Posted on 08/05/2013 6:14:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Your guns are in danger. Obama has stopped defending the Second Amendment. He did not get his gun control agenda passed in the Senate. So, he’s unconstitutionally trying to use the United Nations to control your guns. Don’t let him.
Obama is getting dangerously close to signing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. If he signs this treaty and the Senate ratifies it, the Second Amendment is toast. And your guns will be in the control of dictators around the world.
This sounds like a bad movie or a conspiracy theory, and I wish it were. But it’s real. 130 bipartisan members of Congress signed a letter that Rep. Mike Lee wrote to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.
The 13-page letter asks Obama and Kerry NOT to sign the Arms Trade Treaty and instead listen to the American people for once. If you are a gun owner, you should express this same sentiment to all of your elected officials. Ask them to oppose the Arms Trade Treaty.
In simple terms, here’s how the Arms Trade Treaty threatens gun owners, freedom, and the 2nd Amendment:
A ‘National Control List’ Would Be Established
Article 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty creates a “National Control List.” Global leaders around the world who sign the treaty: “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”
Obama promised us he was not going to establish a national gun registry. “He's not seeking a registry,” White House Spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on March 25, 2013.
In his twisted mind, Obama told the truth but not the whole truth. He didn’t want a national registry. He wanted a global registry. He wanted foreign governments to know whether you own a gun. That way, if you even think about jumping ship and leaving the United States to seek freedom elsewhere, there will effectively be an asterisk next to your name. Probably something like:
The beautiful and talented actress Audrey Hepburn once said: “I don't want to be alone, I want to be left alone.” Tell Obama to listen to Audrey. Tell him to stay away from your guns. And leave you alone.
United Nations Would Control All Guns and Ammo
The New American reports that Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Arms Trade Treaty give the UN the authority to apprehend the right of private citizens to: “own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns.” Ammunition, parts and components also fall under UN purview.
Funny thing is, no government or group of governments will ever, ever, ever have the “right” to do this. As humans, we have an inherent right to our private property, including our bodies. We also have an inherent right to use self-defense to protect our bodies. Reason tells us this. Whether we choose to use our own fists or a Glock, we have a natural, God-given right to hold off lethal attacks with force.
No one has the authority to take away your natural rights. A bully with a pack of international bullies backing him up can only use force to extort your natural rights. That’s what Obama’s administration is trying to do; extort decent and law-abiding Americans like you.
Stand up for reason, justice and freedom. Tell Obama not to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell your Senators not to ratify it if he tries to send it their way.
IIRC, nothing supersedes the Constitution — no treaty can override it. SCOTUS has said this on several occasions...Stevie666
This is a BS article. I thought spam was blocked on this site.
Ping
This treaty has been in the works since before Zero became President.
I'm still laughing. Is this author serious?
and tell your Senators not to ratify it if he tries to send it their way.
PFFFTT! BWA HAHAHA! We ALL know this won't happen. The Senate will just let it sit in a corner collecting dust, and we all know that a treaty ratified but not confirmed means that the executive branch can do just about anything they want with the treaty unless and until the Senate decides to do something about it.
They routinely do. It was part of the plan from before the ink was dry on the Constitution. And if you think it takes 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty, I've got bad news for you: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies "two thirds of the Senators present." If you think Harry Reid couldn't find a way to claim he got that done, you don't know Harry Reid.
That is my understanding as well. The Constitution is the law of THIS land. A Lawyer from the mall could overturn this.
Sadly no, we all don't. I waste buckets of time dealing with ignorance about treaty law even on this site.
Tell bo to go after weapons of mass destruction. Remind him that a car is more deadly than a gun unless it’s in the ditch.
The chance of it getting two-thirds of the Senate to vote for it is about zero.
His signature without the final approval of the US Senate is meaningless.
You would have to overturn each and every action, one at a time. Each action would require that there be harm for there to be standing, which means that the provisions would have to be in place (such as a registry). Each action would take years to complete. Just try getting a UN registry destroyed based upon an American court order.
I've been warning about this treaty on this site since 2006. Yet I still see disinformation like yours every time the topic comes up.
In principle, helpful Harry only needs 34 votes.
Here we go again.
Was I incorrect in my assessment? A treaty signed by the President is assumed to be law unless shot down by the Senate, no?
In fact there is no way the Dems would be able to sneak this through in the dark of night with no Republicans around like you imagine they can.
No, you were quite correct about the way treaties are enacted upon signature pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which we never ratified). What was incorrect was that 'we all know it.'
It's been done before.
My apologies. I thought that was understood.
This “feel good” understanding of the law is what’s got us to where we are in the first place.
Given Obama’s complete and total disregard for the law, I have no doubt in my mind that we are looking at a very rapid escalation to arms between the government and the people. Sadly, due to the number of people on the government dole, I have no doubt that the people will lose in a big way.
With America out of the picture, there will be no where in the world for someone to be free. We’ll be degrading into a global society of dictatorships. Global Oligarchy.
Conservatives want to be left alone, which means they don't want to be bothered with the dirty business of protecting their rights, which means that by the time they take action, it is usually too late.
‘Don’t let Obama...’ ????
He seems to do what he wants.
On the road back to Lexington & Concord...
US out of the UN, UN off US soil!
It sure looks better than the US for Snowden.
How many treaties have superseded the Constitution?
Most of those underlying environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, especially the Convention on Nature Protection Wild Life and Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (1941). Check out USC Title 16, Section 1531.
Guess I’m not seeing the link to the Constitution with a wild life protection and endangered species. Treaties are agreed to quite often but they can’t override the Constitution.
The Reid Court wrote that “…an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.”
Granted we have a POS President who hates the Constitution but in time we’ll find everything this POS did will have been illegal.
Here's a PDF: ATT Text
I take it that it's directed to international arms dealings, not individual gun ownership (in particular as regards any "control system"). Also, I don't see anything in it that would authorize the UN or any third country to take any measures against private gun ownership.
Well I guess you didn't read the treaty I just linked. So why should I bother explaining things to you? Just because you don't see it doesn't make it false.
Treaties are agreed to quite often but they can’t override the Constitution.
So you say. Read the article I linked in Post 8. They do, Reid v. Covert notwithstanding.
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.
