Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty

June 7, 2013 by  

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty
PHOTOS.COM

A majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.

Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.

Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.

In other words, this U.N. treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?

Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.

So a majority of Senators have publicly declared their opposition to this dangerous treaty. Doesn’t sound like there’s much chance the treaty will get a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which the Constitution says must be done for any treaty to take effect.

Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think even Obama — surely one of the most arrogant people to ever occupy the Oval Office — will try to do an end-run around this Constitutional requirement. But still, the President has come out in favor of it. And Kerry says the Administration is eager to sign it.

Which makes me wonder, have these guys lost their minds?

I’ll grant you, both men have made it clear throughout their careers the utter disdain they hold for the idea of any Constitutional restraints on their actions. But still, coming out in support of such a flagrantly unConstitutional measure now makes me wonder what is really going on here.

I’ve heard suggestions that the U.N. gun control treaty is being brought forward now to distract us from all the other scandals that are besetting the Obama Administration. But that’s as unlikely as the idea that the Administration decided to unleash the story of what the IRS did to Tea Party and other patriotic groups in an effort to distract people from two other scandals — the Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s surreptitious seizure of some reporters’ emails.

Okay, so we now know that the IRS actually planted the question that led to the story first breaking about how they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. And of course it was incredibly stupid to ask for donors’ names and addresses and even questioning what some of the applicants believed.

Passing on some of that private information, so it could be posted on-line by a left wing group, compounded the folly. Clearly, some heads will have to roll over all of this. By the time Congress finishes its various investigations, some IRS employees may even face criminal penalties. From what we know, they should.

But I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the IRS scandal will reach into the Oval Office. Yes, Obama set the tone that led to the malfeasance below him. But I don’t think he issued the orders. Unlike Watergate, there’s no recorded conversation or other smoking gun here: or, so far as we know, any impeachable offense.

But that’s emphatically not the case with the Administration’s active support of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Obama and his allies, including Kerry, know exactly what they’re doing. And they seem determined to proceed, no matter what anyone says.

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty was going nowhere last year. Obama, who was running for reelection, said he opposed it. Negotiators couldn’t agree on terms.

But then on Nov. 7 — one day after Obama won his second term — the President reversed himself and instructed our delegation at the U.N. conference to agree to a “Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” to be held in New York City in March.

When that conference voted to send the treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. representatives fully supported the move. Subsequently, on April 2 the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. The vote was a lop-sided 154 to 3. The Untied States was one of the “ayes.”

The “no” votes came from three of most notorious human-rights violators in a body that’s filled with them — Iran, Syria, and North Korea. China and Russia joined 21 other nations in abstaining.

How many of those countries were founded on the principle that the citizens’ rights come from God, not government? How many have anything resembling our own Bill of Rights, where the people’s rights (and the limitations on their rulers) are spelled out so forcefully and specifically?

I’m pretty sure the answer is zero.

No, those 154 countries represent some of the most repressive regimes on earth. There aren’t too many friends of freedom sitting in that glass palace on the East River.

The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded. We don’t have many friends there and never have. Heck, its very creation was virtually a communist plot against this country, as G. Edward Griffin proves in The Fearful Master, his invaluable study of the origins of this one-world monstrosity.

Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.

Let’s make sure that Barack Obama, John Kerry and their left wing allies don’t get away with it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

-Chip Wood

P.S. Once again I’ll be serving as master of ceremonies for FreedomFest, “the world’s largest gathering of free minds,” in Las Vegas, Nevada this July 10-13. Check out the amazing line-up of speakers, programs and debates at Freedom Fest. I encourage you to attend this inspiring gathering. If you do, please be sure to stop by and say hello.

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Pingback: YORKTOWN TRADING POST » Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating UN Gun Treaty – Personal Liberty Digest

  • Paul Martin

    Hello
    My name is priviate Paul Martin I am in the United States Army. I have greatly enjoyed all the informarion you have given. I only wish I could attend Freedom Fest but unfortunatly I am stationed over seas in South Korea, but i wish you all good luck and prayers for our country.

    • Ron r

      Young man you are being fed a bunch of bunk. As a soldier you should be aware that civilians whine about almost everything. Read the treaty.in fact ask the author of this story to show you where the treaty calls for the confiscation of guns in America .

      • Stepcof

        Registration is the first step to confiscation. And hindering our right to purchase ammunition is an infringement to bearing arms. It takes a little deeper thinking to understand what is really going on. Chip is right.

      • Jonathan

        Ambiguity and open worded laws are what create loop holes. Ron, you need to take your liberal garbage somewhere else. I hold no party favor personally. You don’t believe it violates our rights but what you and your garbage thinking don’t understand is that ambiguous terms and phrases are what allow governments powers beyond plain view. So before you spout off in agreement for this why don’t YOU take the time to read about how laws work.

