Skip to comments.The U.N. is coming for your guns(7/27/2012) Obama admin pushing for global arms control
Posted on 07/09/2012 12:11:28 PM PDT by mikelets456
The United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldnt take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.
This week, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which seeks to establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. The scope of the proposed treaty is vast. It covers tanks, military vehicles, aircraft (including drones), ships, submarines, missiles and ammunition. It seeks to regulate arms import, export, transfer, brokering, manufacture under foreign license and technology transfer. The proposed global regulation instructs countries to take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Good thing it is established precedent that treaties do not supercede the constitution when in direct conflict of the constitution. I don’t even think Roberts could find a way around that one.
Don't worry. Roberts will make it a tax and it will be ok... /sarcasm
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid or read? Or that they're corrupt?
And this is why we have Fast and Furious: to garner support for treaties like this.....
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid to read? Or that they're corrupt?
Unfortunately, Roberts found a way to REDEFINE what a tax is.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. Precedent is far to easily overturned by activist judges.
Agreed. I’d actually like an amendment banning treaties altogether.
There are a number of FReepers who feel that way too. They got on my case during the runup to ObamaTAX.
Now that the Dread Pirate Roberts has made his ruling, they've largely shut up. Funny how that works...
No need to because the Constitution is not subject to subordination to the UN or any other nation regardless of the whims of the UN, Zero, or Hillary. They cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights even though they imply they can. I'll stand by that statement.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
,,,,,,,, from my cold dead fingers maybe . . .
Those things aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive.
THE ONLY HOPE LEFT IS TO TAKE EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICE THERE IS, FROM DOG CATCHER TO PRESIDENT, AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS. Then pass a law making the Democrat Party ILLEGAL!
I'm with you -this is huffing and puffing on the part of mean spirited, but stupid - liberals. They wish they could impose the international crap on us - but they can't...
Don’t think even the stupids in the Senate would ratify that one, and not live in serious fear.
And NO that is not a threat, just an observation so don’t send some fed baboso around for a talk.
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.