UN Treaty which Bans Guns and has reached U.S. still valid (Video Included)

UN Treaty which Bans Guns reaches U.S. (Video Included)

Here is an Interesting story following the ongoing UN proposal known as theArms Trade Treaty Resolution. The proposal could lead infringements in the constitution.

On October 30 2009, the United States joined 152 countries in support of an "Arms Trade Treaty Resolution" (1), which establishes dates for a 2012 United Nations conference intended to strip American/global sovereignty by stripping citizens of their right to bear arms.Link to Story

Here is the Video

Do you think this could ever be possible in America?

Let's get some opinions going. Do you think this is possible? Do you think U.S citizens would stand for this? Do you think the government will try to push it anyways? Why did it pass so easily? The list goes on.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by therealnews]

Come and get 'em a**wipes!!! In fact, send Reid, Pelosi and the rest of their ilk first! After that, you can send me the bankers and the corporate profiteers. Then the rest of you anti-gun fools can come and get me. I've got PLENTY of ammo!!!

In my opinion it only takes one celebrity story, one sports event and one boogeyman to distract Americans long enough to steal something else.

Imagine the outrage a nationwide television would cause in this country. Now hold a vote during that period!

The Federal Reserve was voted in while the majority of our government celebrated Christmas with their family.

Legalize weed and take away arms. Of course I am just some crazy conspiracy rabblerousing nutjob, right?

Peace

Can't happen.

How Does International Law Supercede The Constitution?

The confusion exists with respect to such matters as whether treaty has the same meaning in international law and in the domestic law of the United States; how treaties are ratified, how the power to enter into international agreements is allocated among the Executive Branch, the Senate and the whole Congress; whether Congress may override an existing treat; and the extent to which international agreements are enforceable in the United States courts.

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the US Constitution."

The second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside."

Here are the clear irrefutable facts that have cleared up all the confusion that existed in many people's minds.

The US Supreme Court has made it very clear that

•Treaties do not override the US Constitution.
•Treaties cannot amend the Constitution.
•A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the US Congress, or by a sovereign State or States if the Congress refuses to do so, when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.
When you have read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supersede the Constitution. Through its verdict in the Reid v. Covert, October 1956, the US Supreme Court stated that the court has been constantly and consistently been recognizing the supremacy of the US Constitution over a treaty.

Though treaties are made use of in the international law making procedures, there is no question of international law superseding the Constitution.

Who exactly are the UN and WHO?

Why do they have or should have any powers to decide on the course of human affairs, and yet since its inception, it had been riddled with corruptions and failures, which are often played down by National geographic style photo-ops of helping a few african kids to get sympathies?

Who gives them such authority and powers? And now, even powers to change and alter a soveriegn nation's sacred Constitution?

I believed in non-violence, and still do. But after having made to watch realities, of corrupt govts such as Burma, China, Thailiand and Iran as well as a few other European states which denied the citizenery of arms, and yet used heavy calibre weapons and well trained forces unleashed upon soft skinned unarmed civilians and citizens, innocent men, women and child in order to remain in power....a rethink may be in order.

As I mentioned once, even peaceniks understand the need for an operational military to maintain peace, to protect itself against rogue nations, for when push comes to shove, they too will sign up to protect their loved ones if not for themselves, so too must a society be armed in the event a corrupt and self serving rogue govt seized power......

The wise founding fathers knew the timeless truth on flaws of humanity, and implemented the 2nd amendment, a right, but not an enforcement, with every citizen the free will to decide for themselves.

May we the People uphold that right and feedom, but need never resort to arms for it will be a dark day of brother pitting against brother...