      • Keith

        Ron r, The man serving in the army unlike you understands that he serves the constitution and the people of the United States not the gang of criminals that currently control our government. People like you are mindless sheep that deserve the tyranny that criminal governments you support will bring.

      • Ron r

        Keith the fact you use the term lifer proves you were just in the marines for the free stuff and you j. Fact were no marine. You were a tourist, a career private,or a person who is either too lazy ,mindless ,or both to read and will follow blindly any story or anyone who tells you what you want to hear. You are no leader and the marines were lucky you got the hell out!! So was this great nation.

        • Keith

          Ron r, Sounds like I struck a nerve. The fact is I was not in the Marines for “the free stuff” nor was I a career private. I honorably and proudly served my four years then resumed my life and built a successful career in the private sector creating the wealth that funds our military among other things and I might add that too much of said wealth is pilfered by statist thugs that you support. I do my own research and form my own opinions. Other than the paycheck I earned while serving in the Marines I have never received a dime of government money. The fact of the matter is, believe believe the UN is a corrupt anti-American orginization that should be de-funded and allow to die. It is against this country’s interest to enter in to any treaty with that gang of international criminals. The 2nd Amendement is a God given right and the only legitimate function of the government is to secure and defend those rights. Under no circumstances are these rights to be compromised or negotiated. The reason we need the 2nd Amendment is because there people like you in the military and worse yet in positions that give orders to the military. Remember, history’s worst mass murderers and perpetrators of genocide have been governments and their victims are always unarmed. I truly hope that when this economically and morally bankrupt government implodes, the decent people in the military will do the right thing and side with the wealth producers to rebuild this country back to what it once was truly free country and not complete the devolution into a Marxist state.

          • Stephanie Corbier

            Well said, Keith!

    • Amanda

      Thank you for your service.

      • Ron r

        Keith you don’t know if I served in the military or not, so don’t assume. This soldier made a statement that was based on misleading information and I for one will give my side of the issue , it’s up to the soldier if he agrees or not. He’s an American fighting man who some day will be a fire team leader,squad leader,and platoon sgt. He will make decisions most civilians could never dream of making. He should be told tge truth,and not some dreamed up conspiracy . Oh and by the way I am assuming he is an 11B.

        • Keith

          Ron r, It sounds to me like this man is quite well informed of the facts, can think for himself, and understands his oath. He is the type of person we need in the military not mindless lifer automatons. I am not assuming you were not in the military, you probably were. I served four years in the Marine Corps and while I served with some of the best individuals I have ever known, l also ran into a few of your types. Brain washed lifer losers that have contempt for the “civilians they serve because the military is their only option. You are cut from the same cloth as the war criminals that claimed they were only following orders when they were on trial at Nuremberg.

    • Troy Sjerven

      Thanks for serving Paul.

      • Ron r

        Oh,and Keith,as many soldiers as I trained when I was in the army from boot camp ,to AIT,to infantry unit,I have never had classes on the constitution. What military are you talking about??

      • allan

        Thanks for your service veterans.

        Now Ron, you are a flat out idiot, period, no its ands or buts. A soldiers oath is to the constitution not to any specific person nor to the goverent. Its to protect god given/ natural freedoms and liberty.

        Also if you look at every single socialist goverent who has committed genocide in history, what is the very first thing they do? That’s right, register weaponry of the populous. Next step? Forced confiscation. Next step? Totallitarianism which is pure tyranny. Get pyur liberal head out of your pinched pinched sphinktor so you can quite stating crap and spueing it.

      • Ron r

        To idiot Allen , I know I said that soldiers take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution , I know I did. So while you are on your idiot tour and taking your oath from idiot right wing blogs and Russ,grow up with the name calling .

      • Ron r

        No Keith sounds like I struck your nerve. As for your response ,all I can say is that if you buy into this so call right wing conspiracy on the treaty you can not blame the government for the failure of your business. As a businessman who has or should be a detailed reader,please give me the section and paragraph that reads that the 2nd amenent will be voided ,or demands a list of American gun owners ??? Show me that and I am convinced. Right now I do not beleive that it was Linchon who shot Booth but I’m sure there are some on the right who beleive Linchon was the shooter. So at the expense of us no longer name calling ,just give me the paragraph on a mandatory national register or gun confiscation and I will support the fight. I await your positive response.

        • Keith

          Ron r, What this treaty actually says is in my opinion irrelevant. To tell you the truth, I have not read it. To waste my time reading it would imply that I grant any legitimacy to the UN. This treaty should be rejected simply because it is a product of an illegitimate organization that in every instance has worked to undermine the interests of free and sovereign nations. George Washington admonished us to steer clear of entangling alliances. Unfortunately that advice has not been heeded, with disastrous consequences the very existence of the UN being one of them. One just needs to look at the UNs track record, everything they have been involved with has been a complete disaster. We should not enter any agreement not should we give them any financial support. As for your assumption that I am a “right wing conspirousy theorist” , politically I am a Libertarian I believe in minimal government and free market capitalism neither of which have existed in this country for a long time. I don’t know what you were inferring with your comment about Lincoln shooting Booth, I’ve never heard that one. That must be quite a tale. We can discuss the virtues and vices of Lincoln in another conversation, but let’s stay on subject, shall we. I form my opinions based on the facts as I see them.I do not hate America, I love the idea that that America was founded on but have nothing but contempt for what has become of this country. I also have equal contempt for both the demacomunist party (the party of evil) and the republiclown party (the party of stupid). They are both equally responsible along with the clueless sheep that keep electing them for the untenable situation our country is in. I call the federal government and most state governments criminals simply because that is what they are. Forcibly taking wealth and property from people is the definition of theft. The implosion of the federal government is going to happen unless we drastically reduce the size and scope of the government, stop our foreign military mis-adventures, as well as financial aid to foreign governments and the UN and return to sound commodity backed currency. That is simply an economic fact supported by history. To think we are somehow immune to the laws of economics is the height of arrogance and stupidity. I do not hate the military. Maintenance of defense forces is one of the conditionally legitimate functions of the federal government. I find it encouraging that Ron Paul received more campaign contributions from active duty military than all the other republiclown candidates combined. Ron Paul is more a Libertarian than a republiclown. I believe that under no circumstances should the military be used against the American people nor be placed under any foreign command including the UN. Any elected official or member of the military that would give or follow an order to agress against the American people or serve under foreign flag is in violation of their oath and is committing treason. I call you a statist because from your statements I can tell you value the power of the state over the rights of the individual and the voluntary regulating force of the free market. Us “winning civilians” as you derogatorily call us have much to be angry about. We are tired of being seen as milk cows by a bloated, abusive, parasitic government. If you do not understand this you are either not very intelligent or not paying attention.

          • Stephanie Corbier

            Best comment I’ve read so far

      • Ron r

        Well Keith the fact that you have not read the treaty tells me to no longer read what you wrote in response to my post. To not read a document that as you claim is so anti constitutional and post such strong opinions as fact betrays the fine education you imply you had access to. As for you name calling of so called democrats ,well the way you feel about them is the way I feel about you and other reich wing extremist. To take a position like you take over something you have never read makes me wonder why you and some others here would want access to a gun. Do yourself a favor and read some non fiction.

        • Keith

          Ronr Please explain why I should read and not outright reject anything that comes out of an international criminal organization like the UN that continually works against the interests of free and sovereign nations. Anyone who values the sovereignty of our nation should reject the legitimacy of the UN outright. Anyone who would sign, or become a party to any UN treaty or voluntarily supports them (unfortunately, a portion of the money that the criminals in Washington dc pilfer from me every April 15 pays dues and supports other criminal activities of the UN) is committing treason by aiding and a betting an enemy of not only the United States but all all people that value individual freedom and national sovereignty. What is that you statists think is so terrible about a person being able to accumulate as much wealth as his or her abbilities and ambition will allow, being able to keep that wealth and dispose of it as they see fit, and living there life free of government interference as long as they don’t commit violence, theft, or fraud against others(all things your government does on a daily basis). These are the very core of my beliefs, why do you find them extreme? Are they not the values this nation was founded upon? Also to clarify my earlier use of the term “lifer”, I do not consider all career military people lifers. Most are decent honorable people who dedicate their lives to the service of our nation, however there are a number of them who stay in the military because the get off on authority and are absolute sociopaths and have no other options but the military. I referred to you as a lifer based on your statements showing contempt for anyone who criticizes abusive government and international criminal organizations like the UN. And, by the way, I consider the soldier that was courtmartialed for refusing to wear a UN uniform or serve under a UN command a hero and am proud to say I contributed to his legal defense. I also think all military and police with a concience and a brain should consider joining the Oatkeepers.

        • Random Erik

          Speaking out in favor of supporting our constitutional rights, and opposing anyone or anything which encroaches on the same, does not make a person a “right wing extremist.” Extremists are typically thought if as those who want to effect change which reflects their own beliefs in a need for reform. We are not the on the side of this issue represented by those who wish to change anything.

          I would remind you, that the majority of Congress has already voted against this treaty, Including the Democrats. By your reasoning, these Democrats could/should also be characterized as extremists?

