Former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo has decided to propose a 2010 ballot initiative after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced America's intention to participate in an international arms treaty. Tancredo’s initiative would be non-binding, but designed to show Congress that strong support for our second amendment rights still exist. In short the initiative would urge congress to oppose any further infringement on the Second Amendment rights we enjoy as Americans.
The international arms treaty that prompted Tancredo to file the proposal with the legislative counsel was referenced recently in the news as the UN begins talks about “curbing the illicit trade of small arms.” Hillary Clinton has announced America’s intention of being part of the negotiations; a strong deviation from the line the previous administration took on the issue. While the treaty is supposedly targeted at international trade of small arms (handguns and rifles) many advocates of the second amendment feel understandably uneasy about America’s involvement in the treaty.
To begin with, the current administration is not exactly filled with public officials that hold our second amendment rights in high regard. Quite the opposite. Cass Sunstien, the regulatory czar, believes all hunting should be banned and that there is no reason for firearms at all. Obama himself in on record for his opposition to allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm on their person for self defense. Even the application to be considered by the Obama administration for hire made inquiries into the personal beliefs on issues pertaining to firearms. Moreover, the UN is not known for their recognitions of the natural right to own a firearm for personal protection. While the treaty may very well be aimed at the illicit international trade of illegal firearms, it does not take an overactive imagination to believe that infringements into domestic law will be necessary for full compliance with the “world community.”
Former U.S. representative and Libertarian presidential nominee, Bob Barr, explained that such an international treaty could very easily have consequences on our domestic policy and law. Regarding the implications of the treaty he stated, “There’s no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking.” And he is right. If the true goal of the treaty is in fact to target illicit trades, then if you own a firearm are you not a potential trafficker? With billionaire gun control advocates, such as Mayor Bloomberg, making sufficient progress recruiting mayors and legislators around the country, and a fanatically anti-gun administration in the White House, such a treaty could provide an adequate “excuse” to implement stricter gun laws here at home. We have already seen the beginning of this type of “international solution” when the administration suggested that another assault weapon ban here in America would curb the violence on the US-Mexican border.
The treaty has not yet been fully drafted, and therefore is not yet available for viewing in its entirety. In the past the UN has tried to entice the United States into accepting treaties that would, in effect, limit our Constitutional rights, and subjugate our sovereignty to the approval of foreign governments. The problem with an international arms treaty is that foreign governments will never have the interest of “we the [American] people” at heart. And, in order for our government to be in compliance with any such treaty, it may be necessary for our government to make certain infringements upon domestic law or policy; namely, Amendment ii of the Constitution.
John Bolton, former US Ambassador, stated in an interview with the NRA that “There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.” Many gun owners, and namely Tom Tancredo, understand this simple concept. With an administration hostile to our right to bear arms, and with a world community that regards our Constitutional right to firearm ownership as radical, the likelihood of such a treaty having consequences that will be felt at your local gun shop (or even in your own home) is exceptionally high.
While Tancredo’s ballot initiative, if passed, would not be binding, it would be a great first step in telling our elected officials that we will not subjugate our rights to anyone. Most importantly, the initiative would raise dialogue about the issue, and thus bring it front and center. With so many fundamental rights being challenged in today’s world, the basic right to own a firearm for lawful self defense without obstruction or restriction seems paramount. Firearm ownership is the symbol and manifestation of freedom. A government that does not trust its own citizens with firearms, does not really consider them anything more than subjects. A quote, most often credited to Thomas Jefferson, should ring clear as this issue of the international small arms treaty is generally ignored in the mainstream media: “Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don’t.”
For more of Michael’s soon-to-be-regulated free speech, click here.
To receive Michael’s articles in your email as soon as they are published, click on the “subscription” option near the top of this article. Also be sure to look for Michael’s fan page on Facebook. For more information, or to contact Michael, visit conservativeproject.com
| Match: plow
and others.
plough (plau̇)
(engineering) A groove cut lengthwise with the grain in a piece of wood.
Copyright © 2009 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. |
RSS
Home
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
