[familyop]

"The UN agenda is to push countries to adopt a universally binding treaty that would supersede our U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment."

No. Such a treaty would not "supersede our U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment," although foreign false allies and domestic posers wish that we would believe it. Such misinformation will not be a problem, though, because after the defaults to come, there will be plenty of job openings for house mice.

[ApplegateRanch]

No. Such a treaty would not "supersede our U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment,"

Thank you.

It "only" took 40 posts to get to the Constitutional answer.

Treaties are "Law of the Land" WITH, not above, provisions of the Constitution; in cases of conflict, the Constitution trumps the treaty provisions.

If it takes 40 posts on a Conservative BBS, where the participants are presumably knowledgeable concerning the Founding Documents, history, politics, and civics, to find the fallacy of the article posted, what does that say about the rest of the population?