          • Keith

            Well said Eric. This is the point I was trying to get across to Ron r but him and his ilk either are to simple minded and brain washed or worse know exactly what the are doing and are trying to transform this country into a totalitarian socialist state. The first group are the useful idiots that have no clue how free markets and capitalism work and will vote for anyone they perceive will give them a free ride
            at the expense of their more productive neighbors. The second group is particularly evil and dangerous and are the sociopaths who only want to control others. They are in the same league as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

      • Ron r

        Keith ,did you read the things you wrote about the UN or did you just come up with this crap like you did about the treaty??? If you think everyone in government is stealing from you now , lets hope the Paul’s never get in office because taking a page out of your conspiracy book , not only will you be stolen from , you will depending on your skin color be subjected to separate but equal again. Matters not to me if you like military or former mitary, that’s your right,unless you claim the president and the UN have taken that right away.

        • Keith

          Ron r, I can cite you several instances of UN atrocities Rwanda, Serbia, the debacle in Lebanon in which several Marines were killed, to name just a few. Just read the UN charter and you will se that there goal is one world government and the destruction of national sovereignty. My question to you is where did you get your information about Ron and Rand Paul being racist.and exactly how will I be stolen from when people that respect individual rights and private property are elected to public office. I’m quite sure you read it somewhere people can write all the lies they want and there are plenty of ignorant people to believe them. You still did not answer my question about why you consider my views so extreme and why you feel so threatened by them. All I ask for is to keep what I earn and be left the hell alone. As for your previous comment about questioning why I would want access to firearms, the most basic right anyone has as a human being is the right to self defense. You or anyone else including your government or any other organization you choose to bow down to has no right to question the means in which I choose to exercise that right.

      • Ron r

        Lets see here Keith. Though I am in no way a big fan of the UN let’s see how they have done. Lets take rawanda. If my memory serves me correctly not only did the UN not do enough or stood by mostly and let things happen,the U.S.took a back seat in this matter, was it not Clinton who said he regretted our no involvement . Lebanon,was a Reagan cut and run. Remember ,U.S.troops are never placed under UN control. Korea,a total UN United States function. Irag 2, the United States invades a nation that did not attract it. Irag 1 UN coalition. Arms treaty,nothing in it that calls for a national gun registry. I never called the Paul’s racist , and I will move on from there. Last I am to assume that you have read the UN charter?? Or is this just another assumption on your part. If so your views on the constitution would make the founders seem treasonist

        • Keith

          Ron r , Everything you said just reinforces my point about the UN being a useless orginization. Yes I have read the UN charter and it most certainly states its aim of a one world government. You did not specifically call the Pauls racist but what was the implication with the separate but equal comment. Sounds like someone playing the race card to me. I would still like an answer to my question of why you think my views and the views of others who question and criticize this government which is clearly out of controll and is bankrupting this country so offensive. Also please explain to me how ratifying the UN arms treaty is in our best interest. It seems to me that you are guilty of the same thing that you are accusing us so called right wingers of blindly accepting what we read or hear from so called right wing blogs. It seems to me that you blindly accept anything the government says and blindly support this administration no matter what they do. Are you threatened by us because we question the authority that you are so obsessed with?

      • Ron r

        Never said your views were offensive .i just don’t agree with them. And in case you have not heard the country is recovering slowly by recovering none the less. The debt is also shrinking. But we can after all the rhetoric agree to disagree. I am on this page mostly to see how the far right thinks. That is what made me and others triple our efforts to keep Romney out of office. I can see already that Christ christy will not be willing to be pushed to the far right in 2916 and H.Clinton moving into the White House. My point , extremism is not where the country is or has ever been. Thanks for the debate.

  • usmcveteran

    It’s getting dangerously close to “Lock and Load” time!

    • Ron r

      Read the treaty and seek the truth befor chip and his buddies have you take up arms while they sit on the sidelines and claim 1 st amendment rights.

      • Good citizen

        All of you who say this are MORONS.. In the text of the NDAA are provisions that require host nations to track small arms ownership. That cannot be done unless the govt knows who owns what. There’s your “universal registration” right there. Funny how a right that says right in the text “shall not be infringed” is interpreted by these govt goons as “never was unlimited”. It’s time to fight fire with fire. Oh and if UN blue helmet troops start combing our streets it’s gonna be open season on them.

  • j

    His signature on this UN Universal Gun Control Treaty impeaches him, if not by Congress then by class action lawsuits by American Citizens to try him and his financiers for treason.

    • Ron r

      The treaty has nothing to do with or changes the 2nd amendment.

      • Amanda

        It just one more step towards taking our guns. Wake up!

  • Ron r

    Read the damn treaty. It has nothing to do with guns and citizens of America. Stop with the what ifs and the black hellicopters . Why the lies ???

