Secret Squirrel has noticed odd behavior by President Obama with respect to Americans,on an issue of the question of guns existent in the world of today by his wishing to sign a UN international gun treaty that the Senate refused to ratify under former President Bill Clinton.Obama has made no secret that he wants to in effect amend the American Constitution by signing a United Nations civilian gun ban treaty. Somehow I don’t recall a legal way for America’s politicians to attack the Bill of Rights and negate any of them by signing a treaty, but this seems to be what is going to occur through and by something called the United Nations, a group of foreign alien nations, foreign and alien to America. Despots throughout civilized history have never cared about liberty or freedom, and these United Nations are made up of many nations ruled by such, despots,dictators,communists,socialists and what ever have you and whatever you wish to call or describe these foreign
potentates that rule,overrule, and misrule, people.The present Convention which has attracted such controversy, is one United Nations convention having to do,particularly, with THEIR issue of guns existent in the world.
The United States does not and has not,in the past, ratified UN treaties and conventions that do not please it,the it being,interestingly,The Executive Branch(here read,The President),and thence also the Senate.Now any UN convention MAY be attended by The Nation, read, The United States Of America,should the President send a representative. Said representative
thence has, by permission of the PRESIDENT, the ability to sign said Convention.The Senate cannot in itself send a viable representative,nor one that can sign.However, should the Senate disagree with a particular Convention,on which the President has not consulted THEM, they can vote against ratification of the Convention, and they can also, refuse to vote on the Convention, hence stalling it, in the unratified state as well,in short, not acted on.In short, the President,can act on any UN Convention, on any particular issue,without the consent of Senate/Congress.In short, Obama wishes it, a convention which directly goes contrary to The Constitution of The United States itself, THE Constitution he is sworn to keep and uphold, HE,Obama, and through his minion, one Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, would sign a convention,ratify a convention which was contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in direct effect of allowing foreigners to overrule,direct,and (mis)rule,in direct unelected fashion, the lives of the American citizen,ruling in direct opposition to, The Constitution Of The People Of The United States Of America, the American Citizen.
This particular Convention treaty is a direct abdication of the principles of The Constitution of The United States. The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm,directed by the most foreign United Nations. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. “The Small Arms Treaty” will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified “unauthorized.” What exactly classifies a firearm as “unauthorized” is up to unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. In addition the Obama Administration is calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.
The Obama ruling regimen,and United Nations gun agenda, ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties,the individual and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, but also more importantly, the complete autonomy of the American citizen. It is self evident, that The Obama regimen of rule,of misrule in actuality, simply does not believe that the average American is capable of making their own decisions so Obama wishes foreigners to make them for the American citizen,they the foreigners, Russians,Red Chinese, Libyans, Syrians, Iraguis, Mongolians, Cubans, Haitians,and what ever else have you, and we do have, in the world,comprising the United Nations et all, and whatever.. Just like Obamacare, the bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck. The Anti-Second Amendment Delegates at the United Nations want to pass “The Small Arms Treaty.” If this treaty is passed American citizens’ firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. “The Small Arms Treaty” is being billed as a treaty that will help fight against “terrorism, insurgency, and international crime rings.”However, America has it's own laws with respect to the supply of guns to anyone in particular, foreign nations and what ever et all.Should there be a problem in that regard it is by and through American governmental and policing failures to either be capable, or to enact and act on them internally and properly in the first place.
One does recall where US government,has actually been supplying guns to Mexican drug lords in what ever endeavour they claimed,but supply they did, and were and are responsible for,they did not have to by any means. The treaty is regarded as a
control on the United States supplying guns to foreign lands?Well, then the American government must simply cease from doing just that, supplying guns to foreigners and what ever we have.Curious,why ever can Obama not stop himself from doing just that merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens,Americans must follow laws internally, so too can and does Obama,and any semblance of government he has.
But yet there is so very much more in the treaty. Let's have a look here,What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
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.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.Obama is resolved to it, even yet,being there, at his direct, willing to enact it,bring it about,enforce it.Obama has not directed America, to be there out of simple curiosity,Obama is intent on reducing America, and Americans such that they become, suzerain,and subject to, foreigners and their enacted rules and laws,far and away above and conflicting with, laws deemed by Americans to be right and proper for they,the American citizens.It is and would be a direct usurpation, by foreigners,of the lives and laws, and Constitution, of the people of The United States Of America.Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real
agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights.Hillary Clinton even yet campaigned supporting The Second Amendment.They have both been revealed to be much as the Indian basket, with two faces. So far the Obama administration had publicly steered clear of the issue,no doubt knowing directly, that a direct assault on the Second Amendment and other American Constitutional Rights, and laws of America and Americans,would be political suicide.
However, behind the scenes, Obama and his staff,have done a direct volte face,and have shown not only support for the U.N. Gun Ban,but direct approval, even yet PRE-APPROVAL,directed so by Obama,to a United Nations treaty on small arms sales that will sidestep established American gun rights and the Second Amendment,and others as well.The United Nations has ever been a favorite weapon used by the many left-leaning activist and directly most foreign, nations, their governments,and mostly directly foreign dictatorships, to launch attacks on American interests,and these leftist ideologues have tried to direct and so empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars of liberation,the right to encourage freedom loving peoples to rise up and fight against oppressors and oppressions, and the right to control our own pollution standards,even yet internal to America and The American Citizen. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern the American,guarenteed,internal to America,the right to bear
arms,the treaty's threat to the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport.
The definition of "militia" as per Federal US Code:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms,as passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all
members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.The term,militia, clearly the people, the American Citizen, We The People.................and this The United Sates Code...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, as you can see, all law-abiding citizens and soon-to-be citizens are, by legal definition, members of the "militia".
