If you own a gun or plan to ever own one, you had better read this.
Obama’s back-door gun control efforts
8 July 2012: The United Nations, with the full
support of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is presently
hammering out the details of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The
conference began on July 2, 2012
and will continue through July 27,
2012, when the U.S.
is expected to be a signatory of the treaty. The conference is being conducted
behind closed doors until the terms of the treaty are released on July 27.
The threat that this treaty poses to national sovereignty and private gun
ownership in the U.S.
is neither an urban legend nor myth, despite what self-proclaimed fact-checking
websites such as the progressively biased fact-check.org assert. It is an
establishment of a multi-national framework that presents a direct assault on
our Constitution.
Even some conservatives
and those on the right of the archaic political spectrum are naively
downplaying the potential threat posed by this treaty, frequently citing the
necessity of ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to take effect.
Considering the less than stellar job of our current elected leaders, their
lack of accountability to the people, and their apparent lack of concern of all
things constitutional, is this really an assertion on which you wish to base
your argument?
Ratification, however, is secondary to becoming a
signatory to the treaty. Becoming a signatory carries its own obligations,
which requires the U.S.
to participate in the treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. That is, we are legally obligated to do nothing to counter or
otherwise interfere with this treaty while ratification is being considered,
regardless how unlikely the prospect of ratification might be.
Therefore, by simply being a signatory, the
Obama/Hillary anti-gun, anti-second amendment position threatens our
constitutional right to possess firearms for hunting or self-defense without
even appearing to be antagonistic to the U.S. Constitution.
The birth
of globalist arms control
The concept of international arms control was
first introduced in 2003 by a small group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Óscar
Arias Sánchez, a politician from Costa
Rica and a board member of the United
Nation’s International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims. The
treaty was first considered by the United Nations in December 2006, at which
time the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89, “Towards an Arms Trade
Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and
transfer of conventional arms.” A total of 153 member nations voted for
the treaty, although the United States
rejected the treaty outright.
The refusal by the U.S.
to become involved in international arms control came to an abrupt halt under
the Obama administration. On October
14, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released a
statement by Barack Hussein Obama that the United
States was overturning the policy of former
President George W. Bush, who believed such matters were best handled within
national borders.
The change of policy quickly breathed new life
into international encroachment on U.S.
sovereignty.
Inside the
Arms Trade Treaty
The stated objective of the Arms Trade Treaty is
to regulate the international trade of “conventional weapons” by
non-governments entities. The purpose, of course, is to reduce weapons
related violence by controlling the small arms trade.
This concept itself is flawed, as the majority of
cross-border conventional arms trade takes place by and between governments,
not individuals. Nonetheless, the treaty targets trade among individuals or
non-government dealers and not governments. Furthermore, the treaty
would hardly be honored or enforced by dictatorships or regimes where such
regulations would best be served.
Proponents of the treaty are also targeting the
sale of ammunition, noting that guns are useless without ammunition.
(un)Intended consequences
Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that
the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the
antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S.
by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed.
While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to
enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of
the advocates of the right to bear arms.
If, however, the U.S. Senate would ratify the
U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the treaty would have the same power as a
constitutional amendment. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution regards
treaties as the law of the land – period. That would open the U.S.
to a global enforcement of international gun registration and even gun bans,
and force the U.S.
to adopt policies of international oversight.
Much like the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian
Terry by a gun permitted to “walk” across the border due to the
Obama/Clinton/Holder Fast & Furious operation, simply becoming a signatory
to the Arms Trade Treaty have consequences as previously noted. We would be
hamstrung and not permitted to do anything to subvert the treaty while it
remains under consideration for ratification.
Either way, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton
and their globalist puppet-masters have placed the United
States gun owners and the sovereignty of our
nation in a precarious position. Their efforts have received scant attention by
the media, while being deliberately mischaracterized by the gun-grabbing
globalists.
HERE IS AN UPDATE.
HERE IS ANOTHER UPDATE
HERE IS AN UPDATE.
No comments:
Post a Comment