  • Ron r

    Chip,show us where the treaty voids the 2nd amendment ???? Just one line,please. Put up or stand down.

  • SYZORAX

    Do you know why the U.N. is in the U.S.?
    Because there protected here! They enjoy
    Special rights that we don’t, and many that they want to take away from us! The Useless
    Nations couldn’t survive in any other country
    .yet they try to destroy us.PATHETIC! Our president is …………..! You fill in the BLANK!

  • http://Yahoo LB Duncan

    “I see a Bad Moon Arizing” 👹

  • MaverickCoast

    It is time to begin impeachment proceedings for this President’s assault on the Constitution.

  • Good citizen

    Obama’s a coc*sucker. That’s right, my president is a coc*sucker. I hate him. I would not pass down his throat if his guts were on fire.

    • Good citizen

      *piss

    • Ron r

      So full if hate,so juvenile .

  • Kelly

    Ron, I read the treaty. It is all about gun control. You are either too ignorant to see the truth, or you are deliberately trying to help destroy everyones gun rights. The treaty would give the federal government power to make gun laws. The 2nd Amendment clear states at the end “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Not even the Legislature Branch has power to make gun laws. Check your information before commenting, and be sure you are speaking truth

    • Ron r

      No you can not read, and you have not read the treaty.the treaty has nothing to do with a countries domestic gun picy /2nd amendment. So what ever you read or thought you read let us all in on the line or lines that give them the right to take guns from Americans??? Read the treaty and not the Fox News version and befor you call someone ignorent,look in the mirror.

    • Ron r

      BTW the treaty does not give the federal government any more rights on guns than it does now. You lie!!!!!

      • Stephanie Corbier

        To Ron (and anyone else who shares his thoughts on gun rights),

        I’d like to ask you to think about some thing:

        Since our 2nd Amendment gun rights are not important to you personally (& that is your right), let’s say we DO lose our gun rights. (By the way, Ron, the UN treaty calls for the US to implement a plan to keep gun owners from buying ammunition–no ammo = no guns). By allowing this one right, to keep & bear arms, to be taken away, we will have then set a chilling precedent for violating ANY amendment from here on out. Who knows who will be elected next? It’s just possible that the next President decides that not being a Christian is a crime, or being gay, or having an abortion.

        My point being, you MUST look at the big picture! There’s much more at stake in allowing ANY American President, who swore to protect & uphold EVERY SINGLE RIGHT we already have, to disregard even ONE of them, no matter what you may personally feel about it. Because yours, sir, might be next.

        Meanwhile, as I am a Christian, I will faithfully pray for you. And as I carry a gun, I will faithfully protect YOUR right to speak out against MY rights.

  • Michel

    Welcome to the United States of Islam. Idiots voted in a “good Muslim” as Obama bin Laden (as I like to call him) has stated about himself on video, after we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11. A country of flipping idiots who primarily voted for him based on the color of his bloody skin and no other reason. Had he been white and doing to this nation as this man’s been doing he would have been impeached by now. He is a snake who hates America and whose goal is to totally disarm us (just look at Benghazi, the IRS atrocities, and how he’s reducing our military) until the Muslims can randomly attack and kill. The goal of Islam is world dominance by lies, fear, and intimidation…so much easier if we cannot protect ourselves.

    • Ron r

      Get an original thought. We’ve heard all this crap. Voted for him because he’s Muslim, he’s black.and all the other moronic reasons. Prove he’s Muslim , and what if he were. Does the construction say he can’t be Muslim.or does he have to be a blood thirsty ,Salem witch hunting, Native American ,slace holding Christian ?

  • http://Yahoo.com Ellwood Greiner

    Leave our Second Amendment Rights Alone

  • http://Yahoo.com Ellwood Greiner

    Leave our Second Amendment Rights Alone.Do not Sign that Gun Treaty. A US. Veteran , And A DAV . Veteran….

  • 1%er at your expense

    Freedom is an illusion. As George Carlin said, “Paper or plastic.” You dont have rights, you have priviledges. Brought to you by the Global 1%. You all need to calm down, shut up and buy something, especially on credit. Think about it. Even on minimum wage, you can live well, IF YOU JUST BUY ON CREDIT.” With credit, $1.00 buys you give or even ten. So really, an $18,000.00 annual salary plied out through credit, really buys you well over $100,000.00 in purchasing power. Live the life. Green car. Green apartment. All for only a few hundreds a month. Your job is to feed the machine. We have provided you nice, green products. The more you buy, the more you save the planet. Feel the air. See the birds. Smile. Be happy.

  • mark russman

    Hang on…

    2nd amendment…..yeah the whole thing….

    President Obama:

    IIRC: ..”..I pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America… against foreign and domestic..”
    Sworn in front of the country..(or was this one behind closed doors?)…
    THAT IS AN IMPEECHABLE OFFENSE.
    He is in violation of the second amendment, and his Oath of Office. This is shown by the fact that Congress voted down the measure as per the Constitution…
    Oh, and add circumventing the authority of the Legislative branch of the government….

  • Paul in NH

    Impeach this POS!

  • Dave

    Looks like Ron has his head to far up his ass to know what is really going on. So you better pull hard and fast to get that pop sound to know you are free from stupidity .

    • Ron r

      No Don my son I have my head up your moms.

      • Ron r

        Correction,I me t your mom Dave

  • 1%er

    Fools! If they impeach, THEY NEVER REMOVE. And then, years later, you get their whores influencing. It, like so many other pageants, means nothing. Impeach away. (But, be sure to keep buying things, especially on credit)

  • .John M.Tennyson, Ph.D.

    Anyone associated with the UN position which takes away of our Second Amendment rights as well as our First Amendment rights should be immediately impeached! Americans, it is time to rally together with the Congressional officials and their staff and overrule anything that impacts our God given rights. This may be time to start planning political demonstrations to support our rights!

  • Random Erik

    Of course he came out on favor of it; Obama was responsible for the re-introduction of the treaty in the UN. This is a huge piece of the globalist agenda that he has been charged with accomplishing.

  • Pingback: Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty |

  • Pingback: Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty : Personal Liberty Digest™ | getting there

  • Stephanie Corbier

    To Ron (and anyone else who shares his thoughts on gun rights),

    I’d like to ask you to think about some thing:

    Since our 2nd Amendment gun rights are not important to you personally (& that is your right), let’s say we DO lose our gun rights. (By the way, Ron, the UN treaty calls for the US to implement a plan to keep gun owners from buying ammunition–no ammo = no guns). By allowing this one right, to keep & bear arms, to be taken away, we will have then set a chilling precedent for violating ANY amendment from here on out. Who knows who will be elected next? It’s just possible that the next President decides that not being a Christian is a crime, or being gay, or having an abortion.

    My point being, you MUST look at the big picture! There’s much more at stake in allowing ANY American President, who swore to protect & uphold EVERY SINGLE RIGHT we already have, to disregard even ONE of them, no matter what you may personally feel about it. Because yours, sir, might be next.

    Meanwhile, as I am a Christian, I will faithfully pray for you. And as I carry a gun, I will faithfully protect YOUR right to speak out against MY rights.

    • Ron r

      Thank you for the thoughtful response. First I have no problem with the 2nd amendment and in fact served many years in the army protecting the constitution ,just as every soldier take the oath. I am also a realist who has read the treaty and attempted to do a real fact check on it and nothing has shaken out that it has anything to do with or replaces any part of th 2nd amendment. In fact the treaty is mostly to track arms going to countries who sponsor terrorist . In fact had this been in place during the Reagan years there would possible have been no arms for hostages, or selling arms to Iran. So again I thank you for your prayers.

  • Pingback: Fish and Politicians Smell in 3 Days | SocialSity

  • flashy

    Just for kicks and giggles, anyone care to point out a) where in the treaty it states “domestic” firearm control? B) gun control mandatory, c) anything other than exporting weapons

    As well, anyone care to note just why they side with Syria, Iran and N.Korea in opposing this treaty?

    For kicks and giggles you understand…cause a-c aren’t in the treaty and I’m dyin’ to read how self proclaimed “patriots” stand side by side with Syria, Iran and N. Korea…

    • Ron r

      They will never admitt they are wrong. They will only read lies that fit their agenda. Someone needs to let them know that the election is over.

  • Stephanie Corbier

    Flashy:
    The treaty “demands that EVERY NATION create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders WITHIN ITS BORDERS. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could PREVENT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FROM PURCHASING AMMUNITION for any weapons they do own.”

    This registry would be domestic. And preventing gun owners from purchasing ammo has nothing to do with exporting.

    While its a clever twist to say that those of us who oppose the UN treaty are on the side of Syria, Iran & N Korea, you know that’s a misleading sound bite. We are in agreement that we don’t approve of the treaty, but for very different reasons. I’m in favor of our Constitutional rights as Americans. They are in favor of importing and exporting weapons for their own agendas.

    • flashy

      What section of the Treaty is that located ? Serious as it is not in the official copy posted on the UN site.

      • Random Erik

        It IS the official copy on the UN site. You just don’t understand what you are reading, and THEY are counting on that.

    • Ron r

      Please let us know what treaty you are reading and the site we can find it on because it seems you have found something others can’t find.what paragraph is that written in,or could you give us the site address??? I a d others may be reading the wrong treaty. Thanks in advance for any assistance you provide.

