Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Admin,Democratic Party,UN Will Cancel the 2nd Amendment(Pried From My Cold Dead Hands)
Technorati ^ | Jly 12 , 2012 | Edmunk Jenks

Posted on 11/14/2012 8:05:17 AM PST by lbryce


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may prefer “No Labels” but in his case, many feel “gun grabber” is a pretty fitting one. As part of his misguided crusade to tighten up gun laws nationally, The New York Times reports that Hizzoner sent undercover cops to gun shows in Arizona and found they were violating the law. Image Credit: weaselzippers.us

The Obama Administration, The Democrat Political Party, And The UN Will Cancel The 2nd Amendment
Do the words LAME Duck mean anything to you? What does international treaty and its application to the laws of a sovereign country mean to the people of said sovereign country?

Well, the answers to these two questions and the effect on our freedoms here in the United States may have real and serious consequences to our way of life as the Obama Administration, the Democrat political party, and the United Nations seek to curb access to ones self-protection and self-determination here in the United States through a treaty.

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI database, but they must cancel a sale if they have reason to believe the buyer would fail such a review. Image Credit: nashvillescene.com

This excerpted and edited from ConsortiumNews -

Seeking Rules for the World’s Guns By Paul R. Pillar / x-CIA analyst - July 9, 2012

A conference opened last week under the auspices of the United Nations to draft a multilateral treaty aimed at controlling the international trade in conventional arms. Such a treaty potentially could do significant good, although many legitimate questions remain concerning its terms and feasibility.

Neither the good nor the bad is likely to be clarified in public discussion about the treaty within the nation that is the world’s biggest arms exporter and thus the most important player in this process: the United States. We are more likely to hear the sort of ill-informed debate that too often has characterized treatment of multilateral conventions, as we have seen most recently with the law of the sea treaty.

ublished: July 10, 2012 at 6:41 am

The background of the prospective arms-trade treaty being discussed in New York should make politicization of the issue in the United States unsurprising. A resolution of the U.N. General Assembly intended to advance the subject in 2006 passed with 153 states in favor, twenty-four abstentions and a vote against by the United States. Three years later, the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty.

That debate has already taken place in the United States on the prospective treaty, and has featured some of the same infringement-of-sovereignty notions that were heard in opposing ratification of the law of the sea convention. In the case of the prospective arms-trade treaty, the National Rifle Association has been out in front with warnings about how the treaty supposedly would circumvent the Second Amendment.

Some of the legitimate reasons to raise doubts about an arms-trade treaty concern its effectiveness — and its effect on the arms balances in local conflicts — given the extent of gray-market arms dealing outside the control of governments that would be parties to the treaty.

Other legitimate concerns involve the inevitable differences of view in trying to develop criteria for proscribing or limiting arms transfers and in applying any such criteria consistently in different areas of conflict. One man’s contribution to local security is another man’s stoking of regional instability.

Informed debate about these and other legitimate concerns is likely to be less prominent than ill-informed statements about such things as taking away the people’s right to bear arms. The fact that the conference in New York is scheduled to conclude its work near the end of this month — amid a U.S. presidential election campaign — will make the subject ripe for the crasser forms of politicization.

On U.S. insistence, the rules of the conference provide that unanimity is required for a draft treaty to emerge directly from it.

That will repeat the experiences of the law of the sea convention and the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, with all the uncertainties of the United States not being a party to a major element of otherwise widely accepted international law. If that happens, among those likely to be disappointed will be American arms exporters, who look favorably on an arms-trade treaty as a way of standardizing the many different national rules with which they now have to deal.

What this means, even though this former CIA analyst feels that the United States will not sign on to any treaty placed in front of it by the United Nations, is that world powers are desperate to find a way to control the freedom of access to firearms through "standardizing the many different national rules" worldwide regardless of their intent.

Again, "the Obama administration reversed its predecessor’s opposition and announced its support for negotiating the treaty" and we all know what that means to the average American citizen, the United States Constitution, and the desire by the progressive political class to apply CONTROL over the majority who believe that rights outlined by the 2nd Amendment are valid and unalterable.

Remember what happened with transparency during the healthcare debate in this country? Remember how most American citizens felt about the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills and the results to our opposition to the expansion of government spending (an additional 6 Trillion dollars of debt and NO BUDGET in only 3.5 years)?

One of the main protections and rights outlined in the United States Constitution is about to be sold down the river in a "bow" to the world through a treaty put together by political progressives in the United Nation.

Here, during Carter's Second Term, to be clear - The Obama Administration, the Democratic party, and the United Nations are teeing up to essentially cancel our 2nd Amendment rights through the signing of an international treaty during the lame duck session (after the November 2012 election) of Congress.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; bhofascism; bloodoftyrants; cwii; democrats; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guerrillawarfare; guncontrol; guns; liberalism; liberals; molonlabe; obama; progressives; rapeofliberty; rule308; secondamendment; socialistdemocrats; treason; tyranny; un; unitednations; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
It makes sense from the left-wing liberal perspective, with the newly reelected President feeling omnipotent, the cancelling of the Second Amendment would be their likely goal. Under this scenario, all gun-owners will be given a dead-line in which to bring their guns and give them up voluntarily in line with the new law. The response will be near universal, the refrain of millions of gun-owners will be telling the authorities the same story that's been told for years;
Want my gun? Sure. Pry it from my cold dead hands.

