approved by the Senate without the House involved at all. That's why this particular lameduck is more dangerous than others in the past. BO has already sent the gun treaty bill, hours after the election, and has been waiting for the Senate to convene again. Once they have their 2/3 vote, the Prez can ratify it and it's the law. Even a Constitutional amendment can't change it after that.
>>>Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official's promise to Reuters that "we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the "manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons."
That is a very comprehensive attack on "all aspects" of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase "in all aspects" occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT.
Particulars of the proposed treaty are set out on the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs website. Information presented there reveals that the international government-in-waiting wants to start by taking away weapons from "insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, and terrorists."
Again, key definitions are left out of the document and others inexplicably and inexcusably ill-defined. Within the penumbras of these cleverly crafted provisions are found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that one day could force anyone branded as an enemy into a predetermined "terrorist" slot.
A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider "adequate laws." Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?
The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General's Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms (of which the United States was a signatory) a part of the regulations that we agreed to impose is a psychological test before one is allowed to purchase ammunition.
Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.>>>
>>>"The NRA, our four million members and the tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who own firearms will never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations," said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That is why the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been met with the full opposition of the NRA. We are grateful for the efforts of these senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran, to oppose this encroachment of international tyranny."
The U.N. conference on the Arms Trade Treaty is taking place this week in New York City. In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the positions of the two previous Administrations and voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish "common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms." However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty could restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in the United States.>>>
Ending a Treaty can't be done through a Constitutional Amendment because the Constitution is silent on how to deal with them; however, there are ways, including two that Clinton used.
What is even scarier than an open Treaty that the public knows about ahead of time are "Executive Agreements"........wonder if that's what BO had in mind when he told the Russian rep "I'll have more flexibility after the election".
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)