| Obama Can Take Your Guns with UN Treaty |
|
|
|
| by Tom McGregor | Fri, May 28, 2010, 12:23 PM |
|
The Obama administration announced this week its support for the UN Small Arms Treay. This international agreement poses as a grave danger for freedom for both in the United States and around the globe by making it more strenuous - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms. According to the Washington Times, "the U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife with individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to 'prevent, combat and erradicate' various classes of guns to undermine 'the illicit trade in small arms.' Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms." This may appear as reasonable solution for governments that don't trust their citizens, yet it represents a dictatorial disregard for the safety and freedom of all U.S. citizens. Not all insurgencies are evil, first of all. As U.S. history reveals, one method of destroying a despotic regime is to revolt against it. That is the very reason why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone, enforce strict gun control laws. As reported by the Washington Times, "the U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Ammendment are real today as ever." To read the entire article from the Washington Times, link here: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (22)
...
written by Nathan Y. , May 28, 2010 It's important for the US to sign onto this treaty because a) the US is the world's most powerful country and any treaty it doesn't sign is basically pointless b) it's been documented ad nauseam that US arms manufacturers have profited handsomely by selling small arms to third world countries embroiled in civil war, sometimes even selling to both sides of the conflict. The US will have to curtail "the illicit sale of firearms". How does this conflict with the legal selling of firearms for Americans to purchase. I'm not under the impression that I can reason with the NRA gun nuts, but I have to try.
...
written by Michael J. , May 28, 2010 "I'm not under the impression that I can reason with the NRA gun nuts, but I have to try." I just love the way he segues into an ad hominem attack. It certainly lends credibility to his argument.
...
written by furrpiece , May 29, 2010 First of all, the AK-47 is the most popular weapon in the world. Russia has used them in foreign policy for decades, and has made incalculable amounts of money from them. The United States generally makes higher quality arms, and since before 1776, was manufacturing and selling quality firearms at home and abroad. That we do it well, and make a profit, is something for which to be thankful and proud. It's a genuine homegrown American industry predating our revolution. Second, I do not believe Obama can sign a treaty that violates the U.S. Constitution, and certainly not without Senate confirmation. I see it as being highly unlikely that the Senate would ratify such a treaty, and the political hellfire Obama would face would be worse than anything yet to date. Besides, Obama has already disarmed us enough.
...
written by Terry Galbreath , May 29, 2010 Nathan - Before you try to take on the "gun nuts" - read a little history - read about the numerous nations that succumbed to dictators when their firt move is to outlaw guns. We have the 2nd amendment clearly to be able to maintain a government of and for the people. It is haw we became a nation. If you think that another American revolution could not happen, you are wrong. Most Americans realize that gun owenership by citizens it what keeps us free. Please read your history - find out how and why wars, in particular civil wars, get started. Crime is but one small part of the gun issue - at the basic level, it allows citizens to make sure the government does not take away the freedoms they have fought for. After the guns are gone, then dictators move to kill the other freedoms - the press, the ballot, search and seizure, everything. Guns DID make America free. It is basic history. It will be guns, in the hands of citizens, that keep it free.
...
written by Dr. Little , May 29, 2010 How much more of this monkey business do we have to endure? Why won't someone in the federal government put a stop to this by unmasking BAHAMA as the non-citizen that he is? And why in the devil are we in the U.N. ? It is nothing but a problem for America; and a great help mate to commies and bad guys all over the world.
...
written by Ken Dickson , May 29, 2010 Nathan, you call us who follow the Constitution, Gun Nuts! What do you call yourself? A nation who disarms its citizens, will lose everything!
...
written by Left Coast Conservative , May 29, 2010 It is settled law that treaties, even if ratified, do NOT take precedence over the U.S. Constitution. This entire article is FUD
...
written by Booner , May 29, 2010 Neither the NRA nuts, nor the freedom of speech nuts can be reasoned with. May it always be so.
...
written by rivervalleyconservative , May 29, 2010 Yes Booner it must always be so. The constitution gives us those rights. America exists due in part to those rights. Without them we might as well be the USSR or Iran.
...
written by bogart21 , May 29, 2010 Booner, there is no such thing as freedom of speech nuts. Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't. If you think anyone who loves freedom is a nut; you are in the wrong country. There are many more of us then there are of you. Many of us are willing to die fighting for what we believe, are you? It is better to die a free man then live as a slave and a coward.
