Second Amendment vs. the UN

Earlier this week, the UN announced that it was "shelving" the Small Arms ATT Treaty, at least for the time being. This rings in good news for the TEA Party, US Constitution loyalists, Second Amendment advocates, and American Citizens.

The summit and conference concerning the treaty met in New York City last week. Several member countries, to include the US Ambassador to the UN, expressed deep concerns over Iran being among the countries named to oversee the enforcement of the treaty if ratified. Thus, international support for the treaty waned.

Here in the US, the treaty threatened our national sovereignty as a blow against the Second Amendment. If the treaty had been agreed to and ratified, it would have circumvented our constitutionally protected rights.

Why do we have the Second Amendment in the first place? Don't we have the police to protect us? Guns kill innocent people, don't they? Why do you need a gun? These are several questions domestic supporters of the treaty have uttered. Well, let us go to that first question for the most important reason to own firearms. Our forefathers were subjected to King George's standing army confiscating private property and forcing colonists into servitude at the barrel of several muskets. In addition, the Red Coats tended to confiscate any arms the colonists possessed. They did so for two reasons. The first reason was to leave colonists defenseless and unable to protect their own property. They sought to disarm all colonists so they did not have the means to resist tyranny. The second reason for the confiscations was to further arm the tyrants, using the colonists' own weapons.

After the War for Independence, during the days of the Articles of Confederation, the early Americans feared a strong government that controlled a standing army. Though the Articles permitted the national government to draft and enlist soldiers from the various states, they had no means to tax the states in order to equip, arm, and pay the soldiers. States were asked to donate funds. Those that did usually gave less than what was perceived as their per capita share. Most did not, however. This was their means of keeping the national army from becoming too strong and a vehicle design to assert another tyrannical oligarchy upon the citizens.

In attempting to draft the US Constitution, the individual states would not do so. The base document allowed for taxation in order to fund, equip, pay, train, house, and maintain standing Naval and Ground forces. However, there were no provisions that allowed the states and the individual citizens a means of protection in order to prevent a tyranny. Thus the Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution. Its wording is clear. Because the federal government and the state governments were allowed to maintain militias to protect the nation and the states (state police are considered a militia), the rights to own and carry arms (firearms) by individual citizens are not to be infringed, ever. That includes requiring a permit to own or to carry (even concealed).

Those Second Amendment rights are necessary to our sovereignty. The ATT would infringe upon them. However, the argument made most emphatically during the summit was against Iran, a country known for its disregard for individual rights, being a part of the UN committee. In reality, Hillary Clinton could care less about Second Amendment rights.

The treaty is not gone. It needs to not be forgotten. As long as it remains a possible proposal, it is a threat against out national sovereignty. Other treaties within the Agenda 21 collection remain threats to our sovereignty. Among those is a treaty concerning the care of "the disabled". Another is a treaty concerning international educational requirements (including granting the UN taxing powers to pay for them). Others restrict our ability to conduct preemptive actions, counter-attacks, or defense operations without first garnering a majority vote from the UN. That treaty would take away our US Congress's power to declare war. Then we have the LOST treaty. The LOST treaty has been around for decades. It has been resurrected among the Agenda 21 treaties. Now that the ATT has been "shelved", you can expect it to re-emerge in the future, like many of the other Agenda 21 treaties are repackaged versions of past poor treaties.

Stay Alert, stay alive.