1 posted on 11/14/2012 8:05:23 AM PST by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

CANX the Second Amendment? I can’t see the required number of States going along with that amendment to the Constitution.


2 posted on 11/14/2012 8:10:33 AM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

BTTT for future reading...


3 posted on 11/14/2012 8:11:07 AM PST by bayliving (I suffer from democrat induced tourette syndrome...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
People need to understand what it is exactly Obama is doing by going to the UN rather than congress to come after our guns.

HE IS INVITING A FOREIGN INVASION, because he knows we won't give them up.

4 posted on 11/14/2012 8:11:36 AM PST by SENTINEL (Election 2012....One more false prophecy by FLDS/LDS "prophet" Joseph Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf

Why not? States gave up their right to vote via the 17th.


5 posted on 11/14/2012 8:12:24 AM PST by Crazieman (Are you naive enough to think VOTING will fix this entrenched system?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
They will certainly try...

And in the present configuration of US Politics....
They will pull out all the stops...

They will not succeed--- not even close

Amending the Constitution is a mammoth undertaking....
And with 30 Republican governors taking their seats....
... NOPE!

So they decide a "work-around" with the UN treaty....
...or some other outside-in capitulation of sovereignty...
... perhaps cession of Constitutional authority to some nefarious outside "agency"

I still say -- NOPE!

Pretty sure "We the People..."
...Will prevail in the preservation of our Constitution and national sovereignty

My humble only.... thx

6 posted on 11/14/2012 8:15:17 AM PST by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Get a grip everyone. No treaty can userp the Bill of Rights.
Period.


7 posted on 11/14/2012 8:20:21 AM PST by guardian_of_liberty (We must bind the Government with the Chains of the Constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf
They will come after ammunition. No ammo, no shootie.

Col. Travis during the battle of the Alamo...pulled his saber from the scabbard and drew a line in the sand.

Give up your weapons, so too goes your freedom.

So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?

8 posted on 11/14/2012 8:20:32 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: guardian_of_liberty
Do you really think this will stop them? They are already ignoring the plain text of the Constitution.

You standing around with your fingers in your ears will slow them down not one iota...

9 posted on 11/14/2012 8:23:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SENTINEL
>>HE IS INVITING A FOREIGN INVASION,<<

Oh my gosh...couldn't we only hope! Not sure round your parts, but here in the republic, foreign invaders will have their @$$e$ handed to them.

Love to see a foreign force traipse through the bayous of Louisiana, Piny Woods of Texas, Smokey mountains of Eastern Tennessee/NC.

Heck, while they are at it, comprise their U.N. force of multiple muzzie nations to boot.

10 posted on 11/14/2012 8:26:02 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

11 posted on 11/14/2012 8:28:39 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ('Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
If they want them,they can have them.

Barrel-end first.

Molon Labe,baby!
12 posted on 11/14/2012 8:29:56 AM PST by gimme1ibertee (When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

“So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?”

I honestly believe that there will be some kind of “manufactured” national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control. This will of course lead to tighter and tighter restrictions until eventually, the people who are pro-freedom will be in such a minority that the gov’t will feel emboldened enough to completely ban all/most firearms. Then the gov’t will be free to label those with guns as “terrorists” and there will be Gitmo type gulags all over this country.


13 posted on 11/14/2012 8:30:32 AM PST by gop4lyf (Socialism is the political dream of the unachiever, the excuse maker, and the lazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf
Kind of a stretch, but what the heck, just as valid as my lil ol pinion.

Obozo could draw up an executive order tomorrow that would institute an assault weapons ban. Limit mag capacity, limit amount of weapons purchases per month, ban online ammo sales and institute a stiff tax on all guns and ammo.

This, he could do...immediately. Seeing as executive orders have a shelf life, they would work through the U.N. and or congress to craft legislation or treaty (via U.N.) crippling the private gun industry worldwide.

Lastly, Obozo certainly has his eye on the supreme court. Yet one more avenue to ensure an enduring war on the 2nd amendment.

Not a pretty picture from where I sit.

14 posted on 11/14/2012 8:40:09 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Our rights come from God, no man can “cancel” them. One could only “cancel” humans that believe in God. They are more than welcome to come try to cancel me. I’ll take as many as I can with me.


15 posted on 11/14/2012 8:45:54 AM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

I honestly believe that there will be some kind of “manufactured” national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control.


You could be right, the question that comes to me is this. What kind of tragedy could be so BIG and so Mind and Opinion changing to convince the population to go along with the repeal of the 2nd amendment?

Bigger than the weekly slaughter that happens in Chicago or any of the big cities? An assassination plot? We’ve had those too and they couldn’t get their gun control.

There really is a reason that the country is arming, just remember that.


