Saturday, July 14, 2012

Concerns about UN guns treaty

This article appears to be a relatively balanced and reasonably cautious look at the potential UN Arms Control Treaty. The author writes:

  1. "No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities.
  2. The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.
  3. The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment. . . .Thus, the default U.N. tendency—partly out of malevolence, partly out of ignorance—is to act in ways contrary to the Second Amendment, "
Notice also the trickery in the definition of covered transfer that would move beyond international transfers to all transfers.   Such lack of integrity and honesty should cause great concern.  Only a small handful of nations have anything like the Second amendment. (Please read the entire article)

Most of the media, who are clearly anti-gun have pooh-poohed the issue and tried to make it look like NRA paranoia.  I am not an NRA member, do not fawn over them and try to make up my own mind on issues. I have tried to look at all sides, and  I think this treaty is a serious concern for those who love liberty.

As the article, and other evidence suggests, on this issue, you basically can't trust the UN, or the Obama administration to be sincerely concerned about  Second Amendment rights.  There is good reason to see a red flag here.

Although both are the "supreme law of  the land," the Constitution take precedence over treaties. Currently, the Second Amendment protects at least otherwise lawful keeping of arms by ordinary law-abiding people in their homes."  How far beyond that it reaches, is unclear until the U.S. Supreme Court speaks again on the topic. Many of the lower court decisions treat the right unsympathetically and refuse to extend it beyond the home. However, there are clearly 4 anti-Second Amendment liberal votes on the Court (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg).  The replacement of a pro Justice with an anti could mean the Second Amendment rights of individuals could disappear.  I don't need to remind you which presidential candidate is likely to  make such an appointment.  

Thus, the Second Amendment is currently a frail, and potentially disappearing protection against the potential harm to current Second Amendment rights  that could result from the treaty.  Given that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," I urge you to contact your Senator and ask that he/she vote against the treaty if and when it comes up for a vote.

No comments:

Post a Comment