UN Gun Grab of Small Weapons


Did we have a glimmer of victory with the passage of the Inhofe amendment to the Senate 2014 budget?

Is it myth or danger to our Second Amendment rights?

I will admit this issue is confusing to folks on one hand we have alternative news sources telling us their take and MSM reporting another. There are firearm groups as well such as NRA and Gun Owners of America injecting their .02 cents. The manufactures of weapons as well  adds fuel to the fire (glad to have alternative news sources and as well the NRA and GOA).  In the final we gun-toters, lovers of the Constitution and its 2nd Amendment operate from common sense backed by history that reinforces that we have plenty to be alarmed about. Its a gun grab,  its a danger pure and simple. They, the general population, of  liberal/progressives among us seem clueless of what liberties they are so freely ready to give away. For the liberal/progressive  its about the ideology of collectivism.

We have the Obama Administration agenda on gun control along with the progressives in Congress to push his agenda. Danger.

A Glimmer of Victory

Then there was Senator Inhofe’s amendment to the 2014 Senate Budget “Inhofe amendment to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (#139) Agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 – 46.”  Surprise, I mean it, it passed by seven votes.

Obama did sign on to the UN gun grab treaty but it did not make it to the floor. It would have required 2/3 to pass.  Senator Inhofe’s amendment  I “guess” makes it [the treaty] dead in the water.

Don’t trust the Democrats because for now its their gun control agenda now being debated that trumped the fight for the UN Small Arms Treaty. We mainstreet Americans have no insight to backroom deals that may have been made.

un-small-arms-treaty-480x318A glimmer of victory could be a short-term one.

If the treaty should ever be ratified  the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution makes it binding on U.S. States. While the U.S. House of Representatives do not vote directly on treaties they still hold the card of ‘advice and consent’. The treaty would have needed 2/3 vote with no defects by the Democrats. And some Democrats would face strong opposition from their constituency.  Some face mid-term elections and could be defeated on this one issue if they had not cast a Yea vote on the Inhofe amendment.

I think the Inhofe amendment passing is a victory. I however do not think an attempt to resurrect the treaty is over. If Republicans lose ground in the Senate because of midterm elections or those democrats who voted for the Inhofe amendment and being reelected could defect it remains a possible.

Obama becoming a signatory is a red-flag that we must not ignore. While those who signed on to the treaty they may not be familiar with the United States form of government. The U.S. President affixing his signature has significant power in the political. However we can not ignore Obama’s gun control agenda here in the United States. Mainly because of the threat that the Senate may give their consent to the treaty at another juncture and then the binding Supremacy Clause on the States which will render States powerless.

Let’s face facts the Republicans in Congress are not above trashing the Constitution, ignoring legislation that diminish it, they can fairly be called  ‘sissies’.

For a UN treaty to be accepted as passed requires 50 member state heads as signatories. There are many Disarmament Treaties that have received the required number of signatories. Does not mean all Nations would abide by nor would the signatories be successful in selling it back home in their respective countries.  The U.S. Congress has been historically against approving all that smells of international law that trumps our Constitution but again not all and with Obama and the possible 2016 Presidential elections ushering in an Obama like candidate we can not give up our concern to defeat any attempt by the Senate to giving a President final ratification of  a  UN Small Arms Treaty.  Be diligent watching for a look alike attempt from the UN. 

Obama pushing his gun control agenda gives all believers in the 2nd Amendment reasons to be alarmed.  Remember Disarmament Treaties surface all the time.

The UN most likely pushed by the United States, I can not say definitely, published

Setting The Record Straight: THE UN AND SMALL ARMS

addressing what they see as myth vs fact.

Some signatories to the treaty well its laughable. What the treaty does is impose restrictions on countries such as the United States (others as well) viewed by the UN as the source for weapons.UN-GUN-BAN1

Moving along.

We have the Department of Homeland Security writing a purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, that’s right 1.6 billion with a capital “B”. See Forbes article Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation. Forbes article points out that “some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers”.

International Law has in the historical banned the use of hollow point bullets See Hollow Point Bullets and specifically the section Legality. As with all UN resolutions and international laws the fact is nation states break the resolutions and the international law when it is perceived by the nation as in their best interest.  Bad actor states could give a damn what is passed they seem to sign on to anything, most of the time, even though the UN and international community know they [the bad actors] are not sincere when they affix their name.  I suppose its about nothing more than an exercise designed to make the international socialist community the right to think they tried, its a feel good thing.

In the Forbes article they pointed out that the DHS grab of bullets “the stockpile would last DHS over a century”.

Besides cost to the treasury of the United States, can not be insignificant, the fact DHS has been allowed to do so without much fuss from Congress is alarming.

DHS has made “acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers” as the Forbes article points out and other media as well. As Forbes so eloquently said “ It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.” Here is the rub I think it is driven from the Whitehouse and progressives in Congress.  Congress it seems is lacking in judicious oversight or perhaps it is not lack of oversight but self interest for obtaining these kinds of weapons for their ever hungry local police forces. Recall that DHS has its long-arm into all state and local police forces, their partners. So I guess its about a representative getting their fair share of the pot of gold.

The bleeding heart liberals/progressives instead of berating us gun toters, fierce Patriots and Republicans at large should thank us instead. Why? We might someday be the last line of defense against a tyrannical Corporatocracy. A leader emerging like that of a Stalin. That is no outrageous thought all though the liberal/progressive would say preposterous, not in the U.S.. The bleeding heart should inject a bit of reality in their thinking.

We have the right to be confused by the UN Small Arms Treaty, the  agendas go far beyond the treaty. Always go with your instincts Patriot.

An aside, a jump if you will to another consideration in the equation.

un-small-arms-treaty1We conservatives by and large are realist. The liberal/progressive, socialist are into anything couched in flowery words that say “see we care about human rights, the conflicts and the like that plague the Third World”  as if we conservatives are lacking in compassion. The difference in realism and being one who is not is that the realist looks beyond the scent of flowers in the words to words that are binding in law. There is a difference. No doubt, we have broken treaties and international law when our government thinks it is in their interest they will again . The realist will try to infuse the right language up-front that may provide the U.S. a legitimate reason for carrying out our interest across the globe. Otherwise the U.S. is thought of as having no credibility, predatory. Its about diminishing our full faith and credibility when the realist language is absent.

On the other hand I contend Obama and his representatives in the UN or State first like the socialistic crap for it helps to cement socialist thought in Americans. Its even about training Americans to get use to the NAU, open borders and the emerging one world governance. Pure and simple it is about molding America into a socialist country.

The UN Small Weapons Ban is only one step to indoctrinate, it is a step should it ever be consented to by the Senate then ratified by a sitting President it means a more controllable American citizenry.

Keep up the good fight Patriots! 

Keep up the fight my Patriot against any disarmament treaty that smells like UN Small Weapons Ban treaty. Fight all liberty busting legislation.

Keep our beloved United States a sovereign nation for freedom loving peoples.

Stop the progressive agendas!