Could it possibly be that the official position of the United States of America, voiced by the President of the United States and carried around in the handbag on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is to re-shape our country and eliminate the citizenry's right to defend itself?
What are we supposed to be? Sitting ducks for the terrorists and the criminals?
Ain't gonna happen, folks!
Remember the statement of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, author of From Luby's to the Legislature, when she addressed a legislative committee on the important of the Second Amendment. At the end of her statement, she said, "The point of the Second Amendment ... is about our rights, all of our rights, to protect ourselves from you guys up there".
She meant the legislators hearing her testimony about gun control. (If you don't know who Suzanna Gratia Hupp is, watch the video and Google her. And read her book!)
Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trying to subvert our Second Amendment rights?
We must declare to our elected (and candidates for) Senators and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives that We, the People, will not tolerate intrusion on the Second Amendment.
ADDENDUM: 7:25PM
At 2:14PM today I telephoned Rep. Joe Walsh's office to ask where he stood on the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. I explained my question and hoped for a response within a couple of days. They did much better than that!
At 4:02PM Michelle Mathia, a Constituent Services Representative, sent me the following message:
"I presented your concern to our legislative aid in our DC office and below is his reply.
"Congressman Walsh introduced the Second Amendment Protection Act, which will cut off funding to the United Nations if it passes this Small Arms Treaty. The web page links provide more information.
"http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3594/show
"http://walsh.house.gov/press-releases/rep-walsh-defends-constitution-from-united-nations1/
"I hope this answers your question, and if our office can be of any other assistance, please feel free to contact us at the number(s) below."
The numbers are 847/973-9341 and 815/337-0328.
Now, that's what I call Constituent SERVICE! Many thanks to Michelle, to the legislative aide in Washington, and to Joe Walsh!
8 comments:
Just a reminder that this story is pretty much BS, and Rand Paul should be ashamed for repeating it!
No treaty, none, period, ever, can override the constitution. Not to mention the fact this whole UN small arms treaty is about the illicit international arms trade, not the US.
MBlue, thanks for your comment.
If the U.S. signed the U.N. Small Arms Ban, wouldn't there then have to be an amendment to the Constitution, changing the 2nd Amendment.
Hopefully, it's quite unlikely that would happen but, considering Calif., N.Y., Mass., Ill. and some other states, the question is, What if?
Can you imagine the reaction of law-abiding citizens who would then be faced with becoming criminals?
Would we then be insurgents, stepping forward to protect our country?
The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.
JEEPGIRL said,
To MBlue. It's the possibilty of a "further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied" that makes most of us nervous!
For that to happen, our...YOUR... elected representatives in Washington and Illinois, along with those in 3/4 of the States, would have to approve. I doubt that any UN treaty, resolution or other action is going to cause that to happen.
As for the Supreme Court reinterpreting how the 2nd Ammendment is applied, if that were to happen, the legislature always has the ability to pass legislation or an amendment to restore our rights.
Why am I not less worried?
Because apparently you must be an idiot to have even believed this crap in the first place.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Matthew, did you skip all your history classes in school?
Go back and study how Hitler took over Germany.
Post a Comment