In reading the early State’s Constitutions, it is very clear that they guarantee a right to arms for the common defense of the State, which in actuality means, the common defense of the community against criminals. In today’s society this is called "justifiable homicide" because when an armed citizen kills a felon committing a crime (or wounds him for the police to arrest), that person has done their community a service by helping to keep the streets and environs safe for other citizens. So, if the UN treaty was to be passed, and the American people forcibly disarmed, two things would happen, one, criminals would profit by that action, as they have done in Chicago, for example, and two, the right to self defense and defense of others would be negated, which the UN, nor the Senate, nor Obama himself can do since that Right comes from our Creator.
For example, South Carolina's constitution, written in 1776, states very clearly:
"Hostilities having been commenced in the Massachusetts Bay, by the troops under command of General Gage, whereby a number of peaceable, helpless, and unarmed people were wantonly robbed and murdered... The colonists were therefore driven to the necessity of taking up arms, to repel force by force, and to defend themselves and their properties against lawless invasions and depredations."
As we all well know, the Battle on Lexington green began over gun control, as Redcoats were dispatched to disarm the Minutemen, who were deemed a threat by "the State." Other states followed suit as well:
1. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state..." Pennsylvania 1777.
2. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State..." Vermont (1777 and 1786)
3. The people have the "right to bear arms, for the defense of the State". North Carolina 1776.
4. "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service..." NY 1777.
The states then, even New York, recognized the absolute right of an American to keep and bear arms and that the taking up arms to defend freedom against tyranny was appropriate and right. ("The militia of this State (NY), at all times hereafter,... shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service...") the militia WAS the individual citizen and they had the duty to drill to BE ready, on their own time. "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers..." George Mason. The great patriot Patrick Henry stated: "The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun." It must be stated that "defense of the State" was the individual militia members responsibility and in a previous essay on the Second Amendment, it was noted that State’s often passed laws that all citizens shall be armed and those who could not afford a firearm were given one (with the necessary accoutrements) and then they worked to pay off the debt, doing whatever they were told to do by the
magistrate, sheriff, etc! Moreover, that an unarmed citizen was an easy victim of criminals and tyrants was also recognized in their early constitutions.
John Adams wrote, as he defended the British soldiers who had opened fire on a mob of colonists during the Boston Massacre (1770), "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the
inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense, that distinction is material and must be attended to."
Not to be outdone, the Republic of Texas Constitution, written in 1838, declared: "the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State." It is quite clear that the word "himself" means the individual, not the collective and it should be noted that Texas took their verbiage from the US Constitution and the Amendments therein. In 1871, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that an "individual" had the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In 1842, Rhode Island’s Constitution actually uses the US Constitution verbiage from the Second Amendment itself: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now liberals have used the term "the people" to point to the collective but nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, which grants the rights therein to the individual.
Take serious and careful note,that as of 2010, 27 states have introduced in their legislatures, bills that would nullify all gun registration laws within the state, and several states have passed laws that allow any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress to regulate, under its constitutional powers.It nullifies Federal regulations based on the fact that some parts of the firearm have their origins outside the state. In other words, a firearm made in Montana, that is sold in Montana, is outside their regulations! As we can clearly see, the mountain of facts support that the State’s Constitutions defend our right to keep and bear arms not only from a legal standpoint from the hand of our Creator.The early state constitutions are strong evidence that the Founders, at the State level, confirmed their intent that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was an individual right.
Obama here,clearly, through such actions as he is taking, is intent on,not only directly violating the Constitution of the People of the United States,but also,removing from,We The People, the Militia,and there for also, the governmental right to have one ready, to combat any foreign nations invading, intent of invading, and otherwise terrorizing,We The People, and is removing from We The People, the right and ability to defend The American Citizen, and The Nation Of The United States Of America.
It is therefore incumbent upon liberty-minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also to oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.President Obama can not try to use the legally binding (on signatory nations) provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for civilian arms banning regulations,the regulations contrary to The Second Amendment, arguing that he has no choice but to follow the treaty,no indeed, he has sent the Secretary Of State, to the convention,and has the direct stated intent, to be a signatory to the convention,it is a direct,purposeful act.
What's to be done?Well, We,The People, must make known our opposition to the actions here of Obama, and Hillary Clinton.So though the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s firearms agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic.......right? Well,let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly in dissension concerning the Convention, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
The United States has, in the past attended some UN Conventions, even yet agreed with them, but many HAVE NOT BEEN RATIFIED by the Senate,either voted against, or had votes blocked such that no vote takes place(at least, not at that time, but it CAN be brought out 5,10,15,20 years later or whatever timescale), hence NO ratification. Indeed this is rightand proper,for a President acting outside of the Senate,and/or Congress, acts outside of Government, note in the wishes,nor the best wishes of the people.Clearly a major improvement would be sanctioned actions taking place with the agreement of The Houses,the President presenting The Houses with any laws,agreements etc as PROPOSED, and thence acting on this within the bounds of the UN Conventions, and thence return to The Senate for final approved ratifications.As it is now, The President is acting improperly, exclusively, alone, by himself, without the approval of People, nor Senate/Congress and this is so very totally wrong.What needs be done in this present situation, the Citizen must address his Senator, His Congressman, with his disapproval of any such UN Convention as presently Obama is pursuing,such that they DO NOT RATIFY the Convention,ALSO, they must so address their Congressman/Senator, such that it is made clear to Obama that he should not participate in such a UN Convention as is contemplated to take place in 2012, or future without a structure in place with respect to such actions in Senate/Congress, sanctioning such future proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment