As a defender and proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I have watched the debate over the proposed United Nations Small Arms Treaty with some interest. Because I have seen the advocates of gun regulations in this country get an inch and take a mile, with no real effect except to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens, I am more than a little skeptical of the intentions of the United Nations.
This is not a new proposal, having been brought up several years ago. Until President Obama took office, there was no chance that the Small Arms Treaty would pass in the United Nations. The Bush administration openly opposed it and would have vetoed it, had it came up for a vote. Not so with Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. They have reversed the policy of President Bush and are in negotiations with the United Nations to see if a deal for their support can be worked out.
Let us put aside for a moment, that the United Nations has no business asserting any kind of authority in the United States of America. At the risk of sound crass, we have what should be a supreme authority in our country. It’s called the Constitution and there is no need for any other authority, especially not from a group like the United Nations. Instead, let us look at what the Small Arms Treaty would likely do in America, if the Senate were foolish enough to ratify it. There is no doubt, President Obama would sign the treaty, if it comes to that. This is quoted from Forbes.
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
- Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
- Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
- Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
- In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Do we really need or want regulations and restrictions like these placed on the citizens of the United States? Especially those imposed upon us by the United Nations? I think not. We have more than enough gun laws to take care of the perceived problem of gun control. We do not need the diplomats from the United Nations telling us we need to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
Make no mistake, the liberals in this country would dearly love to see the Small Arms Treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by President Obama. It would be a dream come true for them. A manner in which they could exert more gun control over the citizens of America. Our current President is a strong advocate of gun control, even though he tries to hide it, for political reasons. Lest you forget that, here are a few reminders.
President Obama appointed former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles to be an alternate representative to the United Nations. He is a strong advocate of gun control.
President Obama appointed Andrew Traver to head the ATF. Traver has worked to remove the rights of American citizens to own “assault rifles”. No, we are not talking about automatic machine guns. In the perverted definition of gun control advocates, “assault rifle” includes rifles who have a magazine capacity larger than what they think necessary. It doesn’t matter that these rifles are semi-automatic and that the trigger has to be pulled each time to fire them.
I suppose it is to that purpose that the Obama administration banned the importation and sale of nearly 1 million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea. These rifles were used by American soldiers in the Korean War and are valuable to collectors, but that is of no regard to the liberals who hate guns.
At this writing, it is not clear if the Small Arms Treaty will make it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. I am hopeful it will not make it that far, but if it does, it is not guaranteed passage. Thanks to gun rights advocates, such as the National Rifle Association, the treaty is a political hot potato. Any such vote would be closely watched and recorded against anyone who votes in favor of passage. While some may think that is undue influence by the NRA, I think not. When it comes to idiocy like the Small Arms Treaty, we need a group like them to help watch our backs and bring enough clout to bear to influence the vote in a positive way.
You see where I am going with this? We have enough trouble in this country with liberals who believe no one should be allowed to own a gun. If they had their way, we would be like Great Britain and gun ownership would be restricted to gun clubs. We certainly do not need the liberals in the United Nations adding their voice to the clamor of advocating more and more gun control. They can take their Small Arms Treaty and leave our country. I’m sure they can find another country to occupy.
The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty. I question whether Harry Reid can get 50 votes, much less the required 67. It’s important that we know about treaties like this. But like the LOST Treaty, this UN gun ban treaty is like DOA in the Senate. We can thank the wisdom of the Founders for this.
I think you right, Steven. The wisdom of the Founders is responsible for protecting the United States from garbage treaties such as this one.
Good summary.
How well has gun control worked in Chicago?
Uh, not at all.
And Obama’s Republican opponent was proud to enact the toughest gun control legislation in the nation. The 2nd Amendment is in danger with either. This is yet another reason I’m supporting Gary Johnson, win or lose.
Win or lose? Come on now, you know with 100% certainty Johnson won’t win.
That may be true, but I seriously doubt Mitt Romney would sign the Small Arms Treaty, if it were to reach his desk as President. Obama would sign it before the ink was dry.