...
written by Cogitator , May 31, 2010 If the rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be signed away by signing a treaty, the Constitution is, and always was meaningless. So no matter how you feel about the individual's right to possess firearms, you should be concerned if the Constitution takes second place to a treaty.
...
written by Jason Calley , June 01, 2010 Left Coast Conservative says: "It is settled law that treaties, even if ratified, do NOT take precedence over the U.S. Constitution." Please correct me if I am wrong, (an example would be nice) but I think that the Supreme Court has ruled that treaties have the same legal status as Constitutional Amendments. Personally, I think the SC is 100% wrong on that, but you can bet that that is the way that the Federal government will try to interpret it. Look, let's be honest here. The Federals do not and will not be bound by the law, whatever the law says. If they have not taken your arms yet, it is ONLY because they do not think they can get away with it. The writen law will not stop them, and neither honor nor principles will deter them. What does that leave us?
...
written by Joseph M. Revesz , June 01, 2010 The Constitution trumps a treaty. Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 289 (1902).
...
written by Jason Calley , June 01, 2010 Hey Joe, you say: "The Constitution trumps a treaty. Terlinden v. Ames." I just read the summary, and it sure does not look like it says "the Constitution trumps a treaty." Instead it says that in this case, the treaty to extradite Mr. Terlinden was no longer in force and thus could not be used to extradite him to Germany. I do not mean this to be picky, but did you even read the summary? If I am missing something, I am sure you can point it out. Again, remember, I am of the certain conviction that the Constitution ought to overule any treaty. I do not even think it is legal for the Federals to approve a treaty that contradicts the Constitution. What we are discussing is whether the Supreme Court has ruled that way or have ruled that treaties overule the Constitution. Thanks!
...
written by Joe Revesz , June 02, 2010 It's not in the headnotes either and may be dictum, but I'm satisfied it's the law. You have to look at the statement of Mr. Justice Taney at the jump cite.
...
written by Joe B , June 02, 2010 "the U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year" I wonder how many deaths are caused at the hands of GOVERNMENT guns every year? Yea - probably a lot more than that.
...
written by Booner , June 02, 2010 The case actually says, at page 289, per Mr. Justice Taney, that a treaty provision that violates the Constitution is invalid. In other words, the Constitution trumps a treaty.
...
written by Jason Calley , June 02, 2010 Hey Booner, thanks for the page citation. That helps a bunch. Looks like the Terlinden v. Ames case was quoting Justice Taney (who, by the way was the Justice for the Dred Scott case) from an 1853 decision. The good news is that, that means as late as 1902 (the time of the Terlinden case) that the courts still knew that yes, the Constitution does in fact over ride any treaty. If you get a chance (and have the desire) check out http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/treaty.txt The author quotes several later cases where the court says that treaties can over ride both state law, and the Tenth Amendment restriction on Federal powers. Personally, I am saddened to think that the Federals will seize on any argument, no matter how twisted, to increase their power, regardless of the clear meaning of the Constitution. I do not trust today's Courts to follow either Justice Taney or the Constitution. Thanks again for the page reference!
...
written by steve g , June 03, 2010 You know what? When the government tries to take our guns, via some international treaty, I believe that THAT will be the event that will force gun owners to finally have to stand up, and show why indeed we have a second amendment.
...
written by Erin , June 04, 2010 Nathan, China has had no problem selling small arms to warlords, including drug lords in Mexico. China does not care what the UN says or thinks, and this worthless "treaty" will only disarm law abiding citizens. As with every other anti-gun law, warlords and criminals will simply ignore it.
...
written by Montana Man , September 14, 2010 Here is Montana we don't need the permission of the government to carry our handguns, even concealed. We look forward to the Federal government coming to our door and demanding our guns. Let them try!!! As far you Texans are cocerned, I understand that Texas has the right to withdraw from the Union whenever thsy want. It might just come to that all over the country.... Obama you had better enjoy your days in office, because re-election is totally out of the question!!!!! Write comment
|
|
Gun owners are protected under the auspices of the Second Ammendment of the United States Constitution, but their rights are not protected when President Barack Obama becomes a signatory of a United Nations' treaty on global gun-control restrictions.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