16 posted on 11/14/2012 8:51:37 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777
Love to see a foreign force traipse through the bayous of Louisiana, Piny Woods of Texas, Smokey mountains of Eastern Tennessee/NC.

Uh huh.


17 posted on 11/14/2012 8:54:12 AM PST by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: guardian_of_liberty

No law can suspend habeas corpus, yet, NDAA 2012 does. They just have to call you an “Enemy Combatant” first.

Eminent Domain is for the government to build roads, bridges, and federal installation and not for suspending private property rights; yet, the Supreme Court said it does. The government can take your property to sell, give away, collect more taxes, whatever, for any reason at any time.

The Constitution does not give the federal government power to tell you what to or not to buy. Yet, the Supreme Court said they can. They just have to call it “taxation” first.

If you don’t think treaties are made law then you need to read up on our DOT (Department of transportation) rules and regulations, they are UN driven.

They don’t need to simply set aside the 2nd, they only need to regulate it out of practical use.


18 posted on 11/14/2012 8:58:37 AM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

To create a situation to suspend firearm possession is real simple: Use noise. Marxists always use noise. It goes like this: Create the treaty to regulate “unlawful” international firearms sales and “dangerous weapons”. Regulate “Assault Weapons” as “Dangerous Weapons”. Let some yahoo someplace like Texas or North Carolina fail to turn in their AR-15 or AK-47. Let the local police handle the manner knowing violence may result. Once violence results, add in the National Guard, just a few soldiers. Let them come under attack then claim the UN has a special force under the treaty that has been specifically trained to handle this type of situation. They arrive to more upset and noisy people. Before you know it, even more UN troops must arrive to handle those situations. Make constant press releases about this violent person/group and that one and keep reassuring the American people that Obama has it all under control but there is so much hate and violence which proves the gun treaty is warranted.

In all that resulting noise people till forget just who started what. Half this nation will be all for the treaty and the gun confiscations and the UN presence.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 9:04:30 AM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I can see your scenario happening. So perhaps can others and have plans to counter them.


20 posted on 11/14/2012 9:10:21 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

“So perhaps can others and have plans to counter them.”

Which is why all the gun and ammo buying and the prepping you hear about. Millions are preparing for the day this type of thing happens and for when it doesn’t go so smoothly as the liberals think it will.


21 posted on 11/14/2012 9:16:16 AM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: guardian_of_liberty
No treaty can userp the Bill of Rights.

Here's what the Constitution says in Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Can a treaty trump the Second Amendment? I don't think so, but then I'm not an America-hating leftist judge either.

22 posted on 11/14/2012 11:09:22 AM PST by Max in Utah (A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Secession is sounding better all the time


23 posted on 11/14/2012 11:27:22 AM PST by rurgan (give laws an expiration date:so the congress has to review every 4 years to see if needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
No law can suspend habeas corpus, yet, NDAA 2012 does.

Not so:

US Constitutiona, Art I, Section. 9, P2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Eminent Domain is for the government to build roads, bridges, and federal installation and not for suspending private property rights; yet, the Supreme Court said it does. The government can take your property to sell, give away, collect more taxes, whatever, for any reason at any time.

Ah, good old Kelo. [/sarc]
The funny thing is that it would be EASY to reverse it: simply use it as reasoning to seize the real property of the Justices and see how quickly they would reverse it.

The Constitution does not give the federal government power to tell you what to or not to buy. Yet, the Supreme Court said they can. They just have to call it “taxation” first.
If you don’t think treaties are made law then you need to read up on our DOT (Department of transportation) rules and regulations, they are UN driven.
They don’t need to simply set aside the 2nd, they only need to regulate it out of practical use.

Good points.

24 posted on 11/15/2012 9:42:04 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”

Except the 2012 NDAA doesn’t require invasion or rebellion. It simply requires the federal government to deem a person a target.


25 posted on 11/15/2012 12:26:14 PM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

“Secession is sounding better all the time”

How about we simply stay together as the 50 States may desire and kick the federal government to the crub? Sure, not all 50 want to remain together and that’s their choice but I personally like the union and believe we simply need to get control of this federal government and many State governments.


26 posted on 11/15/2012 12:32:07 PM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
>>“Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”
>
>Except the 2012 NDAA doesn’t require invasion or rebellion. It simply requires the federal government to deem a person a target.

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a conspiracy-theory type article I was reading which essentially claimed that some act (War Powers Act?) labeled the inhabitants of the US as enemies (argument that the civil war let the federal gov't conquer the States, thereby depriving the state-citizen of any rights)... if that is at all true, then We The People are the invasion, and asserting your rights (or state rights) is rebellion.

27 posted on 11/15/2012 4:56:53 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Sounds like a conspiracy. What does bother is that the government can decide under various laws what an “enemy combatant” is or who is deemed hostile and warrants detention. It is an open ended decription.


28 posted on 11/15/2012 8:18:06 PM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf; servantboy777

Just a reminder that we were discussing what it would take to get Obama, Holder and the other Gun-grabbers the excuse to eliminate the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns.

It looks that they are going to open up with the Newtown Ct. School tragedy.


29 posted on 12/16/2012 6:49:39 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson