Obama-Sponsored UN Treaty Threatens Second Amendment
In 2006, the United Nations decided it was time to explore “the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”
The Bush administration voted against the creation of this proposed Arms Trade Treaty, believing that such oversight would be more productive on a national level. But on October 30th, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama reversed course, quite possibly turning the sovereignty of the United States, its Constitution and the rights of its gun owning public over to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the member states. Many believe this decision to represent a serious threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
Claiming that the UN treaty would affect only international arms trafficking, Hillary Clinton said, “conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.” But former UN Ambassador John Bolton is not buying that the treaty’s aims are purely international. In an interview with NRA News, Bolton stated, “the administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nations, but there’s no doubt…that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” He continued, “many of the implications of these negotiations are very much in their domestic application.”
Former congressman Bob Barr agrees with Bolton. “Even though [treaty advocates] all say ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won’t be affected by all this,’ that’s nonsense,” he says. “There’s no way…to ensure that firearm transfers internationally don’t fall into the hands of people that the UN doesn’t like…unless you have some sort of national regulation and national tracking.”
And now… the rest of the story. …..