Thursday, August 19, 2010

Second Amendment Traitors Try The U.N.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that neither the federal government nor the various branches of state government can prohibit or severely limit the right of individual Americans to own guns. Although some restrictions will be put in place, since no basic right is absolute, they must be minor, administrative, and serve the high level of court scrutiny of a compelling state interest.

That won't stop the leftists in the White House and Congress from trying an end run. The United Nations, that bastion of freedom, liberty and human rights, has come up with its umpteenth proposal for grabbing non-military small arms from everyone who doesn't work for a government. It's all for a good purpose, you see. Removing the weapons that can halt the progress of a tyrannical regime or merely preserve the right of self-defense is a noble aspiration. And why, you ask? Because confiscation and criminalization of gun ownership will halt terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates. That makes sense, doesn't it? No?

The "Small Arms Treaty" is the newest, bestest, and most-supersize UN gun confiscation program so far. And the Obama administration through its Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn't be more on board. The administration that doesn't believe in national borders, or nations for that matter, was bound to do a Pavlovian drool just at the mention of global arms control. The latest version has the usual red herring steps to confiscation--outrageous red tape and arcane requirements for licensing and registration.

Then, the bureaucrats will create a massive list of "prohibited firearms" that includes pretty much anything that isn't a water pistol. Then the proposal will create an international gun registry that makes the old American rigmarole look like simplicity incarnate. And finally, Muslim autocrats, jihadist mass murderers, Russian commissars, Chinese tyrants, South American banana republic presidents-for-life, and Euroweenies will decide that you can't own a gun. Simple, huh? "Progressives" and leftist Democrats actually believe that the world would be just perfect if we only had one world government in charge of everything. And that's not possible as long as the self-centered and evil United States is allowed to continue letting its citizens have the right to shoot back.

This is another one of those Obamist plans to eliminate a constitutional right by moving so fast that its opponents won't have time to organize the opposition. The UN, with Hillary's assistance, plans to ram this treaty through "at the earliest time possible." Then, with a little luck, they can get it past the Senate (which must ratify the treaty) during their lame-duck session.

As most of you know, I don't panic easily, nor am I declaring this a "Chicken Little" moment. But this assault on basic American rights is certainly dangerous enough to require getting the word out that the gun-grabbers are at it again. The treaty can't be accomplished without Senate approval, but complacency and willful blindness on the part of gun owners or simply those who love liberty could allow this to happen by sheer lethargy.

The Senate has proven it has nothing but contempt for the will of American citizens and the Constitution in its passage of Obamist socialized medicine. If enough of those liars and word-twisters can lull America into believing this treaty is not dangerous, they'll go for it. Given the number of gun-control opponents in the Democratic Party who ran to the right of their Republican challengers in the last two election cycles, I see the success of such a ratification as very slim, but not impossible. As a believer in the maxim that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, I think it's important that all Second Amendment supporters be aware of this development, however unlikely it is that the treaty might be ratified.

In addition, we must remember that we have a President whose loyalty to America is highly questionable, and his perverse love for foreign dictators is an ever-present danger. Hillary Clinton is, after all, his Secretary of State. Both recoil at the thought of free citizens owning guns, and both believe the UN knows best. Obama is down, but he's not out, and reaching an international agreement for future gun confiscation would energize his leftist base. They don't like the Second Amendment, they abhor the peasants who elected them, and they think American exceptionalism is the crazed belief held by those who cling to their guns and Bibles.

The President can play on the concept that Democratic Senators shouldn't embarrass the Democratic administration by rejecting an international treaty, thus weakening the resolve of pro-gun ownership Democrats. He certainly proved that moderate Democrats are easily bribed during the health care reform debates. And those who aren't easily bribed are easily intimidated. We also know we can't count on the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams in the Republican Party to do the right thing if it means they'll have to give up their high-profile maverick image. Unlike the last time one of these treaties was roundly rejected, this one could be close.

In order to avoid scaring everyone to death, I should also point out that the passage of the treaty would undoubtedly produce an immediate trip to the Supreme Court. Whenever a treaty could interfere with a fundamental constitutional right, the Supreme Court will be appealed to. Again, I find it highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court would undo its recent strong affirmation of the Second Amendment by allowing an end run to the UN side of the field to defeat the Constitution. But the last time I said something was impossible, it was just before the Democrats brought the vampire health care reform bill back for a vote, and won.

The best defense is a good offense, and if any of our readers have Senators who are shaky on the issue, it's time to make a few phone calls, send a few letters, and take a few public stands. Certain Senators are so solid that we need not worry about them. My Senators are so addled and leftist that it's not worth the effort. But many of you have Senators who might be on the fence and need a good push to get them on the right side. Their job is to protect American sovereignty and the Constitution. Our job is to make damned sure they know we're watching and that we vote.


10 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

i know you are no chicken kittle, hawk. thanks for this important post.

AndrewPrice said...

If you want to start an actual civil war, try taking Americans' guns away. That would actually spark a civil war, and my money would be on the people.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I guess we've been burned so many times thinking the Democrats couldn't pull something off, only to have them do it, that when I see something this significant, I at least come to attention. I haven't started wearing my "sky is falling helmet" yet, but . . . .

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Ya know, it's getting harder to sleep every night, what with the Bible and my .357 Magnum under the pillow.

I honestly don't think the Democrats realize just how strongly conservatives, moderates and middle Americans feel about the Second Amendment. They've been able to whittle away at it over a long period of time in small pieces, only to have the Supreme Court wipe fifty years of "progress" out in two rulings. If they really try to bring it all back and then some with a UN treaty, civil war might just be the result. My money's with yours--I'm betting on the people if it should ever come to that.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I don't think they do get it. When I was in DC, people pretty much viewed gun rights like any other political bargaining chip. It never occurred to them that we of Hicksville really take those pretty seriously.

And I'm not even talking about gun nuts or NRA types, I'm talking about average Americans -- Democrats and Republicans, who aren't especially political. If you suggest to them that the government should take away guns, you will hear the "out of my cold dead hands" line a lot.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: San Franciscans likewise believe that guns are something to be regulated and forbidden, like cigarettes or junk food. They don't have a clue that a fundamental constitutional right is involved.

Until I supervised a moot court competition and had to be familiar with the all the arguments, issues and contentions, statistics, and points and authorities, I was one of those who believed that handguns were very reasonably being forbidden or severely restricted. Once I had thoroughly researched both sides, I became almost a Second Amendment absolutist. I still don't think the Second Amendment should allow us to own nuclear weapons or M1-A1 Abrams tanks, but pretty much anything else is protected by the Amendment.

But now that I live in lovely Caliente, I am surrounded by my fellow "out of my cold, dead hands" believers.

Individualist said...

I do not own a gun butif you make it illegal for me to own a gun....

I promise you I will own 10.

LawHawkRFD said...

Individualist: Good for you. My experience has been exactly the opposite. I was born into an era where pretty much everyone owned at least one gun. I took it so much for granted that I've had a handgun most of my life, It never occurred to me to check to see if I owned it legally. By the time I found out that I had to register it in San Francisco, I had had my epiphany, and decided I'd register it when the SF Board of Supervisors was comprised entirely of conservative Republicans. In other words--never.

Patti said...

well done, brother. and you know how i feel about my gun(s). pew pew pew!!!

I'll let you know when i link this.

LawHawkRFD said...

Thanks, Patti. Until Pelosi was elected Speaker, I considered Democrats to be honorable, if somewhat misguided, loyal opposition. Today, I don't trust any of them. They'd sell out their mothers for a New York Times puff piece. That is why I may think the confirmation of this treaty is unlikely, but sufficiently possible to cause me some worry.

Post a Comment