Should anyone be surprised?
Subj: Fwd: Fw: Gun Control
Save our 2nd Amendment Rights
_______________________________
D-DAY FOR GUN CONTROL
Published on TheHill.comon July 10, 2012
Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign
the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at
the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to
impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second
Amendment rights.
The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping
international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But,
as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a
convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT's true intent: to
force gun control on the United States.
Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into
the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right
to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face
of the overall construct set up by the treaty.
The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU),
which will ensure that "parties [to the treaty] take all necessary
measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their]
territories ... to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the
illicit market or to unintended end users."
The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this
requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take "all
necessary measures." This requirement will inexorably lead to gun
registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright
bans on firearms.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: "After the treaty is
approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this
implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt
legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms."
Bolton explains that "the administration knows that it cannot obtain
this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use
an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn't get
otherwise."
The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to
achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all
small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty)
are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China,
Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a
distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty's
regulations.
Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars
governments from arming "illicit" groups in other nations. This
provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian
or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from
selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a
nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to
China.
And let's not forget how well the United States has done in reducing
murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun
controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United
States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million
in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm.
(Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)
Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his
strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.
And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution,
we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment.
International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the
United States.
If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this
year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.
Right now we need 34 courageous Republican senators to step up and
demand that Hillary not sign the treaty, and indicate their intention
to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an
action can stop this treachery in its tracks. To sign the petition to
stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty click here or copy &
paste.
D-DAY FOR GUN CONTROL
Published on TheHill.comon July 10, 2012
Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign
the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at
the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to
impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second
Amendment rights.
The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping
international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But,
as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a
convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT's true intent: to
force gun control on the United States.
Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into
the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right
to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face
of the overall construct set up by the treaty.
The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU),
which will ensure that "parties [to the treaty] take all necessary
measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their]
territories ... to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the
illicit market or to unintended end users."
The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this
requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take "all
necessary measures." This requirement will inexorably lead to gun
registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright
bans on firearms.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: "After the treaty is
approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this
implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt
legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms."
Bolton explains that "the administration knows that it cannot obtain
this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use
an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn't get
otherwise."
The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to
achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all
small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty)
are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China,
Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a
distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty's
regulations.
Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars
governments from arming "illicit" groups in other nations. This
provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian
or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from
selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a
nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to
China.
And let's not forget how well the United States has done in reducing
murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun
controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United
States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million
in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm.
(Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)
Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his
strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.
And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution,
we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment.
International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the
United States.
If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this
year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.
Right now we need 34 courageous Republican senators to step up and
demand that Hillary not sign the treaty, and indicate their intention
to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an
action can stop this treachery in its tracks. To sign the petition to
stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty click here or copy &
paste.
4 comments:
With this, we will become another Mexico...beheadings, kidnapppings, tortures, home invasions and murders. That has been the only difference between us and Mexico, especially along the border but it will expand exponentially if this goes through. Mexican citizens cannot defend themselves, that's why the drug cartels have control. May God help us!
Yes, everyone please sign the petition to stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty. It just goes to show you that we need to get people like Hillary Cloneton out of representing us. Also we don't need a one world government,...nobody even wants that...Russia doesn't want it, China doesn't want it.... also where it states: Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into
the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty. Well...why don't we just make the treaty meaningless and don't listen to them, or follow it if what they are trying to do is disarm everyone so they can come in and force us into concentration camps and kill us to meet their goals of reducing the population from 7 billion people on down to 500 million people. Are we going to let them get away with this?
It is all being handled folks, all explosive weapons on the planet will very soon be disabled and rendered useless anyway.
You can better be sure the galactics are not going to decloak in the sky while idiots with guns have any chance of shooting at them for fear of an invasion.
You have got to be kidding. You are wasting your time with gun control issues. They are all going away, all wars are going to stop and peace on earth will finally be declared.
You will be able to express your very strong feelings to tell your truth without compromise or without self concern of someone being able to shoot you for your differing beliefs.
You people don't read and you don't think about what is actually taking place on planet earth to bring it forward out of the ditch of death, disease and destruction.
You are not going to be able to use your guns in the very near future. You people are so rapped up in what the illuminati government is doing, you can't see past your noses about anything else, while you are leaking fear and negativity out of every pour of your body.
Slaves don't have any rights anyway, all of your whining and complaining has failed to produce any significant results and you don't understand why.
The reason why is because you are not serious enough because you have been very well sedated into your materialistic vain lifestyle and you will not make the sacrifice necessary to give it up an artificial existence for freedom, because you feel you have too much to lose, when you never had anything to begin with.
You own nothing.
You don't understand what is going on and you are far too incompetent in order to be a fierce force to be reckoned with, to overcome the tyranny being perpetrated against you to come out of what you are in.
If it was not for a galactic intervention you could consider yourselves illuminati toast for the breakfast of champions. Now go have a beer and turn on the mindsucker TV and complain about your grievances to the idiot box.
Re: 7:15 A.M.
If your not out of Langley You should be. You'd do real writing for the bad guys.
Post a Comment