Obama supports gun confiscation

Via Alphecca:

Just because he hasn’t acted yet, don’t think Obama is friendly to 2nd Amendment rights.

The Washington Times (and pretty much ignored everywhere else) says that Obama has announced support for the UN small arms treaty.

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult – if not outright illegal – for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

This is why sales of rifles and ammo have been through the roof the last few years. We know what happens when socialists gain power: They ban guns

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to “prevent, combat and eradicate” various classes of guns to undermine “the illicit trade in small arms.” Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

Confiscation. That is the inevitable result of the UN Small Arms Treaty. In order to confiscate the guns you have to know who has them, that’s why registration is always the first step to confiscation.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don’t trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

This is the REAL reason the UN want the Small Arms Treaty. You can’t control an armed population.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

Gun control is about control, not guns.

Remember, all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Make sure your Senator knows that this treaty has no place in America.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, genocide, Guns, History, Obamanation, Police State, Socialist Hellhole. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Obama supports gun confiscation

  1. Stan says:

    Sadly I imagine my Senators are salivating over this treaty, neither Levin nor Stabinow are gun friendly in the least.

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » Obama Supports UN Small Arms Treaty

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    You know Calderon OK’d his anti-gun speech in front of Congress with Obama. Bottom line, the gun banners know that they can’t touch the 2nd Amendment, and now with Heller and McDonald, et al, they can’t attempt to write laws around it.

    What’s next? Attempt to ban guns for the “Global Good”.

  4. Dave says:

    Now if he signs such a treaty and it is then deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court, doesn’t that constitute a violation of oath to uphold the constitution? Thereby making it a treasonous (impeachable) act?

  5. Scott says:

    Treaties have to be approved by the senate. I have a feeling (no hard facts) that many, or at least enough, democratic senators outside of Cali/Illinois/Northeast would vote with republicans against it.

  6. JD says:

    Let em try and pass this shit, then they’ll finally realize the 2A ain’t about duck huntin.
    I’m not a particularly brave man but if this treaty ever comes to pass… it’s on.

  7. Anon says:

    Not likely to be considered a reputable source, but here goes:


    No UN treaty can override the Constitution of the US, no matter how hard the politicians would like it to.

  8. alan says:

    Heh, Snopes… That “treaty can’t override the constitution” thing is one case that wasn’t even about treaties, but had to do with an executive agreement between the US and the UK. I’m not so sure a future SC would see things the same way, and I’m not willing to sit back and say, “Oh well, we’re safe even if the President signs it and the Senate ratifies it.” Because a sure as water is wet, the minute that happened there would be a whole raft of laws to “bring us into international compliance” and each one would have to be fought in court. MUCH better to not do it in the first place.

    You might also think that the Senate would never ratify such a treaty, but while there are plenty of pro gun Democrats there are also plenty of anti gun Republicans. If they are given cover to ratify because, “This treaty won’t have anything to do with guns inside the US” I’m not willing to bet that it wouldn’t get ratified.

    Again, much better to not do it in the first place.

    Yet another reason to not support the UN treaty on small arms: Many of our guns come from overseas. Even if the US laws didn’t change as a result of the treaty, it would still affect us by limiting or even eliminating foreign imports of guns. I’m not a big Glock fan but I’d hate to see them not allowed to export their pistols to the US because the Treaty bans international trade in small arms to civilians.

    The fact is that Obama supports the UN Small Arms Treaty.

    Obama is not a supporter of the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

    Eternal vigilance, rinse and repeat.

  9. Borepatch says:

    Well, he was honest enough during the campaign to admit that he didn’t have the votes to take away people’s guns.

  10. Crotalus says:

    Dave, what makes you think that the court will decide such a treaty is unconstitutional, when many of the justices think international or foreign law is just peachy-keen for deciding law in America?

    We will have to wage war on the U.N. troops when they show up here to take our guns–just like we did at Concord in 1775. Then maybe our “elected” tyrants will get it.

  11. Mark says:

    Forget about the firearms issue for the moment.
    They will come after ammunition first, because without ammo, a rifle is just an oddly shaped club.
    Overseas is a major source for ammo for the U.S. market. Think they won’t try to cut that off? Think the domestic U.S. market could keep up with demand?
    Not bloody likely.

  12. As a refugee from the “Worker’s Paradise” I can confirm that no constitutional guarantee is safe from comitted socialists.

    Right now the prospects that the midterm elections will be held follow the prospects that the Communists wil hold on to congress. I.e., if the prospects are 50-50 so is the likelyhood for elections.

    Obama bin Laden will conficate guns and dare you to do something about it.

Comments are closed.