The Second Amendment clearly states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So why is it that every time we turn around there is someone in Washington, DC trying to do just that? The latest, as you may know, is the UN’s small arms treaty that claims it is to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons, but since when have terrorist, or any other criminal, paid attention to the law? What’s the truth of the matter?
Well, I’m no fan of the UN, but I am a fan of the facts in a case, whether it supports a liberal or a conservative cause, or no one’s cause for that matter. I refuse to be a pawn in anyone’s political game. So, according to Snopes we have nothing to worry about in the UN’s Small Arms Trade Treaty and here’s why:
- Secretary of State Clinton has not signed the treaty and the US has refused to support such a treaty and asked for more time to study it.
- The treaty’s fuction is to slow or stop the illicit international trade of arms.
- No treaty can bypass Congress and it takes a 2/3 majority to pass any treaty.
- The US Constitution supercedes all international treaties and the president cannot enact a complete ban on firearms.
Does that mean I support the Small Arms Treaty? Not necessarily. Reason being, it is a waste of money and resources and since when has the UN successfully enforced anything where someone didn’t want to be enforced. Look at Iran, case in point.
There is no way for the US government to legally outlaw all firearms, but that’s not my point here. My point is that there have been several cases of presidents doing things to get around laws. We all know this. However, people who are criminals cannot legally own firearms. But what keeps them from obtaining them anyway? Nothing really, but if law abiding are told they can’t have guns, then they won’t. Otherwise, they’ll be criminals. What’s it take to make a criminal? Breaking a law; any law.
What happens if there is a terror attack and it’s done by white American men who are veterans that served in a recent conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq? Profiling says that all vets of the same conflict could be terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security has already stated that they fit the “profile.”
At that point, who do you trust? The government and their propaganda or the vets refusing to give up their arms and rights? You’ll have good and bad people on both sides of the argument, but I think I’d lean toward trusting the vets; the “new criminals.” They’re more likely to be the good guys, in my humble opinion.
So what does the future hold for the American citizen’s right to bear arms? Can the president get enough liberal Supreme Court judges to say that there in no need for a militia, therefore there in no need to have firearms? Would they try to make the American culture one that detests firearms and vilifies them? Thus making them unpopular, at first, then illegal to own?
I sure hope not, and while I doubt the president, now or in the near future, will make all firearms illegal, I think I’d rather be on a pretty level playing field as the thugs trying to commit crimes.