Sunday, August 7, 2011

U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" Will Disarm Americans

Yes, a proposed U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" is designed to target and disarm Americans by circumventing our Bill of Rights and the specifically our 2nd Amendment rights.

Known informally as the "Small Arms Treaty," it is a proposed agreement which will secretly try to take the legal guns out of the hands of American citizens. 

Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales.

This part of the "Small Arms Treaty" will require that all countries that have firearms manufacturers will have to pay into a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide - no matter if their gun was ever a part of the violence. 

And yes, the U.N. is to determine the definition of "gun violence." Right now the U.N. is looking at any use of guns as being "gun violence." 

In other words, if you defend yourself and kill an assailant who is intending to kill you  - then your attacker will be considered a "victim" of "gun violence" and be eligible for compensation from the U.N.

Imagine this for a moment. If you take up arms against a Dictatorship like say the one in Iran, according to the U.N. and its insane sense of reasoning then that Dictator may be eligible for compensation from the United Nations.

And it gets worse, your gun ownership rights will not be covered by the Constitution of United States. Instead, if the Obama administration has its way about things, your gun ownership may be regulated by a U.N. appointed body of individuals from countries like Iran, Syria, China, Venezuela, Cuba and others not friendly to the United States.

The new U.N agency that the treaty would create will be called the “Implementation Support Unit” (ISU). 

And right about now you think, Tom's nuts! Well friends, think again. This is all really happening. And yes, the Obama administration is working hand in hand with the U.N. to achieve this treaty. 

Under the latest draft of the treaty, every country would be required to submit a report to the ISU outlining "all activities undertaken in order to accomplish the implementation of this Treaty, including changes in domestic laws, regulations, and administrative measures."

It also requires countries to set up their own government agencies to track any guns that could be exported.

"Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users," the draft reads.

And by the way, we are those "unintended end users."

Please don't think I'm kidding about that. The wording in the draft is being kept vague for a reason - its to leave room for interpretation. Imagine that!

In an article on Fox New, a U.N. representative for a major U.S. gun manufacturer who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he believes that the wording is specially being left vague just so it leaves room for the ISU to force the registration of all American-made guns. 

“Does this mean it’s going to impose some international gun registration scheme? That could happen here, under the treaty,” said the gun manufacturer representative.

Daniel Prins, chief of the Conventional Arms Branch for the U.N.’s Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA) told Fox News that no provisions have been finalized.

But, "All the issues remain on the table," said U.N. ODA chief Prins.

Other gun control supporters who attended the U.N. conference say that American gun owners have "nothing to worry about." Isn't that reassuring!

But wait! If I remember my history correct, that's what Hitler said before he started confiscating arms from the German people in the 1930s. And in fact, wasn't that the same thing Bill Clinton told the American public when he was running for President in 1992 - only to reverse himself and sign a ban on so-called "assault weapons" just a year later with the infamous Brady Bill.

Of course the people behind the Brady Bill are now saying, "People within the U.S. should not be worried about it unless they sell arms internationally. The whole treaty is to prevent countries from selling guns to other countries that have gross violations of human rights. This treaty would not cover weapons that are kept internally. They [the U.N. ISU) are just trying to establish a regulatory board." 

Most American firearms manufacturers don’t buy into that line of propaganda from the anti-gun folks. Most people who have followed the United Nations knows that they are on corrupt organization with an eye on universal control of all nations and peoples.

An especially costly potential regulation discussed at the conference last month would require gun makers to engrave sequential tracings on every one of some 3 billion bullets produced in the U.S. each year. That very thing was suggested for ammunition coming into California just within the last few years, and thankfully it was shot down by California voters.

But that's the worry, we the American voters will not have say at all. This U.N. treaty would put the United Nations and not our own government in control of our people. We would literally be turning a major part of  United States sovereignty over to the control of the United Nations.

And yes, if relinquishing gun rights and control of gun laws to the United Nations isn't bad enough - there's more bad news. The Obama administration is keeping this all very quiet and behind closed doors to not arose the American people, especially since next year is another Presidential election and Obama is running for re-election. 

If it were to becomes some sort of "law" imposed on Americans by the United Nations. Then it is generally believed that Americans would not follow it.

And that leads us to the bottom line concerning this matter, many believe that this is a real threat to our sovereignty. It is not coming from an army wading ashore in some sort of invasion. No it isn't.

What it is though is a real threat coming in the form of men and women diplomats who all believe that they work for an organization that is there to better the world -  at least their liberal idea of bettering the world.  

It reminds me of a con-game because they are simply looking for another way to rack in the dollars and loot their coffers. Their Global Warming scheme didn't work, and God knows they tried to raise money from every country on the planet.

Their scheme was to have everyone "contribute" to their Global Warming Fund. It might have worked if it hadn't become widely publicized that the United Nation falsified the Global Warming figures. And of course once people found out that the United Nations made up data to justify their call for contributions, their scheme was sunk.

What did they say, or yes that's right, funds were needed to fight Global Warming because it was the biggest threat to mankind since the advent of Nuclear Weapons.

It's reminds me of a power grab because of their open desire to legislate how all people live. And friends, that's not why they were created. They were created to mediate problems between nations. Instead, I believe that the United Nations thinks itself as being the supreme power on earth. 

Maybe it thinks itself as God-like? Maybe it believes itself as being the last word on how people should live?
For me, other than maybe UNICEF, I have seen nothing good come out of the United Nations.

I hope we one day take a hard look at the United Nations and cut our support of that organization. We should cut our support to them in the exact same way that we should cut our Foreign Aid to countries that have Anti-American policies.

As for the U.N., well regardless of what treaty they create, or what regulatory organization they put together, or what other countries may or may not agree to, fact is that for any treaty to become law in the U.S. - it still needs to be submitted to Congress and get a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Because of that two-thirds majority, a treaty of that sort would have a hard time making it through the Senate. Besides, Americans can rest easy knowing that more than 50 Senators have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just last month which says that they will not vote for any treaty that restricts civilian arms or harms America's firearms manufacturers.

The NRA is confident that the treaty will not be ratified in the U.S., and as an NRA member I support their efforts to defeat any effort opposing our right to keep and bear arms.

According to NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, he said, "The U.N. can pass it if they want it. But for it to have domestic effect, it needs to pass the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds vote - and clearly that will not happen in this make up of the U.S. Senate, regardless of what the Obama administration does."

With all of the real problems facing the United States these days, it amazes me how the Obama administration is always attacking the American people in one way or another.  They seem to be under the false premise that the people need to be dictated to.

It seems that no one in the White House has read the Constitution. If they had, then they will find out something very important regarding our law of the land. It was written with the intent of telling the government what it can and cannot do.

The Bill of Rights was specifically written to tell of leaders what rights American have and that they cannot touch.  

The United States Constitution defines the limits of the power that the federal government has. Our Constitution was never ever designed to give limits to the American people. The concern has always been over an abuse of power by our elected officials. Sometimes they forget they work for us.

Like our State governments, the Federal government works for us - and no, it's not the other way around. No matter how the liberal left and the Obama administration spins it, the Federal government is the hired help of the American people. They should be reminded of this fact at every opportunity.   


Story by Tom Correa

2 comments:

  1. Way neat, some legitimate factors! I enjoy you creating this short article accessible, the remainder of the internet site can be substantial good quality. Have a very entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vote vas defeated this week in Senate with 42 senators voting in favor of the bill. A 2\3 majority is required to pass this but why is the senate so willing to give up this part of their control to NATO. They are idiots

      Delete

Thank you for your comment.