[edit on 13-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

reply to post by kozmo


Good Man

reply to post by zroth


Yea, you may be right. Alot of people have no idea what is going on with their own government and probably wouldn't even think twice about it until after the fact. I hope this is not the case with this bill.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Great post. Thanks for the info. I always thought a global treaty like this would be considered treasonous towards the U.S. constitution. I'm glad some people agree.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I think all good citizens of the world do believe in non-violence. The right to bear arms protects the citizens from corrupt and violent dictators, regimes, and other citizens. This is why I believe, as a non-violent civil human being, that our gun rights need to be protected. Thumbs up.

In the words of Leonidas, "Μολών λαβέ"

No legal gun owner in the United States would give up arms. They can take it out of the constitution if it suits them. But we still wouldn't not surrender our weapons.

Originally posted by therealnews

UN Treaty which Bans Guns reaches U.S. (Video Included)

Here is an Interesting story following the ongoing UN proposal known as theArms Trade Treaty Resolution. The proposal could lead infringements in the constitution.

On October 30 2009, the United States joined 152 countries in support of an "Arms Trade Treaty Resolution" (1), which establishes dates for a 2012 United Nations conference intended to strip American/global sovereignty by stripping citizens of their right to bear arms.Link to Story

Here is the Video

Do you think this could ever be possible in America?

Once again, YOU are not a U.S. citizen. Read your states constitutions. I have posted here many times before, it does NOT apply to you as you are NOT a 14th Amendment, U.S. citizen, but an American.

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE, know it!!!!!!

All political power is INHERENT in the people. That would be you and me. So long as we harm no one and damage no one elses property nor tread on their rights, WE are the law and the power.

Get it right or get lost in the BS.

reply to post by daddio


So there is truth to becoming a Sovereign citizen of the state? if so, how is that possible. I have heard the ideas before from someone I know who runs a radio show on 1500 AM. Iv'e also looked over some articles by Winston Shrout on the subject. He discuses the concept of a straw-man, ect. Can you really become sovereign?

Originally posted by therealnews

UN Treaty which Bans Guns reaches U.S. (Video Included)

Here is an Interesting story following the ongoing UN proposal known as theArms Trade Treaty Resolution. The proposal could lead infringements in the constitution.

On October 30 2009, the United States joined 152 countries in support of an "Arms Trade Treaty Resolution" (1), which establishes dates for a 2012 United Nations conference intended to strip American/global sovereignty by stripping citizens of their right to bear arms.Link to Story

Here is the Video

Do you think this could ever be possible in America?

No.

The supreme court just ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and that states and localities (as well as federal enclaves) cannot prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

reply to post by angrysniper


Wasn't this before Kagan? Didn't one other supreme court justice just retire? Could two new supreme court judges sway this decision if pushed by the United Nations and Administration.

reply to post by therealnews


all i know is they will never get my guns, hell, half of them are heirlooms, i guess i'll pack up my gunsmithing equiptment get a couple hundred pounds of black powder and lead stock, so i can reload my own shells, and hide out in the hills.

reply to post by dave_welch


BUMP

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Who exactly are the UN and WHO?

bankster founded private organizations funded with the tax dollars of the world's citizenry.... of more concisely put: bankster employees on the public tab.

From all the attitudes I've been reading, I don't think this would actually be able to happen here. Too many people are smart enough and stubborn enough to let it happen. Granted, I've seen quite enough fear mongering and sheep-like behavior and attitudes, and I even have one "friend" who would like all guns everywhere to go away, but despite these examples I think that we as a culture are slowly starting to wake up to the realities of who we are and what tptb are trying to do. I think that we are finally shrugging off our long and heavy sleep of blindness and ignorance to simply walk away from the foolishness that we for so long have allowed to dominate us. I don't think it'll be a guns blazing civil war, I think that we'll collectively just stop buying in to the bs. For my part, I'm going to have my father teach me how to shoot very soon, then we'll be getting my permit and going shopping

reply to post by GnosisPhoenix


I agree with you. The more I see discussions online about the topic and overhear people talking about it in my community, the more I gain faith in our people to not let things like this happen. There's only so far they can go before the people say enough is enough.