Posted on 09/20/2012 6:06:39 AM PDT by raptor22
Second Amendment: The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on an Arms Trade Treaty that transcends borders and may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms. Every indication is that the president will sign it.
Like the New Start and Law of the Sea treaties before it, as well as the Kyoto Protocol and Agenda 21, the Arms Trade Treaty being finalized at the U.N. this month is one of those feel-good, can't-we-all-get-along pieces of parchment whose net effect is to accomplish little except to eat away at American sovereignty and freedom. Just as the world's worst human rights violators sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected on Saturday to a top position on the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York. It began July 2 and extends through July 27. This came right after the same U.N. found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to the murderous Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, currently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens as an impotent U.N. joins the U.S. administration in standing around and watching. The mindset of the one-worlders preaches that guns cause crime and war and if we only get rid of those otherwise inanimate objects the evil that lurks in the hearts and minds of men will suddenly dissipate. Then we can buy the world a soft drink and sing "Kumbaya."
We are assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically backs the treaty, that it only deals with international trade and trafficking and does not affect our Second Amendment rights. How the treaty would have dealt with Operation Fast and Furious, the administration program that walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels...
(Excerpt) Read more at tcotblog.ning.com ...
Good... admittedly I cannot decipher the language in Article V (the reason for my suggested amendment).
Treaty trumps state law. Later treaty trumps earlier federal law. Later federal law trumps earlier treaty if it is clear that it is meant to do so.
The way I look at it is that Obama and his administration is has turned out to be Tammany hall on the Federal scale and this treaty is the Sullivan Act.
It’s designed to make the citizens helpless before the criminals, both those wearing uniforms and those wearing gang colors. These guys are in favor of the criminals, not the citizens who get preyed upon from both sides of the legal spectrum.
Maybe we should just refuse to sign treaties and end all these entangling alliances.
Maybe when outraged Americans do worse to the UN and the denizens therein than what the Muzzies did in Cairo and Benghazi to us then this nonsense will stop.
As far as the UN’s people? I want them dead, I want their families dead, I want their Secretariat building burned to the ground.
“Danger Will Robinson, Danger”
If it is just fearmongering I’m all for it.
If this scares enough people into the voting booth to vote for Romney, what’s the problem?
Only to the extent that they do not conflict with the Constitution. A Treaty cannot amend the Constitution (or there'd be treaties all over the place doing just that) and any enforcement attempt should be deemed Unconstitutional by a competent court (and therein lies the problem).
The day may come we’ll have to “use them or lose them”.
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.