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.
“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.
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.
Secession is sounding better all the time
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.