  • Random Erik

    Ron R. – First, let me say, I forgive you. You are obviously either an individual who has been indoctrinated with the liberal progressive ideology of over-looking the obvious underlying principles for the sake of the far-reaching stated popular, emotionally-driven intent, or a victim of early experiment in common core education. (regardless of your background or education. )

    In answer to your question, I refer you directly to the English version of the small arms ban treaty itself. You claim to have read it, any google search will produce it; thus, no link should be required. Either you understand it, and are trying to misrepresent what it actually demands of signatory States, or you don’t understand anything it says at all.

    The signing of this treaty, as far as America is concerned, calls for the abolishment of second amendment rights, in favor of UN regulation – de facto; and those regulations are quite plain: it calls for the disarmament of civilians, and/or the usurping of civilian ability to purchase ammunition in regions where disarmament cannot be easily achieved. It is VERY plain that these are the underlying intents, despite the gloss-over introduction citing the need to protect the lives of innocent bystanders in periods of armed conflict. From any and every legal aspect, this treaty seeks to establish that only governments may legally possess small arms – specifically defined by reference to other UN regulation, as personal firearms.

    Nothing you have stated about the treaty is, in any legal actuality, true. This much is plainly established without even reading the entire treaty. One needs to read no further than Article 5 to see the circumvention of sovereign national laws established in very defined terms.

    As such, this Treaty contradicts the US Constitution – which means it has no validity or enforcibility under US constitutional law. Obama is signing it merely in the hopes of creating a “loophole” on which to base executive orders enforcing the terms of the treaty – thereby circumventing the Constitution and the Congress both, to achieve the same intent. He knows it isn’t legal – especially given the Senate’s premature vote which refused the treaty ( for the same reason I’ve stated here), but he is hoping to distort the argument of Constitutional law further along the ideology of case law, in an attempt to have the pertinent parts of the treaty upheld upon legal future challenge.

    You would do well Sir, if you could learn to stop repeating, and actually THINK for yourself.

    • Ron r

      So I assume that the scholar that you are you have the paragraph and section that you imply you are qouting verbatim. So far you have not given a fact only speculation / conspiracy. I also forgive you for betraying the excellent education you seem to imply you had access to.. You would have us beleive you so sadly wasted. I also forgive you for not being able to stay above the name calling. In the end despite the fact I hoped you could you have presented no facts , but only your personal opinion. No facts , nothing written, only what you think will happen. Just goes to show that there are just as many educated fools as there anew just plain fools.

  • Random Erik

    !

  • Random Erik

    Take note: Ron R. is repeatedly asking for links and / or site addresses which demonstrate the “anti-Constitutional” provisions of the treaty.

    I’m all for 1st Amendment rights, but can we please have a mechanism for banning the Cyber Warriors for Obama as we are able to identify them, on this site? They detract from realistic and productive thinking/discussion – which is their obvious intent.

    • flashy

      He keeps asking for a cite because y’all are saying stuff that just isn’t true. If any of these wild gibberings had any factual basis, show the part of the treat they’re in !

      Criminey, its five pages and only 20 something clauses. Ya think one would paste the portion claimed to stifle our rights….because the official treaty has none of what y’all are screaming about.

      • Random Erik

        Here we have another one… Claims to have read it, yet your remarks do not reflect any understanding of the treaty. Again, i am citing the first 5 articles, you only need to read the first 5 articles, to see that every assertion made by those who oppose this treaty Is explained very clearly.

        You people are amusing. The treaty speaks for itself. READ IT. You claim to have read it, therefor you don’t need any link. My comments are based entirely on the PDF version, in English translation, available to everyone at the UN’s site.

        Now, I know what you’re hoping for… You’re hoping for some link to a site other than the UN’s. sorry to disappoint, but the views opposing this treaty are not based on any rantings of popular political pundits of either persuasion. They are based on the actual treaty. I’ll tell you what, since I have repeatedly stated that you only need to read the actual treaty. Perhaps YOU can provide a link or citation that refutes what I am saying… but the reality here is that you can’t.

        Tell me, what is it that is confusing you? The majority of Congress took the same issues with the same parts of the treaty that we do, and voted against it. Why did that happen? Because that’s what the treaty says! What is it that you think you know that the rest of us, and the majority of Congress does not?

        No, sir. The burden of proof in this argument is not upon us. It is upon YOU. We are citing the actual treaty itself. There is no way anyone could claim to have read this treaty AND understood all of it’s provisions, and claim that it doesn’t attempt to establish international control over American constitutional (or any signatory county’s) rights. That is, after all, the direct and only method laid out in this treaty for addressing it’s stated intents.

