Skip to comments.D-Day for Gun Control (STOP the UN Small Arms Treaty)
Posted on 07/12/2012 8:32:04 AM PDT by xzins
Without much fanfare and as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The Treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.
The ATT is nominally to stop international arms sales to gangs, criminals, and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATTs true intent: to force gun control on the United States.
Secretary Clinton will doubtlessly succeed in inserting language into the treaty belying this intent and asserting that the treaty in no way is to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.
The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will assure that parties [to the treaty] small take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.
The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to assure that they do, indeed, take all necessary measures. This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership, and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: After the Treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.
Bolton explains that the Administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldnt get otherwise.
The Treaty makes no sense otherwise except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the U.S. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the nominal focus of the Treaty) are from sales by the governments of the U.S., Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the Treatys regulations.
Insofar as the Treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming illicit groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China.
And lets not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the U.S. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of sixty million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the U.S.)
Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.
And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the U.S.
If it is ratified at the lame duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye Second Amendment.
Right now, we need 34 courageous Republican Senators to stop up and demand that Hillary not sign the Treaty and indicate their intention to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an action can stop this treachery in its tracks.
The UN and anti-gunners are standing at one end of Concord bridge. We stand at the other end. It’s time to fire that first shot and show them we will not allow them to treat us like slaves.
Repeal our Second Amendment rights.
Another gift grom the democrat party,Karl Marx wins again.
Repeal our Second Amendment rights.
Another gift from the democrat party,Karl Marx wins again.
A second American revolution will be the result of all this. Mark my words.
Not this time around Marx will win. I predict hot blowback is going to happen.
58 Senators and nearly 200 congressman have told Obugger to back off on this. Keep putting the pressure on your representatives.
I want to agree with you but it’s astonishing how many people either don’t know or don’t care about protecting what our Forefathers gave to us. The ‘fight’ has been bred out of the average American. This is intentional. History has been rewritten and/or ignored by the schools. We are a nation of robots compliant to big brother.
Karl Marx gets erased this time.
Sure about that?
There is still fight left. It is not all gone.
Stop them now or never.
We will stop it. One way or the other.
Prepare to vote from the rooftops.
“We are a nation of robots compliant to big brother.”
I have a higher opinion of my fellow Americans, noob, or at least of the non-Democrats.
Obama has demonstrated his determination to lose, and now to lose big by throwing himself on the 2nd Amendment “third rail.”
His actions have already lost him the election. All this means is that he loses by a “landslide”.
I’m talking 1984: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1984
The Romney supporters should all take a chill pill. They probably don’t even need our support. The electoral map for Romney will look a lot like the one provided above.
On November 6th we’ll have three former Democratic presidents, all deadwood, all useless carpers & meddlers & burdens on the taxpayers, & all vying for the title “Worst President Ever.”
In case you didn't know, 2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.
@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
2/3 of Congress wasn't there. Those present voted for the ratification. The quorum call was rescinded with no objection.
It doesn't matter if they aren't present when the vote comes up.
So we have the potential of all these "stand up guys" simply not showing up when it comes time to vote and they can then truthfully claim "I was against this treaty".
They need to formalize their intent to object.
It could be ratified due to one person simply not doing their job properly.
I’ve sent letters to Senators Warner and Webb just today. I suspect they’ll not vote to ratify, but I’ll be watching.
Well, maybe Warner is squishy. Here’s the response from him:
Dear Mr. Leatherneck,
Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding a potential United Nations (U.N.) arms trade treaty, which is currently being negotiated at the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in New York City.
The U.N. regularly drafts and proposes treaties on a variety of issues that the United States has the ability to consider as a member of the organization. The dialogue surrounding whether to establish an arms trade treaty is ongoing. Any U.N. treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate to be applicable to the United States. However, U.N. treaties do not trump the United States Constitution.
Regarding Second Amendment rights generally, I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this important issue. I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.
Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
Not once in that letter did Sen Warner state that he would oppose that treaty.
I think this sentence spells it out for you.
No. This is what he said. He sidestepped that this treaty would be part of the supreme law of the land.
THEN he said that he doesn't support laws or regs that infringe on the 2d amendment.
He did not say that he would oppose that treaty. In fact, he left open the possibility that he would support it.