All right, the title sounds inflammatory and it should, given the nature of what is going on at the U.N. right now. The U.N. is pursuing a “Small Arms Treaty” which is designed to limit global crime, war, terrorism, etc. However, the U.N. is no friend to the United States in words or deeds despite the fact we have bankrolled them for close to eternity as well as bankrolled the IMF. We are the U.N. piggy bank, we should sit there mutely while they shake money out of us for whatever the heck they want.
One of the things they want is a more complicit United States. One that has less freedoms and more limitations, in line with their goals. Here is the tidbit though. Once the U.S. signs and ratifies an international treaty it carries the force of law in the U.S. So if the U.N. says you must register all guns. No citizen may have more than blank, or whatever we would be obligated to comply as per the treaty. The U.N. would have the power 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.
This is the kind of control that the U.N. would like to get and several high-ranking officials have warned that the small arms treaty is more about domestic gun control than it is about terrorism. Given the fact that this treaty has been attempted several times over the last decade, with the U.S. rebuffing it every times gives more credence to those warnings. Many say, if passed that will never happen, but since when has one body granted power to another body that it then never used. Yeah, never.
Remember that our President was a great advocate of gun control laws and expanding those laws to include voting against castle laws protecting the use of force by a gun owner in their own homes. The Sec of State is also a fairly large anti-gun advocate. Let’s not forget, our for now contemptible, Atty General who said in 1995, we need to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” So the U.N. wants to enact some pretty harsh gun control laws, that the U.S. would have to uphold, and the leadership of our country is currently very anti-gun. Hmmm.
Here is an interesting side bar. The president has the power to sign a treaty, that much is certain. But only the Senate, by a two-thirds majority, under Article II section 2 of the Constitution can ratify a treaty. So what happens if the President signs it and the Senate rejects it? Does the U.N. try to enforce it since as far as they are concerned the President has entered the U.S. into a legally binding relationship through the treaty. I don’t know that an international body cares that the Senate did not ratify, only that we signed. It would be an interesting thing to see if the U.N. tried to enforce it. It would be interesting even if it were ratified and the U.N. tried to enforce it. America loves her guns by in large, as there are more of them privately held then there are people in the United States. Enough probably to fight off a zombie attack, invasion by a foreign power, or an attempt to confiscate those same guns.