U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

**billym** · July-8th-2012, 10:06 PM

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

**SonSeeker** · July-8th-2012, 10:56 PM

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

Between John Bolton and the NRA, the UN doesn't have a snowballs chance of repealing the Second Amendment.

When seconds count; the police are only minutes away.

**brethorn56** · July-8th-2012, 11:26 PM

The UN can take a flying leap as far as I am concerned. I am still convinced that Obama would turn the sovereignty of our nation over to them assuming he would have ultimate control.

**GlennO** · July-9th-2012, 12:04 AM

Brethorn56

**Elijah's Mantle** · July-9th-2012, 12:15 AM

you said it for real brethorn56

Obama could stoop to the level of allowing Muslims into our American military to gain citizenship in our country I think

**Kenny64** · July-9th-2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by billym

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

EVEN IF Obama and Hillary sign this agreement does not make is law. ANY treaty must be approved and pass 2/3 vote of the US Senate, that is 67 votes, I personnally don't think in an election year that is likely. Anyhow treaty IF approved by the Senate
is NOT Above the US Constitution, nor equal too and I think most conservatives believe that. Only the left radicals will try and say this superseeds the 2 Ammendment. In any case make my day. Molon Labe. No Guts No Glory. And the UN can take a flying leap.
"The United States Consitution and Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land". Period.

**WKUHilltopper** · July-9th-2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kenny64

"The United States Consitution and Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land". Period.

And yet, more and more each day--our courts are using foreign law to decide cases. We even force companies, such as Gibson Guitar, to comply with and hold them responsible under foreign law.

I'm not even sure we have a Constitution anymore. It is just whatever they say goes--when it is convenient to them.

We don't need a Constitution or even Congress anymore---apparently.
=====================================

Op-Ed: Obama signed ACTA in violation of Constitution, say critics

By Christine Mattice
Jan 29, 2012 in Politics

In signing ACTA, President Barack Obama has again leapfrogged over the U.S. Constitution, critics charge. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed by the United States and several other countries on October 1 with little fanfare.
In wake of the recent uproar (and subsequent shelving) of the proposed United States’ bills SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), however, many Americans are now turning their fears toward ACTA.
This is not surprising, as critics say that ACTA would censor the Internet even more severely than either SOPA or PIPA would have done.
According to Forbes:

Few people have heard of ACTA… but the provisions in the agreement appear quite similar to – and more expansive than – anything we saw in SOPA. Worse, the agreement spans virtually all of the countries in the developed world, including all of the EU, the United States, Switzerland and Japan.

And this treaty would trump all local and national laws.
Which is part of the reason critics, constitutional scholars, and one Senator is challenging Obama’s constitutional right to sign this treaty.
Obama claims that he signed it as an “executive agreement” which does not require Congressional approval. However, everyone else categorizes it as a treaty, which does require such approval.
But even if we let Obama bask in his delusion of signing an “executive agreement,” Constitutional experts say that he still does not have a right to sign it in the matter of copyright and patent laws. In fact, U.S. Constitutional scholars Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig said:

The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which it charges with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.

Using this same argument, Senator Ron Wyden (D) from Oregon has been hammering the Obama administration for months for an explanation as to why he bypassed Congress. Finally, the administration issued a response saying, essentially, that the President could sign this treaty because it would not change U.S. law.
Wyden then requested a Congressional Research Service’s Analysis of ACTA and found that it may change U.S.law. (What a surprise). The problem with ACTA, like so many bills Obama signs, is that is is so riddled with vague language that its meaning hinges on one's interpretation.
As it stands now, I’m convinced that Obama knowingly bypassed Congress and the United States Constitution to sign a treaty that will help to destroy our First Amendment right of free speech. (Thus his "concern" over the problems with SOPA, earlier this month, was just a charade). How long are we going to let him get away with this?

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/318690#ixzz208ad6npS