Like an old bumper sticker pointed out, “Gun Control Is Hitting What You Aim At”. Another old bumper sticker said, “Get The U.S. Out Of The UN, And The UN Out Of The U.S.”. Lots of wisdom in those old bumper stickers …
I would agree on all counts, Bob.
Dick Morris was on fox last night and said Clinton can sign this on th .23rd and it will be in effect and vote could take place during lame duck session.
I wouldn’t put it past them to do just that. I don’t trust them on this, not at all.
I agree with everything you wrote and I will also state that I believe the reason for Fast and Furious was to gain support for more gun control laws and the Small Arms Treaty.
The amount of distrust I have for the Obama administration tends to make me agree, Steve. They have already been caught manipulating the percentage of guns that supposedly came from America to Mexico. That proves they are willing to lie about them and makes me wonder just how far they are willing to go to achieve the success of their agenda.
While I agree with your basic premise that the UN treaty is garbage and we should be no part of it, I have a hard time thinking the Obama administration is stupid enough to think this would be a good idea politically. Moderate voters, who will decide this election, dislike the UN and support the Second Amendment. Even the liberals you so despise widely deplore the UN when it takes actions contrary to American independence and in conflict with the Constitution. Sure the liberal extremists want all guns gone; but I don’t think you give enough credit to Democrats who support the underlying premise of the Second Amendment (the right for individuals to bear arms) while also supporting the rights of states to impose controls they find reasonable within the boundaries established by the Supreme Court. So I just have a hard time thinking the Obama admin is pushing this agenda though of course they will support it.
You have a great deal more faith and trust in the Obama administration, than do I. Obama has to know it is politically toxic to try to push this treaty, yet I believe he will do just that, given half the chance. He is supporting the effort to pass it through the U.N. and he will try to push it through the Senate, if he can. Sorry, but what little hope I had before he was sworn into office has quickly evaporated by reason of his actions during his first three years.
Good article Larry, and an important one. I don’t think the US will ratify this treaty. Assuming that is correct, our job is to NEVER EVER forget that Obama is trying to disarm our sovereign nation and put us under UN control. If you look closely at the U.N. goals, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I agree. There is probably little chance this treaty will be ratified. It does trouble me that Obama would be willing to sign it. That willingness goes completely against the Constitution and we need to remember that.
BTW, I like your new theme.
Thanks, Maggie. I had to go back to my original banner. The height of the new one was just to much. I am still tweaking a few things, here and there.
I think you might want to try a photo:
http://www.valanduseconstructionlaw.com/uploads/image/newspaper%20and%20tea.jpg
Then wash it thru this site:
http://www.befunky.com//create/#/photo-effects
And try out the effects until you find one you like.
I made this photo for another site:
http://i.imgur.com/enN6k.gif
Then using the effects above produced this:
http://i.imgur.com/MHF9f.jpg
Try it.
That is a neat site. I’ll have to find a photo that can be resized to the proportions I need and see what I can do.
Apparently Obama has indicated he’ll sign it. I think it takes 60 votes in the Senate which they’ll never get but they will keep trying until they do.
It’s a good thing it requires 60 votes.
Thank you for the great article Larry,
Some of the things that caught my attention when I first heard of this ‘treaty’ were;
Would they come to your residence and take your weapon that you have paid your hard earned $ for? Do they plan on compensating you for your gun after they ‘seize’ it?
How do they plan on confiscating the unregistered and semi-auto weapons? Wouldn’t the guys in the powder blue hats have to go to every residence in the US and search and seize?
I believe many guns don’t have to be ‘registered’ depending on when they were purchased (pre 1969ish – unless the law has changed).
We have reached a major turning point in our history, and if we don’t stand up and and make our voices heard at the ballot box, the whole country is going to be flushed (more than it is already) down the toilet of polital correctness and liberal progressive values.
Thanks for taking the time to visit and comment on Political Realities. I hope you will return.
Sadly, I have to agree that we have reached a turning point in our history. Those of us who hold the Constitution dear and believe in conservative values can not afford to take a back seat to the progressives. We need to stand up and be counted, no matter how politically incorrect it may be.
Trackbacks: