Second Amendment to the US Constitution – Right to Bear Arms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [emphasis mine]
What part of the phrase “shall not be infringed” is so difficult for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to understand? Perhaps it is the word “infringed.” Or perhaps it’s the notion that the US Constitution’s second amendment infringes upon their personal beliefs and their plans for America.
Obama, campaigning in New Orleans, in July, said, “I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” If you think Obama will stop with a ban on only assault weapons, I have the deed to a NYC bridge in which you may be interested.
Only hours after being re-elected, Obama backed a UN’s call on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, to renew debate over a draft international treaty (the so-called Arms Trade Treaty [ATT]) to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade. This is the same treaty that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been expressing full support of on behalf of the US for years. After Obama’s re-election, the UN. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. The resolution passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.
For perspective, beginning in 1968, Canada (not presently on the UN disarmament committee) spent $2.7 billion on creating and operating a registry for long guns that proved to be very ineffective. Canada’s registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities. I guess Obama, Clinton, gun control advocates, and the UN cannot see what happened in Canada and learn from it. Gun control advocates will say that Canada’s registry addressed only long guns. But registration is registration, regardless of gun type.
The primary reason that ATT talks are taking place is that the US reversed policy after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty. Isn’t it ironic that Obama’s view changed from July to November, just after his re-election?
I am personally amazed that Snopes and FactCheck will say and do ANYTHING to try to defend Obama and Clinton. For example, FactCheck.org says that “Does the Obama administration intend to ‘force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens’ through a United Nations treaty?” is false. FactCheck.org says, “…Obama wouldn’t be able to ‘bypass’ Congress,….” (A treaty must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate to become binding.) Where have we heard that one before? This article documents one of the many times Obama has bypassed Congress. And this article expresses his wish to “impose his will” on Congress.
As Katie Pavlich at TownHall.com says, “Barack Obama is no doubt the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States and his pandering to the corrupt UN should be alarming to anyone who wants to keep their Second Amendment freedoms.” And, now that he has been re-elected and has nothing politically to fear, he can really espouse his gun control ideology.
But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.