Why is it that no one is talking about the proposed United Nations firearms treaty? If enacted, and ratified by our DemonRAT controlled Senate, it would:
1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. Override our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
To oppose this effort, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) has introduced legislation to prevent any arms treaty from infringing the right to keep and bear arms in this country. The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S. 2205, introduced March 19, 2012, would prohibit the administration from using “the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials.”
I encourage my fellow FRiends to voice their support of Senator Moran’s bill to their state senators.
The hell it would.
You can't abrogate whole sections of the Constitution by treaty. Every L1 student knows that.
And in case Obozo thinks he can make it stick, he has got a super-ugly education coming to him.
"Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other." -- Franklin
That includes Harvard-educated, or should I say "passed-through", hothouse babies like Obozo.
Logically speaking the Constitution CANNOT give authority greater than itself; as the right to Life (and Liberty) are given by a greater authority (and recognized in the Declaration of Independence) the absolute *MOST* that a treaty can do is remove the [legal] guarantee of firearms; if this happens, how long do you think it will be before someone is killed over it?
Or, even more interestingly, how many states would issue warrants for the arrests of any of the signatories (or yea votes)?
How many states would declare that to be treason? (and perhaps hold trials for the people in absentia?)
If you want a civil war, that route’s almost guaranteed to bring it; and the funny thing is, when there’s civil war the opposing leadership can be killed. I think our ruling-class is too afraid to risk it, once there’s a breach in the pressure-chamber the whole structural integrity is compromised... no, what they want is everyone in a state of inaction. that is why they want us to feel like noting we do matters.
I like Moran’s bill, but it’s not necessary. All of this UN treaty talk sounds like fund-raising rhetoric to me.
The chances of such a treaty ever being ratified are slim to none, and slim left town.
Politicians want to get re-elected, and voting for gun control is political suicide.