“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” ~ Barack Obama, May, 2011, referencing gun control
The National Gun Rights Victims Council has launched a boycott against any company, starting with Starbucks, that allows people to follow the gun laws of their respective states. This is my phrasing of course. This Council has a great many errors in their boycott statement but I want to deal with the broader issues of states’ rights and the second amendment.
Victims of gun violence often feel that banning legally obtained guns is going to make the difference. My heart goes out to them, but the problem of gun violence stems more from illegal gun owners than the legally registered owner who wants to protect himself, go target practicing or hunting. If some state laws need to be adjusted, then people need to deal with it locally.
Aside from the 10th amendment issues this boycott affects, boycotting companies can be very anti-American if solely for the purpose of taking away peoples’ rights. With these types of boycotts, companies are bullied into abiding by the wishes of a vocal minority in many cases.
I am supportive of some gun regulations but this is not what I want to discuss in this article.
The movement in the United States to ban guns is real and it goes much further than fair and sane regulations. There will be no end. Despite a 2nd amendment, D.C., Chicago and NYC have banned guns. It certainly has done nothing for D.C. and Chicago. Gun violence in NYC is inching up and if they lose the very competent Ray Kelly, NYC will likely be in worse trouble. Read here: Guardian UK
NYC currently has innumerable incidences of gun violence even though guns are banned and who do they arrest? A retired Marine who checked his Indiana-registered gun into the Statue of Liberty thinking he was complying with the law was arrested and faces being saddled with a criminal record. The Marine has said, “No thanks” to a plea deal. This is a good example of gun regulation pushed to the brink of idiocy. Read here: One Gallant Marine
Many believe that Fast & Furious was a concerted effort by Holder and Clinton to close in on the 2nd amendment. They have continually claimed that Mexico’s guns are from the U.S. All this while, the U.S. government was supplying guns to the drug cartels without Mexico’s knowledge and with almost no effort to track the guns.
Sloppy work or concerted effort? You decide.
Heritage had an interesting piece from the last Fast & Furious testimony by Holder. Holder used the opportunity to further his extreme “gun control” agenda and lied about there being a law that already covers that. I shouldn’t say he lied, maybe he had another memory lapse. Dementia?
We don’t need more laws, we need to use the ones we have. I don’t have a problem with some regulations on guns, but what Holder, Obama, Clinton want is to eliminate the 2nd amendment.
His words are always vague but they hint at the same thing – ban guns, period -
Attorney General Eric Holder used his testimony before a House committee on Thursday to tout the supposed need for new gun control laws to prevent “gun walking,” or the transportation of firearms across the Southern border. But he – and members of the committee – ignored existing laws that already accomplish Holder’s ostensible goals.
“That is why we need a stronger gun trafficking law,” Holder said in response to questions about recourse against officials who signed off on the gun walking tactic. The tactic was integral to Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed the transportation of roughly 2,500 firearms into Mexico, often with not just the knowledge but the facilitation of federal law enforcement officials, where those guns were given to violent drug cartels.
Many Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where Holder was testifying for the sixth time on Fast and Furious, echoed the attorney general’s calls for greater gun control. Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) touted legislation they introduced, which would make suspected “straw purchases” – the purchases of guns to be handed off to others – illegal.
Holder called that bill “a good place for us to start.”
But neither Holder nor committee members mentioned the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a federal law already on the books that appears to criminalize the precise conduct undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Operation Fast and Furious. Read here: Heritage
Senator Rand Paul has called for opposition to what now appears to be a new attempt at circumventing our constitution with the signing of a small arms treaty that would essentially eliminate the second amendment. Far left think tanks such as Center for American Progress (who also want a new Progressive Constitution by 2020 which makes our freedoms relative to Progressive ideology) are demonizing Paul to obliterate his message and paint him as a kook.
The Center for American Progress lamely tries to insist the treaty doesn’t exist when it clearly does – it just hasn’t been signed yet.
Here are some facts – in October, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed the policies of previous Presidents and stated that she would enter into talks with the international community about signing a small arms treaty as long as it was done by consensus. (With a Democratic Senate, anything Hillary signs will be signed by the Senate.)
Her feigned insistence on consensus is not going to hold water because the international community will not stand for it and she knows it -
“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons. Read more: Reuters
The treaty they are talking about basically bans all privately-held semi-automatic weapons.
Make no mistake, any treaty with the U.N. will require us to abide by their gun requirements. They do not allow a 2nd amendment.
The following is from the UN Disarmament site. Using the worst scare tactics, the U.N. is aiming at the elimination of small arms throughout the world -
The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.
Weapons of choice
Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.
Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare. Read more: U.N.
I ask you, why would the U.N. want a small arms treaty with a free nation that has a second amendment? If we lose this amendment, what’s next? Oh, of course, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th are undergoing some overhaul under this administration as we speak.
So what has happened since 2009 when Hillary signed the agreement? In May, 2010, Obama announced his support for the UN Small Arms Treaty (you know, the one that Center for American Progress claims does not exist).
Former Secretary of State Bolton responded -
“After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”
In 2011, information began to leak out -
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, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
Tom Mason, who represented the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting at the U.N. conference, told FoxNews.com the provisions are worrying.
“No, there are no black helicopters. There is no secret treaty that Hillary Clinton has signed,” Mason said. “But on the other hand, the treaty is a significant threat to gun owners. I think the biggest threat may be the body that would administer the treaty,” he added, referring to a new U.N agency the treaty would create, to be called the “Implementation Support Unit.” Read more: Fox World
Obama is currently negotiating Four Dangerous Treaties and one of them is the Small Arms Treaty. Obviously, our Democratic Senate will sign it. The arms going around the world have nothing to do with the guy down the block, USA – it’s the communist countries exporting small arms, not individuals in the United States. The only reason for the treaty is to enact U.S. gun control.
There is a disarmament conference at the U.N. each year and I want you to take a look at the countries who are going to be involved in our small arms initiative and ask yourself why we would even consider entering into talks with these people. UN Confrence Speakers
The following also comes from the U.N. site in case you have any doubt that the U.N. is against any type of private ownership of small arms -
Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW)
Small arms include hand guns, pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, grenades, light missiles. Light weapons include heavy machine guns, mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns, and portable launchers of anti-tank missile. The illicit proliferation of SALW poses a grave danger to international security and stability, and threatens the lives of millions around the world every year. Key issues in the combat against SALW include marking, tracing, collecting, and destroying small arms; child soldiers; women and gun violence; trade controls and arms brokers; development and public health. Read more: UN
Will the U.S. one day have those marvelous U.N. peacekeepers patrolling our streets to keep us safe as they do in the Congo and around the world. They themselves are continuously blamed for vicious and unspeakable atrocities, atrocities we have helped fund. Many of these cases have been proven true. Check out YouTube if you don’t believe.
Help Rand Paul: NAGR.org
By Sara Noble - February 14, 2012
Source: The Independent Sentinel
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.
Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.
• International Criminal Court — Clinton has reversed George W. Bush’s policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military’s hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.
• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.
• Small-arms control — Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!
• Outer Space Code of Conduct — Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space — space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to re-impose it under the guise of a code of conduct.
• Rights of the Child — Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.
European liberalism is advancing — masked — by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!
Obama’s OMB wants a global minimum tax
President Obama’s new Budget Director has had a rough first few days on the job. First he inadvertently declared Obamacare unconstitutional and now he’s openly pushing for a new global minimum tax. If the press weren’t so enamored with socialism perhaps they would have asked a follow up: Who would administer the tax? Who would collect it? Who would distribute it? Reaction from radio today.