Skip to comments.Obama Admin,Democratic Party,UN Will Cancel the 2nd Amendment(Pried From My Cold Dead Hands)
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 Worlds 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 worlds 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 predecessors 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 mans contribution to local security is another mans 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 peoples 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 predecessors 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.
CANX the Second Amendment? I can’t see the required number of States going along with that amendment to the Constitution.
BTTT for future reading...
HE IS INVITING A FOREIGN INVASION, because he knows we won't give them up.
Why not? States gave up their right to vote via the 17th.
And in the present configuration of US Politics....
They will pull out all the stops...
They will not succeed--- not even close
Amending the Constitution is a mammoth undertaking....
And with 30 Republican governors taking their seats....
So they decide a "work-around" with the UN treaty....
...or some other outside-in capitulation of sovereignty...
... perhaps cession of Constitutional authority to some nefarious outside "agency"
I still say -- NOPE!
Pretty sure "We the People..."
...Will prevail in the preservation of our Constitution and national sovereignty
My humble only.... thx
Get a grip everyone. No treaty can userp the Bill of Rights.
Col. Travis during the battle of the Alamo...pulled his saber from the scabbard and drew a line in the sand.
Give up your weapons, so too goes your freedom.
So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?
You standing around with your fingers in your ears will slow them down not one iota...
Oh my gosh...couldn't we only hope! Not sure round your parts, but here in the republic, foreign invaders will have their @$$e$ handed to them.
Love to see a foreign force traipse through the bayous of Louisiana, Piny Woods of Texas, Smokey mountains of Eastern Tennessee/NC.
Heck, while they are at it, comprise their U.N. force of multiple muzzie nations to boot.
“So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?”
I honestly believe that there will be some kind of “manufactured” national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control. This will of course lead to tighter and tighter restrictions until eventually, the people who are pro-freedom will be in such a minority that the gov’t will feel emboldened enough to completely ban all/most firearms. Then the gov’t will be free to label those with guns as “terrorists” and there will be Gitmo type gulags all over this country.
Obozo could draw up an executive order tomorrow that would institute an assault weapons ban. Limit mag capacity, limit amount of weapons purchases per month, ban online ammo sales and institute a stiff tax on all guns and ammo.
This, he could do...immediately. Seeing as executive orders have a shelf life, they would work through the U.N. and or congress to craft legislation or treaty (via U.N.) crippling the private gun industry worldwide.
Lastly, Obozo certainly has his eye on the supreme court. Yet one more avenue to ensure an enduring war on the 2nd amendment.
Not a pretty picture from where I sit.
Our rights come from God, no man can “cancel” them. One could only “cancel” humans that believe in God. They are more than welcome to come try to cancel me. I’ll take as many as I can with me.
I honestly believe that there will be some kind of manufactured national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control.
You could be right, the question that comes to me is this. What kind of tragedy could be so BIG and so Mind and Opinion changing to convince the population to go along with the repeal of the 2nd amendment?
Bigger than the weekly slaughter that happens in Chicago or any of the big cities? An assassination plot? We’ve had those too and they couldn’t get their gun control.
There really is a reason that the country is arming, just remember that.
No law can suspend habeas corpus, yet, NDAA 2012 does. They just have to call you an Enemy Combatant first.
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.
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 dont 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.
To create a situation to suspend firearm possession is real simple: Use noise. Marxists always use noise. It goes like this: Create the treaty to regulate unlawful international firearms sales and dangerous weapons. Regulate Assault Weapons as Dangerous Weapons. Let some yahoo someplace like Texas or North Carolina fail to turn in their AR-15 or AK-47. Let the local police handle the manner knowing violence may result. Once violence results, add in the National Guard, just a few soldiers. Let them come under attack then claim the UN has a special force under the treaty that has been specifically trained to handle this type of situation. They arrive to more upset and noisy people. Before you know it, even more UN troops must arrive to handle those situations. Make constant press releases about this violent person/group and that one and keep reassuring the American people that Obama has it all under control but there is so much hate and violence which proves the gun treaty is warranted.
In all that resulting noise people till forget just who started what. Half this nation will be all for the treaty and the gun confiscations and the UN presence.
I can see your scenario happening. So perhaps can others and have plans to counter them.
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.