Share
QR Code
December 20 • 02:14
flag image
  • BPTea Party

UN Gun Treaty: No need to ban guns if there are no guns to be bought



UN_gun_treaty
shadow
March 17, 2013
There is yet another "double-speak" campaign coming out of the Obama Administration. On one hand they are saying they support the proposed UN treaty designed to curtail small arms trading and on the other hand they are saying they support the Second Amendment. Kurt Nimmo, writing at www.infowars.com reports
Obama's new Secretary of State, the blue-blood CFR globalist and bonesman John Kerry, says that while he supports the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, he is also supports the Second Amendment.

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," he said last week.

Read Kerry's statement on the treaty here.

"Don't worry, gun owners: the United Nations probably won't be coming after you any time soon," The Daily Beast said following Kerry's statement. "And NRA, calm down: Kerry made sure to clarify that the treaty would not affect domestic gun owners."

Kerry's word simply cannot be trusted and the prediction of The Daily Beast – a website owned by the transnational corporation Newsweek and edited by a former Wall Street Journal editor – is less than reassuring.

According to the NRA, as of 2004 Kerry was the most anti-gun presidential nominee in United States history. He has voted to ban guns outright, impose waiting periods on firearms buyers, financially punish gun manufacturers, and restrict the free speech of Second Amendment advocates.

He also voted to regulate gun shows and impose a background check on individuals engaged in private firearms sales.

Kerry backed the failed effort by House Democrats Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Frank Lautenberg – two of the nation's most dedicated and aggressive gun-grabbers – to reimpose the Clinton's 1994 "assault weapons" ban that subsequently floundered in committee.

The United Nations treaty is well-timed – it arrives precisely as Congress prepares to vote on legislation targeting the Second Amendment in the wake of Sandy Hook.

The United Nations begins working on the stalled treaty again on March 18,

"I am confident that member states will overcome their differences and muster the political will needed to agree on this landmark treaty," United Nations boss Ban Ki-moon said Thursday.
Click here to go to the original source.

However, as Awr Hawkins reports at Brietbart.com all that is superfluous. They won't need to "ban" guns if there are no guns to be bought. Here's how Hawkins explains it:
Contrary to the American Bar Association's (ABA) contention that the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) "is consistent with the Second Amendment" and "would not require new domestic regulations" to hamper the exercise of the rights therein, the reality is that if ratified, the ATT could make guns as scarce as ammo and the exercise of the Second Amendment difficult indeed.

And here's how this would happen--the ATT contains ambiguities regarding the application of new firearm regulations and import restrictions. And this means the moment the ATT goes into effect--should it be ratified--the types of guns allowed to enter America would largely depend on each U.S. Presidential administration's opinion of what is or isn't appropriate.

In this way, the ATT actually hands the executive branch the power to work with other governments around world to shut down portions of the U.S. import firearms market as they see fit. This will be possible by seizing on ambiguous terms and phrases within the ATT--from claiming certain classes of gun are "inappropriate" to claiming others endanger "women and children"--then barring whole groups of firearms from import.

And since firearm imports make up 35% of the overall new firearm market in America, a significant cut here could lead to an all-out frenzy on the part of consumers.

Americans like the Second Amendment because phrases like "the right to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" are not ambiguous. Rather, the amendment clearly bolsters what Americans already know in their consciences--that we have a natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms. It's a right which the Founding Fathers did their utmost to protect.

Click here to go to the original source.

printPrint
emailEmail
CommentComment
shareShare
  1. reply print email
    ATT
    March 18, 2013 | 08:53 AM

    I've often wondered how WWII would have turned out if the League of Nations had accomplished back then what the UN wants to do now. Our primary enemy today is a government that oppresses by regulation and it seems our government wishes to regulate the world. Vote for freedom in the next election.

    Gene Ralno
  2. reply print email
    un small arms treaty
    April 06, 2013 | 06:52 PM

    do not join the U N on this or any thing else with the U N, America does not want or need a league of nations dictating to us how we shall live.The brave people who wrote and died for our freedoms under the constitution and the bill of rights have this covered already !!!

    Walter Strickland
Reader Feedback Submission
Please do not use ALL CAPS or tabs.
* required value
Your Name*

Email (not shown on website)*

Subject*

Comment*


CARE
Site Search


Saturday
12 - 20 - 14
02:14
Tayloe
beaufort mobile
Farm Bureau
Arnolds 1-2014
Venture
Richardson PA

Copyright 2008-2013, Beaufort Observer Online, Inc. No part of this website may be used without permission