Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Second Amendment will it fall in face of the UN Small arms treaty?

Hillary Clinton signed the UN Small Arms Treaty on behalf of President Obama, but what does it really mean. 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.

But there is an ever more stunning element to consider, the US government for example has caused more deaths than rebels. In Iraq alone the American Military has caused the death of at least 655,000 civilians; In Afghanistan in excess of 5,000; In Vietnam 316,000; and the Second World War, 45,000,000;

A vowed purpose of the UN Treaty; According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine the alleged” illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan whether or not based on a valid concept would of necessity lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

But what about the safeguards against confiscation embedded in the US Constitution?

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution had a devout purpose; it was passed at a time when the new nation had an inherent distrust of government. This single Amendment was added to insure that the Federal Government, instituted for the colonies, would remain limited and as an assurance for the people that they would remain free. Weapons in the form of arms were the means allocated for that purpose.

Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been forces at work behind the scenes, intent to take control of America, however before they can achieve this monumental goal they had to eliminate what has been described as the most important safeguard for America, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This right has been under attack for scores of generations.

This UN Treaty signed now by the US represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, it mischaracterizes all insurgencies as bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. Our founding fathers were insurgents, and they laid the foundation and framework for what remains of our democracy.

That threat, the ability to over throw despotic governments, is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorsed gun control. Without weapons, the citizens become slaves to a government master, this is not what America stands for, but it is a road we transverse today.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, this amounts 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 their citizens than their neighbors.

The problem and real concern: American gun owners today are besieged by a government that fears for its own existence. Hillary Clinton on Behalf of President Obama signed the UN Small arms treaty, believing that the treaty effectively placed the right to keep and bear arms outside of the protective gambit of the second Amendments sweeping protection. Their view is historically invalid. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that they are "the supreme law of the land." That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give treaties the same status as federal law, not as the constitution.

Treaties are made under powers delegated to the President and Congress by the Constitution, such powers cannot overrule the Constitution from where that power emanates.

That is as long as we have a valid court system, which unfortunately has been placed in question by the Bush appointees.

See: Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 253 (1829), a treaty must "be regarded in equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) No treaty "can confer power on the Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." page 16