The Passage of the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by YankeeTactical-com, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. YankeeTactical-com

    YankeeTactical-com New Member

    The Passage of the 2nd Amendment

    On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America were passed by Congress. We know these as the Bill of Rights. A list of fundamental rights each citizen is entitled to enjoy, among these the right of free speech, the right to a speedy trial and the right that protects all of the other rights against the tyranny of government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    The 2nd Amendment has withstood many assaults during our history sending these challenges to the highest court in our land. In 2008, the Supreme Court, in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual's right to possess firearms in a capacity unconnected to military service. Further, firearms may be possessed and used for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. In rendering this decision, the Court cited many longstanding court precedents on the possession of firearms as consistent with the Second Amendment.

    In 2010, the case McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment not only prohibits the federal government from infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms, but also state and local governments from making laws that restrict these rights.

    So if the right to bear arms, is in fact, a right, has been proven and reproven, then how could we lose it?

    The first actions that a President takes following his election, or re-election, demonstrates which issues are most vitally important to him. News Agencies reported that within hours of his securing his re-election, President Obama ordered the U.S. delegation to the United Nations to vote in favor of the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty - an international gun control treaty. US participation was considered crucial to worldwide acceptance of the treaty.

    The President intends to sign the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty later in November. While the American people are traveling to Grandmas to enjoy feast and family, his signature alone will potentially obligate the United States to nullify the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people. Why potentially? The language of the treaty is not, as yet, finalized. New rounds of talks at the UN headquarters in New York City are scheduled for March 18-28.

    Proponents of the treat claim that it is intended to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons and prevent the transfer of arms to rogue or terrorist states. Naturally, one would think regulations intended only to manage and restrict the trade of weapons to dangerous, warlike or terror-supporting countries couldn’t possibly threaten the constitutionally protected right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. And this would only include major arms shipments, right?

    Wrong. In order to prevent the accumulation and export of possible contraband weapons, the Treaty mandates creation of a global arms catalogue– an international registry detailing the existence, history and ownership records of all conventional weapons. Every sale, every transfer of a weapon within the borders of the United States would be contained in this registry. The left have dreamed of such a national gun registry for decades and this would give it to them.

    Isn’t the Senate constitutionally mandated to, in the language of the constitution, ‘give its advice and consent’, to ratify all treaties by a 2/3rds majority vote before the US is required to take any actions the treaty dictates?

    No. Most Americans are not aware of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted in 1969. The treaty has 111 signatories, including the United States, and is known as the ‘Treaty of Treaties’. The traty that all the signatory nations reference when negotiating or complying to all other treaties. It specifies in Article 18 that “When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.”

    So once a country commits to a treaty, it can take no action to inhibit the purpose of that treaty, whether it is ultimately approved by the government of that country or not. Or when viewed from the opposite side, the country must make preparations for the passage of the treaty regardless of its eventual approval.

    How is this accomplished? Regulation. Remember that laws once enacted are written declarations of intended purpose. It is up to government bureaucrats to interpret and write actual regulation for enforcement agencies to follow. Regulations, once established, are more difficult to combat as they can be easily rewritten in the face of a legitimate court challenge. And it is important to note that court challenges require lucid arguments, money and time.

    Finally, whether the 2nd Amendment right is valuable to you, consider the character of the United Nations. The overwhelming majority are dictators and despots who rule their countries with iron fist, have run their economies into the ground, and expect handouts from the United States, all while disparaging everything we are. One has to wonder why anyone would seek to be governed by an unanswerable body instead of their own countrymen.
  2. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    by gosh, someone has broken down the treaty to a language many can now understand. this is why the treaty needs to be not signed by America. it is clearly in violation of our constitutional 2nd admendment. if true, it's just another end run around the Constitution in general and the 2nd admendment in particular.

    if so, also by what authority does our president have the right to sign away our rights and freedoms? by his own superiority? again Obama would show his contempt for one of our most sacred documents, the Constitution, by which in his own words, has said is outdated.

    i have said before, and will say again, that Obama needs to be impeached, stripped of all power, prosecuted at the highest level and found guilty of treasonous acts against the United States.