      • flashy

        See, you err in your first sentence. I don’t claim to have read it, I’m stating it for fact. And whatever fantasy you conjecture it stating…verbatim quotes I might add … Simply are not true.

    • Ron r

      You call conspiracy ,and out right lies intelligent conversation. There are no links to direct anyone to that will confirm the lies printed here about the treaty. All I and some others ask is for the section and or paragraph that mentions a mandatory national registry I just have not read that part of the treaty.

      • Ron r

        Random there is a way you and others with wild conspiracy thoughts could read a passage and.come up with the junk you come up with. You have stated a truth even though you did not intend to. That truth is that there is nothing written that claims a mandatory gun registry list. Only in your conspiracy minds.

        Thanks for clearing that up. So the treaty does not actually say what you say,but what you read into it.

        • Random Erik

          Article 5, Subpart 2:

          “Each state party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this treaty.”

      • Random Erik
    • Ron r

      Well give me a site ,a paragraph or section that makes your fiction fact and I will go away. Or just admitt that its not what you have actually read ,but what you think might happen.

      • Random Erik

        I did. Articles 1 – 5. You’re clinging to this fallacy as though nobody has offered you an answer… That’s what I find amusing about all of this. It’s all there, Ron. Nobody has has distorted anything, or told any lies about the treaty, other than those people claiming the treaty does not call for surrendering of sovereign rights pertaining to gun control, banning or limitation of civilian ownership of guns, and banning or limitation of civilian access to ammunition. It’s all in there, very plainly stated. The treaty itself supports all of these claims. What continues to be unsupported are claims, like yours, that the treaty does NOT state these things.

        Like I said before, either you haven’t actually read it, or you don’t understand what it is you are reading.

  • Pingback: Rand Paul Review | Usurper Obama to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty

  • http://yahoo michael rice

    we need to get that radical terrorist out of the white house soon before it is too late!! also, in 2014, remember to vote the liberal bums out.

  • Pingback: Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty

  • Maxx

    Buying ammo and Infidel body armor.
    No reason.

  • Daniel Nash

    This country is quickly drawing itself to another civil war. Obama and his kiss ass liberal buddies must be removed from office NOW!

  • Pingback: Forbidden News » Obama Will Ignore Senate and Sign U.N. Gun Treaty Anyway!

  • Pingback: Obama Will Ignore Senate and Sign U.N. Gun Treaty Anyway!

  • Pingback: Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment Violating U.N. Gun Treaty | One Patriot's Thoughts

  • Pingback: Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty | Pakalert Press

  • Randy

    Obama will meet The One & Only True God & he, as everyone else, will bow down…he will be shocked to see it’s not Muhammad. Although I would pray that he would accept Jesus before he leaves this earth.

    • http://shadow1776.wordpress.com shadow1776

      Why would yoi want a. Evil person to enter heaven. I say let the devil take hisown. And good riddance

  • Your friendly bureaucrat, elected to enslave you…..

    “Lets make sure they dont get away with it.” What are you going to do? Vote for someone else? Write your congressman? Make calls? Go.ahead. We are largely sociopaths. Any of us, live off of someone elses efforts. We tell you we are here for you, but who has the best healthcare in the world. Not you. We do. We tell you that you are going to have the same health care as the US Senate. Instead, you get Kenyan, er I mean, obamacare. Yet, you bought it. Problems? Send me a letter. I will read it while on vacation in an exotic land. We live for ourselves, off of you. You would call us parasites. We are sociopaths. We dont give a dxxx about you. Fired? Lost job? Not us. Transfer. Promotion. Getting rid of us is like wiping stool from the backside of a rhinocerous. Good luck. But we are working for you. Watch the hearings now underway. No one can state, “You, sir, are Lying.” Nope. Everyone is misstating the facts or mischaracterizing. Either side. These circuses are for you. We could care less. Repubs are ticked off because Bush started the anihilation and fascistization of the United States and now Obama is finishing it off. Repubs want the historical credit. Hence the vigor of attack. Its the race to global integration. And we, the sociopaths, lead the charge. Lets make sure……..Good Luke. Hitler would have listened to you to.

  • Pingback: OBAMA TO IGNORE SENATE, SIGN SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATING U.N. GUN TREATY | sreaves32

  • http://shadow1776.wordpress.com shadow1776

    Its time to get rid of the UN and all those polititions that violate our Constitution. They are violating all are rights and freedoms.

  • http://shadow1776.wordpress.com shadow1776

    The UN wants to run the World. Time to send the want a be Dictators a message. DONT TREAD ON ME..!!!!!

  • Joshua

    You need to go read the Constitution… “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”

  • Pingback: What is Sovereignty Anyway? | Grumpa Joe's Place

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.