Posted on 07/26/2012 5:19:03 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
After last week’s massacre in Colorado, President Obama’s remarks Wednesday night about gun violence were a rare departure for a president who usually steers clear of the subject. Now another gun issue is coming to a head that the president likely would just as soon avoid: the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The treaty, whose final version is due out on Friday, aims to regulate the $60 billion international trade in small arms in an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. But gun owners in the United States are on high alert over concerns that the treaty could undermine their Second Amendment rights.
Advocates of the treaty say that they need not worry. The US Constitution trumps international law, and the treaty will not affect domestic gun ownership, they say. But it’s not clear anything can mollify agitated gun owners, even the signatures of 58 senators on letters circulated by colleagues opposing the treaty. If Mr. Obama were to sign the treaty and send it to the Senate, it would fall far short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification.
Congressional opponents are trying to make sure the treaty never gets to the Senate.
“Disguised as an international arms control treaty to fight against terrorism and international crime syndicates, the UN small arms treaty is in fact a massive, global gun-control scheme,” Rep. Paul Broun (R) of Georgia says in a recorded message distributed Tuesday by the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights.
For many conservatives, the UN arms treaty pushes two hot buttons – the UN, which some fear has the potential to supersede US national sovereignty, and gun rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
From Item 14 of the UN Treaty:
“...conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;...”
Well, the term “conventional” will become as misused as “assault rifle”.
And, “self-defense” is not listed as a reason for ownership.
Although, in court, I would argue that “Self-Defense” is both “cultural and historical”.
“Congressional opponents are trying to make sure the treaty never gets to the Senate.”
Why? There’s no way that this passes the Senate. I’d think that forcing a vote would help in the Senate elections.
Don’t take your boot off their necks, lets have that Senate Vote!
If barack signs this treaty, it carries the weight of law until the senate rejects it. If, the senate never gets to vote on it, it remains the law.
It does not allow the use of guns for self defense.
If you have noticed, European globalists do not permit people to use violence in protection of themselves and our own liberals whine like stuck pigs when a criminal home invader is taken out by the homeowner.
The global media failed to mention the tragedy that the victims of Holmes were not armed to shoot back at him. It will be up to amoral, retarded freaks at the UN to impose their governing and judcial will upon us. This treaty will be a disaster for Americans.
Typical misdirection from the CSM...cannot stand this publication, it reeks of PC.
Get out your pocket Constitution and review.
No treaty is binding, until (and unless) a 2/3rds majority of the US Senate (present) votes to approve it.
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.