exist when it clearly does – it just hasn’t been signed – yet.
The following facts will bring you from 2009 to present day –
In October, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed the policies of previous Presidents and stated that she would enter into talks with the international community about signing a small arms treaty as long as it was done by consensus. (With a Democratic Senate, anything Hillary signs will have a good chance of being signed by the Senate if it gets to the Senate floor.) [Reuters]
Her feigned insistence on consensus is not going to hold water because the international community will not stand for it and she knows it. Consider the following statement by the UN policy advisor –
“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
The treaty they are talking about basically bans all privately-held semi-automatic weapons. Make no mistake, any treaty with the U.N. will require us to abide by their gun requirements. The UN does not allow a 2nd amendment.
The following is from the UN Disarmament site. Using the worst scare tactics, the U.N. is aiming at the elimination of small arms throughout the world –
The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.
Weapons of choice
Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.
Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare. Read more: U.N.
I ask you, why would the U.N. want a small arms treaty with a free nation that has a second amendment? If we lose this amendment, what’s next? Oh, of course, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th are undergoing some overhaul under this administration as we speak.
So what has happened since 2009 when Hillary signed the agreement? In May, 2010, Obama announced his support for the UN Small Arms Treaty (you know, the one that Center for American Progress claims does not exist).
Former Secretary of State Bolton responded –
“After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”
In 2011, information began to leak out –
Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Tom Mason, who represented the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting at the U.N. conference, told FoxNews.com the provisions are worrying.
“No, there are no black helicopters. There is no secret treaty that Hillary Clinton has signed,” Mason said. “But on the other hand, the treaty is a significant threat to gun owners. I think the biggest threat may be the body that would administer the treaty,” he added, referring to a new U.N agency the treaty would create, to be called the “Implementation Support Unit.” Read more: Fox World
Obama is currently negotiating Four Dangerous Treaties and one of them is the Small Arms Treaty. Obviously, our Democratic Senate will sign it. The excuse is that the illegal gun trade comes from the Unites States. The arms going around the world have nothing to do with the guy down the block, USA – it is the communist countries exporting small arms, not individuals in the United States. The only reason for the treaty is to enact U.S. gun control.
There is a disarmament conference at the U.N. each year and I want you to take a look at the countries that are going to be involved in our small arms initiative and ask yourself why we would even consider entering into talks with these people. UN Confrence Speakers
The following also comes from the U.N. site in case you have any doubt that the U.N. is against any type of private ownership of small arms –
Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW)
Small arms include hand guns, pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, grenades, light missiles. Light weapons include heavy machine guns, mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns, and portable launchers of anti-tank missile. The illicit proliferation of SALW poses a grave danger to international security and stability, and threatens the lives of millions around the world every year. Key issues in the combat against SALW include marking, tracing, collecting, and destroying small arms; child soldiers; women and gun violence; trade controls and arms brokers; development and public health. Read more: UN
Will the U.S. one day have those marvelous U.N. peacekeepers patrolling our streets to keep us safe as they do in the Congo and around the world. They themselves are continuously blamed for vicious and unspeakable atrocities, atrocities we have helped fund. Many of these cases have been proven true. Check out YouTube if you don’t believe.
Read about Barack Obama on gun control.
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
Prior small arms treaties have done the following and a new one will undoubtedly do the same –
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans 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.
Now, we have come the present day threat –
The United States has joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference (July 2-27 2012) intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.
Working groups of anti-gun countries are scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The left-wing sites paint anyone who believes the treaty is a threat to the second amendment as “fringe” elements within the population. Remember when Center for American Progress insisted there is no treaty when there obviously is one? Was that a conspiracy theory or a conspiracy?
On July 27th, Barack Obama will sign the small arms treaty. If Obama does not win election, this Senate is perfectly capable of ratifying the treaty in a lameduck session.
Many constitutional lawyers have said that a treaty cannot overrule our constitution and many have said the opposite. There is no clear cut answer and I don’t want our government to sign the treaty to find out what’s in it. If this does supersede our Constitution or is made to do so, only a constitutional amendment will overturn it.
Read more about Barack Obama’s views on gun control: Forbes
Help Rand Paul: NAGR.org
Wayne LaPierre, NRA –
via The Examiner on July 6, 2012
…As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.
Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.
Known as “the U.N. Small Arms Treaty,” the measure would regulate private gun ownership, according to firearms rights watchdog groups…
[Editor’s Notes: At the current time the Senate does not appear to have the requisite votes to pass the treaty but there is another option as stated below.
China and Russia do not appear willing to sign the treaty and they are dealers of illicit arms, so I ask you, Why are we signing this treaty?
The Senate does, however, have enough votes to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty, another treaty that will rob us of our freedoms and cede sovereignty to the U.N.]
The U.S. State Department said on July 6, 2012 that the “United States has made clear that ammunition should not be included within the scope of the ATT [Arms Trade Treaty].”
They also said, “For at least the last year, and in response to repeated pleas that the United States modify its position on ammunition, we have solicited proposals about how ammunition could be included within the scope of an ATT in a way that would be both practical and effective. We have received no substantive responses…”
They continued, …”As the United States has said before, we will continue to listen to any proposals for including ammunition.” They then go on to say the proposals must be realistic and effective.
Update: 7/10/12: Iran has been selected for a key position in the the arms trade treaty (ATT) planning conference position. As absurd as this is, it’s true, so don’t doubt that this treaty is not something we should even be involved with until the U.N. gets serious about who they have in lead positions.
If the treaty is not passed by the Senate but signed by President Obama – and he said he would sign it – we still must abide by it until the Senate vote.
Finally, if it doesn’t pass, Obama can follow it as a “soft treaty” by inflicting it on us through an Executive Order. President Clinton did the same when we did not sign on to the U.N. Agenda 21. Clinton established the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI), by Executive Order. The same thing can happen here with our second amendment rights. [Forbes]
Update: 7/18/12: Click here for further information. I believe Dick Morris is correct. Obama is going for it. He’s going for our guns. The U.S. applauded the U.N.’s new gun confiscation facilities during talks this week.