Posted on 06/15/2011 12:42:05 PM PDT by justlittleoleme
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
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. In short, overriding 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
The Democrats, Obama, and Hillary are pushing this one. Republicans better try to block this in the Senate and if the Dems in the Senate know whats good for them, they will block it too.
1. Nukes are an entirely different class of weapon. They are weapons of mass destruction.
2. The gubment could no more use those on an American city or town than it could anywhere else in the world. It is a very silly argument.
How about a fully functional carrier battle group if I could afford one? The logic of the 2nd amendment says that if I could afford a fully battle ready carrier battle group, the only reason the gubment could not take it away from me is because I had a fully functional carrier battle group.
The problem with you is you don't like the second amendment. Don't be mad at me because I tell you what it is designed to do.
So as I said, plenty of Freepers don't like the 2nd amendment. You I will count as one of those.
Amen, Brother.
Semper Fi.
Yes my opinion, never said it was from a study or factual. Just like your comment an opinion.
They will probably do it at the same time they take your guns, gov is lazy they will not want to make two trips.
How many of the officers will disobey a direct order, not many.
Who knows what they will do when it hits that stage.
“The problem with you is you don’t like the second amendment.”
No, I think the second amendment is the backbone of the Constitution. I also happen to think that no, you nor anyone else should be allowed to own a carrier battle group.
Or a LAW rocket.
Or a .50 cal automatic, with or without tripod.
Or a grenade.
As I said, you don’t like the 2nd amendment.
Lexington and Concord were about large bore crew served military weapons. Not sporting arms.
Don’t tell me you respect the 2nd amendment when you reject the very premise on which is was founded.
Keep arms. That means I can buy arms, and keep arms. Bear arms. That means I can have them on my person.
Let me ask you again. Should I be required to have a permit or a license of some kind to drive to the grocery store with a revolver in my belt?
Should the government be “allowed” to tell me that I cannot have a fully auto m-4 carbine in the tool box of my pickup truck? When you read the enumerated powers of the constitution where do you see the power to tell me what kind of weapon I can have or can’t have?
The feds use the commerce clause. But they use commerce clause for everything imaginable.
“Should I be required to have a permit or a license of some kind to drive to the grocery store with a revolver in my belt?”
Should convicted felons be allowed to own firearms?
“Should the government be “allowed” to tell me that I cannot have a fully auto m-4 carbine in the tool box of my pickup truck?”
No, they shouldn’t have that power.
Convicted Felons. Our government is a felon factory. So I am no longer sure about my position on that.
The States have no constitutional restriction on this issue.
So I don’t see the connection between the question on whether or not I can carry open or concealed and the felon issue. They are not connected.
The connection is, is YOU can carry open (a right which I do support) and the government has zero authority to regulate the practice, what is keeping a convicted felon from doing the same thing? I mean, It’s not forbidden in the Bill of Rights, is it?
I can only carry it if I apply for a permit. Last time I checked a permit is asking permission.
the Bill of Rights says nothing about a permit. Most places in This Land of Liberty, if I were to walk around with a revolver in my belt the Police would shoot me first, then ask for my permit.
That is WRONG WRONG WRONG!
If the Police think I am a felon carrying a weapon, they must have probable cause, then get a warrant.
“Lexington and Concord were about large bore crew served military weapons. Not sporting arms.”
Right you are.
If I recall history correctly, Col. Moultrie and his 1st and 2nd South Carolina battalions, who defended Charleston from the British fleet on Sullivan’s Island in June, 1776, hauled his personal 9 and 12 pound cannons from his barn and used them to blast the enemy frigates from the fort’s palmetto ramparts. More than 250 British were killed, while Moultrie’s battalions suffered minimum casualties.
Sometimes, large weapons are needed.
That was the intent of the second amendment. Yet today EVERYTHING concerning the distribution and sale, design, function and ownership of weapons is regulated.
It is so far from the intent of the 2nd Amendment as to be laughable.
“Yet today EVERYTHING concerning the distribution and sale, design, function and ownership of weapons is regulated.”
Which is why every American should know where the nearest federal armory is located in their neighborhood and what’s contained therein...
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.