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

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.The White House attempts an end run around the House
Washington Times ^ | Mar. 20, 2013 | The Washington Times Staff

Posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE

Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: absolutedespotism; backoffbarry; banglist; bho44; bhobanglist; bhofascism; bloodofbluehelmets; bloodoftyrants; corruption; cwii; democrats; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guncontrol; liberals; longtrainofabuses; nocompromise; obama; progressives; secondamendment; treason; tyranny; un; usurpations; waronliberty; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last
To: Georgia Girl 2

Let’s see... we know Lindsey Graham and John McCain are spineless, so that’s two the Democrats can count on to vote in favor of it. So that creates a wider margin in support of it. Then you have to think who they’re going to convince that it’s a good thing. McConnell?


81 posted on 03/21/2013 12:08:04 PM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a gamer not because I choose to have no life, but because I choose to have many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
I’ve talked to several active and reserve members of the Armed Forces and they all said that this will be regarded by the military as an act of war upon the Constitution and the American people.

Anecdotal.

Unless you have talked to Generals, Admirals and Senior Enlisted Advisors who don't fear being purged by Obama, it means squat.

82 posted on 03/21/2013 12:22:14 PM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Does Congress have the authority to approve a treaty which contravenes the Bill of Rights?
83 posted on 03/21/2013 12:29:11 PM PDT by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
No offense taken.

You have made some good points. I think the bottom line question is: Can a Treaty with the UN or any foreign Government over ride our Constitution, even if it has been ratified by the required number in the senate?

A lot of posts seem to think that the Senate can't approve a Treaty that will nullify or change any part of the 2nd Amendment. Most feel that it would take an Amendment to the Constitution to make that type of change.

I must admit that I do not know the answer to that question, however I do feel that those that do not know the definition of a “ Natural Born Citizen” and those that passed the “obamacare” will try to do what they want, Law or no Law.

What say you?

84 posted on 03/21/2013 1:12:08 PM PDT by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416 "It’s one thing to make a law, It’s another to enforce it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE; All
I think the bottom line question is: Can a Treaty with the UN or any foreign Government over ride our Constitution, even if it has been ratified by the required number in the senate?

As evidenced by the excerpts from Jefferson's writings and the Reid v. Covert opinion which I had included in my previous post, I think that your concern has been resolved. WH and Senate negotiators who are working with the UN to try to take away our 2A clarified gun rights via phony constitutional loopholes need to be charged with treason imo.

85 posted on 03/21/2013 1:49:05 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
“WH and Senate negotiators who are working with the UN to try to take away our 2A clarified gun rights via phony constitutional loopholes need to be charged with treason imo.”

YES, YES, YES, and YES!!!! 100% correct on that one.

I did see that Senator Rand Paul offered a budget amendment that will make it more difficult for the implementation of ANY international treaty creating an international gun registry or gun ban. So I think that he also has some concerns with this Treaty issue.

Like I said, the Dem’s will try to remove our 2nd Amendment rights and take all of our Guns, Law or no Law.

86 posted on 03/21/2013 2:00:20 PM PDT by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416 "It’s one thing to make a law, It’s another to enforce it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

it does not have to pass the senate, just never voted on.

there is ANOTHER treaty in which the united states is treated as if it ratified a treaty until it is AFFIRMATIVLY voted down.

If reid blocks the vote, the treaty stands as if ratified.


87 posted on 03/21/2013 2:01:41 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

there is a seperate treaty that established that signator nations are to act as if the treaty has been ratified in their country until rejected.

Also just signing on can impose the treaty if you reach a tipping point.

see kyoto global warming treaty. That battle was about reaching the tipping point.

Kissinger wrote the way to bypass the constitution was via treaty.


88 posted on 03/21/2013 2:21:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

yes.


89 posted on 03/21/2013 2:22:17 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Personally I don’t believe this treaty has the 67 votes needed in the Senate and will not have.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! 34 senators treaty quorum

Not 67...a mere 34!

90 posted on 03/21/2013 4:49:42 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos; cll; Georgia Girl 2
All treaties that are approved by 2/3rds vote in the Senate are still subject to constitutional limitations.

See 90!ll

And you're wrong, cll, just like the writers of this article.

From The American Ideal of 1776
The Twelve Basic American Principles

Limited Government in Relation to The Constitution's Treaty Clause
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "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 . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

91 posted on 03/21/2013 4:59:12 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RepRivFarm; The Great RJ

See 91!


92 posted on 03/21/2013 5:03:26 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

“You need 2/3 of the Senate.”

And compliance of the people.


93 posted on 03/21/2013 5:07:34 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Travis McGee; Carry_Okie
You know, myself and many others have been on here for years trying to educate others about the actual numbers needed to pass a treaty and how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land no matter what.
And even after all this time people are still ignorant.

Do you guys think it's willful ignorance or deliberate attempts to confuse?

94 posted on 03/21/2013 5:17:35 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Yes, Restoration too.


95 posted on 03/21/2013 5:46:12 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
I wonder if shoot-n-see makes “UN-blue” target stickers?

People keep making themistakein thinking that UN troops will be enforcing this, but they won't. It will be your local police, and their fedeal buddies in the FBI, ATF, etc. So IF you're prepared to use condign second amendment action, it will be county and city police who you will have to stop. Every true patriot will have to take on the mindset of Timothy McVeigh and realize it is your fellow americans who are the enemy. Those who supposedly uphold the law will be the enemy, and if this passes they will do their best to enforce it.

96 posted on 03/21/2013 6:35:15 PM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Blue helmets make good targets.

See post 96

97 posted on 03/21/2013 6:36:49 PM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
And compliance of the people.

Considering the results of the last election I wouldn't think that's much of a barrier.

98 posted on 03/21/2013 6:40:01 PM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Wrong, wrong, wrong! 34 senators treaty quorum”

Get a life.
Its going to take 67 votes and its not going to happen.

Worry about something that is really going to happen like a bi-partisan bill to let all 11-20 million illegal aliens stay and get on a path to citizenship.

Worry about the DHS taking those 2 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000 full auto assault rifles and 2717 armored trucks and start jack booting the general public or help Obutnik take over and declare himself President for life.

Worry about 39,000 drones flyng over your house on an hourly basis spying on everything you do.


99 posted on 03/21/2013 7:00:10 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It may be that there are a few hired to populate the threads with posts downplaying the hazards. At this point, I try to get something in early. Failing that, I'll collect names and post to all of them. I almost never get a reply. Sometimes they'll crank up a new one. That's when it's really telling. I can't be doing this full time.

I can say for a fact that it was a pattern on California threads during the recall of Gray Davis and that it appeared to me they were hired GOPe operatives. It was just too repeatable. I can't say I've seen a pattern that consistent with these Small Arms Treaty threads.

100 posted on 03/21/2013 7:01:34 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last

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