Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama To Sign Anti-Second Amendment U.N. Small ArmsTreaty Gun Grab?
True Conservatives On Twitter ^ | September 20, 2012

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol; gungrab; ibd; nra; rtba; rtkna; secondamendment; smallarms; smallarmstreaty; un; unitednations

1 posted on 09/20/2012 6:06:44 AM PDT by raptor22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raptor22

If Hitlery and the Kenyan Klown are for it, its definitely bad for the rest of us.


2 posted on 09/20/2012 6:11:56 AM PDT by Adder (No Mo BO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Treaties do not supercede the US Constituion. This will be of no effect on our KBA rights.


3 posted on 09/20/2012 6:13:35 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
"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."

It certainly doesn't take a treaty to accomplish that. We could simply sign an accord to cooperate in these efforts.

4 posted on 09/20/2012 6:14:23 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Not only that, but it will mean nothing if not ratified.


5 posted on 09/20/2012 6:15:13 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Treaties that are ratified by the Senate do indeed become the law of the land.

That said, the Senate isn’t going to ratify anything like this.


6 posted on 09/20/2012 6:16:01 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Unless Obama has DHS put that additional 200 million rounds of ammo to use...


7 posted on 09/20/2012 6:18:15 AM PDT by TheBattman (Isn't the lesser evil... still evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I don’t obey anything the useless UN says. Come on, knock on my door, you blue helmeted thugs. I dare you.


8 posted on 09/20/2012 6:23:06 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Click on image to download PDF file of poster.

9 posted on 09/20/2012 6:27:18 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GnL

It wouldn’t be “blue helmeted thugs” coming knocking. It would be your local police department, “just doing their jobs,” “just following orders,” “just enforcing the law,” and “just protecting their jobs, benefits, and pensions.”


10 posted on 09/20/2012 6:28:46 AM PDT by Liberty Ship ("Lord, make me fast and accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel; SoothingDave
You're both right: here's Article Vi, paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

"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."

Treaties are on equal footing with the Constitution: that said, there would undoubtedly be a huge court fight were this treaty to become ratified, because there are certainly conflicts between Amendment 2 and this piece of UN crap.

As we all know, the liberals want to 'back door' their agendas via treaty... in my opinion, we need a new Constitutional amendment that provides US citizens (however THAT term might be defined now) with protection vis-a-vis language that sez "no provision of any treaty made with any foreign powers, interests, or sovereign nation shall be construed to interfere or subvert any provision of the Constitution of the United States of America."

11 posted on 09/20/2012 6:34:37 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

The Constitutional position would be that the treaty would be an illegal modification to the 2nd Amendment in violation of Article 5.


12 posted on 09/20/2012 6:44:17 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Why Obama might NOT sign it:
- risk losing any gun-owning Democrats left in his camp
- risk giving Romney any campaign ad material
- risk enforcing the treaty and sparking a domestic incident

Why Obama might sign it:
- rally his pro-UN and pro-gun control Base
- spin the treaty as somehow showing international leadership and keeping America safe
- try to spark a domestic response from Tea Party extremists in order to justify [fill in the blank]

13 posted on 09/20/2012 6:50:25 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

“the Arms Trade Treaty* being finalized at the U.N......”

*See American Indian


14 posted on 09/20/2012 6:56:29 AM PDT by CrazyIvan (Obama's birth certificate was found stapled to Soros's receipt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Like HELL it is “feel-good, can’t-we-all-get-along pieces of parchment...”

The document is designed to protect empower GOVERNMENTS at the expense of the private citizen’s freedom and safety.


15 posted on 09/20/2012 7:05:09 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
WHAT!? The "American Hunter", NRA's magazine, this month has an article saying the UN treaty on arms was defeated. I heard the same thing on GunTalk, from a guy with an international RKBA organization.

What gives here? Is somebody just scaremongering?

Plus, Obama can sign his dirty toilet paper if he wants, but it won't pass the Senate.

16 posted on 09/20/2012 7:18:32 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (My game is disruption. I will use lethal force --my vote-- in self-defense against Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

“Treaties that are ratified by the Senate do indeed become the law of the land.”

But not if they are in violation of the existing Constitution. That is settled law.


17 posted on 09/20/2012 7:20:37 AM PDT by CodeToad (Be Prepared...They Are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
The first blue helmet that shows up at my door is a dead man.


18 posted on 09/20/2012 7:22:42 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
"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."

Treaties are on equal footing with the Constitution

No, they are not. They may be on an equal footing with federal law. The ranking, as per the above, is

(1) US Constitution

(2) Federal law and treaties

(3) State Constitutions

(4) State law.

The part about "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" refers only to STATE constitutions, not the federal constitution.

19 posted on 09/20/2012 7:23:09 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Charlie Daniels - Payback Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwTJj_nosI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Good... admittedly I cannot decipher the language in Article V (the reason for my suggested amendment).


21 posted on 09/20/2012 7:25:48 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme court ruled on the subject.

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.

22 posted on 09/20/2012 7:28:07 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Charlie Daniels - Payback Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwTJj_nosI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

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.


23 posted on 09/20/2012 7:28:44 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

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.


24 posted on 09/20/2012 7:29:29 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

“Danger Will Robinson, Danger”


25 posted on 09/20/2012 7:30:49 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

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?


26 posted on 09/20/2012 7:32:31 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Treaties that are ratified by the Senate do indeed become the law of the land.

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).

27 posted on 09/20/2012 7:33:00 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Taranto: "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

The day may come we’ll have to “use them or lose them”.


28 posted on 09/20/2012 10:25:46 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson